A names backbone: a graph of taxonomy by Nicky Nicolson.
At first glance a taxonomy paper but as you look deeper:
Slide 34: Concepts layer: taxonomy as a graph
- Names are nodes
- Typed, directed relationships represent synonymy and taxonomic placement
- Evidence for taxonomic assertions provided as references
- …and again, standards bases import / export using TCS
Slide 35 shows a synonym_of relationship between two name nodes.
Slide 36 shows evidence attached to placement at one node and for the synonym_of link.
Slide 37 shows reuse of nodes to support “different taxonomic opinions.”
Slide 39 Persistent identification of concepts
We can re-create a sub-graph representing a concept at a particular point in time using:
- Name ID
- Classification
- State
Users can link to a stable state of a concept
We can provide a feed of what has changed since
I mention this item in part because Peter Neubauer (Neo4j) suggested in an email that rather than “merging” nodes that subject sameness (my term, not his) could be represented as a relationship between nodes.
Much in the same way that synonym_of was represented in these slides.
And I like the documentation of the reason for synonymy.
The internal data format of Neo4j makes “merging” in the sense of creating one node to replace two or more other nodes impractical.
Perhaps replacing nodes with other nodes has practical limits?
Is “virtual merging” in your topic map future?