You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Usage of an upper ontology can help to make vocabularies more interoperable and to make search and navigation in hierarchical structures of thesauri more consistent and more user-friendly.
Description
Several upper ontologies have been proposed in the past, but none of them was widely accepted (and some of them have been archived and/or are replaced), e.g. SUMO, BFO, PROTON, Dolce & DnS Ultralite, Gist, etc. or they are applicable for a certain domain, e.g. NTA 8035 for the built environment. A subset of the top classes of Schema.org is another option or a subset of the concepts in the knowledge graph of KBpedia. So far, none of these options provide more clarity for the user, it doesn't improve findability and it just adds one (or more) extra levels in the hierarchical structure. But, the question is, whether we are not overlooking other options that might be more preferable than the solution scenario we have in mind now. We would like to invite reviewers to give feedback on the proposed solution scenario and to give suggestions for better options via the comments section for this issue.
Solution scenario
Fow now, we want to start using 22 more generic domain-specific concepts as top concepts and add more top concepts when needed, e.g. for Licenses. And the general approach is to position what you would like to emphasize and what you want to make easy to find as high as possible in the hierarchical tree.
The 22 top concepts for the first review version of the PLDN Thesaurus are (EN / NL):
Applications / Toepassingen
Assumptions /Aannames
Best Practices / Best Practices
Data / Data
Formats / Formaten
Identifiers / Identifiers
Interfaces / Interfaces
Interoperability / Interoperabiliteit
Languages / Talen
Mappings / Mappingen
Models / Modellen
Principles / Principes
Processes / Processen
Profiles / Profielen
Protocols / Protocollen
RDF Ecosystem / RDF Ecosysteem
Reasoning / Redeneren
Standards / Standaarden
Strategies / Strategieen
Tooling / Tooling
Vocabularies / Vocabulaires
World Wide Web / World Wide Web
And we want to make use of poly hierarchy, where a concept can have multiple broader relations in the hierarchical tree.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Context
PLDN Thesaurus
Category
Hierarchical Structure
Focal point
All concepts in the PLDN Thesaurus
Summary
Usage of an upper ontology can help to make vocabularies more interoperable and to make search and navigation in hierarchical structures of thesauri more consistent and more user-friendly.
Description
Several upper ontologies have been proposed in the past, but none of them was widely accepted (and some of them have been archived and/or are replaced), e.g. SUMO, BFO, PROTON, Dolce & DnS Ultralite, Gist, etc. or they are applicable for a certain domain, e.g. NTA 8035 for the built environment. A subset of the top classes of Schema.org is another option or a subset of the concepts in the knowledge graph of KBpedia. So far, none of these options provide more clarity for the user, it doesn't improve findability and it just adds one (or more) extra levels in the hierarchical structure. But, the question is, whether we are not overlooking other options that might be more preferable than the solution scenario we have in mind now. We would like to invite reviewers to give feedback on the proposed solution scenario and to give suggestions for better options via the comments section for this issue.
Solution scenario
Fow now, we want to start using 22 more generic domain-specific concepts as top concepts and add more top concepts when needed, e.g. for Licenses. And the general approach is to position what you would like to emphasize and what you want to make easy to find as high as possible in the hierarchical tree.
The 22 top concepts for the first review version of the PLDN Thesaurus are (EN / NL):
And we want to make use of poly hierarchy, where a concept can have multiple broader relations in the hierarchical tree.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: