Comments on: Enterprise Taxonomy – The Structure in Detail http://blog.leeromero.org/2009/01/13/enterprise-taxonomy-the-structure-in-detail/ On Content, Collaboration and Findability Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:15:16 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Sandra Fidler http://blog.leeromero.org/2009/01/13/enterprise-taxonomy-the-structure-in-detail/comment-page-1/#comment-23235 Sandra Fidler Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:24:50 +0000 http://blog.leeromero.org/?p=240#comment-23235 Generally I don't read post on blogs, however I wish to say that this write-up very forced me to try and do it! Your writing taste has been amazed me. Thanks, quite nice article. Generally I don’t read post on blogs, however I wish to say that this write-up very forced me to try and do it! Your writing taste has been amazed me. Thanks, quite nice article.

]]> By: Bill French http://blog.leeromero.org/2009/01/13/enterprise-taxonomy-the-structure-in-detail/comment-page-1/#comment-2322 Bill French Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:20:04 +0000 http://blog.leeromero.org/?p=240#comment-2322 "Business process-wise, the rigor of introducing and maintaining an ontology seems to be much higher than a taxonomy (which is high enough). Is that true?" Absolutely - the costs are far greater and not just in terms of money. But the dividends are far greater as well - you end up with a long-view solution that is also sustainable and agile for those moments when (not if) change occurs. ;-) "... we have a form of ontology in that if you consider the ID of a value as representative of the concept ..." I agree with this assertion; discrete addressability is the cornerstone of XTM. And your point is precisely my point - you are at the brink of an ontological framework; infusing ontological principles defined under XTM is not that far from the existing model. But it is one of those tipping points that are significant, making it very difficult to cross the line without impacting many aspects of the design and process. We've attempted to cross the line without going to full blown XTM implementations (it’s very difficult) - Topic Cloud® is a good example. Check out the technical details in this paper and play with a real Topic Cloud® (links below). http://myst-technology.com/docs/papers/MyST%20Topic%20Cloud--Product%20Briefing.pdf http://blogsite.com/topics/branding At the very least, you’ll be amused exploring “tag families”. ;-) Cheers! --bf “Business process-wise, the rigor of introducing and maintaining an ontology seems to be much higher than a taxonomy (which is high enough). Is that true?”

Absolutely – the costs are far greater and not just in terms of money. But the dividends are far greater as well – you end up with a long-view solution that is also sustainable and agile for those moments when (not if) change occurs. ;-)

“… we have a form of ontology in that if you consider the ID of a value as representative of the concept …”

I agree with this assertion; discrete addressability is the cornerstone of XTM. And your point is precisely my point – you are at the brink of an ontological framework; infusing ontological principles defined under XTM is not that far from the existing model. But it is one of those tipping points that are significant, making it very difficult to cross the line without impacting many aspects of the design and process.

We’ve attempted to cross the line without going to full blown XTM implementations (it’s very difficult) – Topic Cloud® is a good example. Check out the technical details in this paper and play with a real Topic Cloud® (links below).

http://myst-technology.com/docs/papers/MyST%20Topic%20Cloud–Product%20Briefing.pdf

http://blogsite.com/topics/branding

At the very least, you’ll be amused exploring “tag families”. ;-)

Cheers! –bf

]]> By: Lee Romero http://blog.leeromero.org/2009/01/13/enterprise-taxonomy-the-structure-in-detail/comment-page-1/#comment-2321 Lee Romero Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:57:17 +0000 http://blog.leeromero.org/?p=240#comment-2321 Hi Bill - You are correct. At this point, I think what Novell really needs *is* an ontology. My only answer would be that when we started down this path, the people involved did not know enough about the distinction between a taxonomy and an ontology to make the better decision. I've recently started the education process for others here about the ontological approach and adopting some of the technologies and techniques used in the semantic web but I don't yet have a lot of hope that that will make much headway when the distinction seems academic to business stakeholders but that it will require time (and therefore money) to effect. Business process-wise, the rigor of introducing and maintaining an ontology seems to be much higher than a taxonomy (which is high enough). Is that true? I guess another answer would be that we have a form of ontology in that if you consider the ID of a value as representative of the concept, we could define the URI for the concept easily enough as the URL that shows you that value in a web browser. :-) Hi Bill – You are correct. At this point, I think what Novell really needs *is* an ontology. My only answer would be that when we started down this path, the people involved did not know enough about the distinction between a taxonomy and an ontology to make the better decision.

I’ve recently started the education process for others here about the ontological approach and adopting some of the technologies and techniques used in the semantic web but I don’t yet have a lot of hope that that will make much headway when the distinction seems academic to business stakeholders but that it will require time (and therefore money) to effect.

Business process-wise, the rigor of introducing and maintaining an ontology seems to be much higher than a taxonomy (which is high enough). Is that true?

I guess another answer would be that we have a form of ontology in that if you consider the ID of a value as representative of the concept, we could define the URI for the concept easily enough as the URL that shows you that value in a web browser. :-)

]]> By: Bill French http://blog.leeromero.org/2009/01/13/enterprise-taxonomy-the-structure-in-detail/comment-page-1/#comment-2320 Bill French Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:29:26 +0000 http://blog.leeromero.org/?p=240#comment-2320 Lee: Given the obvious complexity of the domain you are trying taxonomify(?), I was curious why the idea of an ontology never came up. "... derived during a period when we had numerous systems we were trying to pull together, each of which used one of many different terms ..." This problem statement suggests an ontology is a requirement so I was just wondering if anything about XTM had been considered in your quest to design a solution. Cheers --bf Lee:

Given the obvious complexity of the domain you are trying taxonomify(?), I was curious why the idea of an ontology never came up.

“… derived during a period when we had numerous systems we were trying to pull together, each of which used one of many different terms …”

This problem statement suggests an ontology is a requirement so I was just wondering if anything about XTM had been considered in your quest to design a solution.

Cheers –bf

]]>