Proceedings of the NODALIDA 2009 workshop
WordNets and other Lexical Semantic Resources — between Lexical Semantics,
Lexicography, Terminology and Formal Ontologies.
Editors: Bolette Sandford Pedersen, Anna Braasch, Sanni Nimb and
Ruth Vatvedt Fjeld.
NEALT Proceedings Series, Vol. 7 (2009), 27-32.
© 2009 The editors and contributors.
Published by
Northern European Association for Language
Technology (NEALT)
http://omilia.uio.no/nealt .
Electronically published at
Tartu University Library (Estonia)
http://hdl.handle.net/10062/9209 

Erdman Thomsen, Hanne

Madsen, Bodil Nistrup

English

DSpace at Tartu University Library

Ontologies vs. classification systems   Bodil Nistrup Madsen Copenhagen Business School Copenhagen, Denmark bnm.isv@cbs.dk Hanne Erdman Thomsen Copenhagen Business School Copenhagen, Denmark het.isv@cbs.dk   Abstract What is an ontology compared to a classifica-tion system? Is a taxonomy a kind of classifi-cation system or a kind of ontology? These are questions that we meet when working with people from industry and public authorities, who need methods and tools for concept clari-fication, for developing meta data sets or for obtaining advanced search facilities. In this paper we will present an attempt at answering these questions. We will give a presentation of various types of ontologies and briefly intro-duce terminological ontologies. Furthermore we will argue that classification systems, e.g. product classification systems and meta data taxonomies, should be based on ontologies.  1 Introduction In recent years many authors have discussed the nature of ontologies and proposed various defini-tions and subtypes of ontologies for various pur-poses, among them Gruber (2007), Guarino (1998), Gómez-Pérez et al. (2004). According to     Figure 1: Some concepts related to knowledge structuring.  CEN (2004) ontologies and taxonomies are types of knowledge structuring, as shown in Figure 1. The ontology in Figure 1 comprises concepts (boxes with systematic notations) and subdivi-sion criteria (boxes with text in capital letters). The concepts are related by means of type rela-tions (lines between the concept boxes) and fur-ther described by means of feature specifications each consisting of an attribute-value pair (e.g. PURPOSE: knowledge representation).  According to the ontology in Figure 1 one may distinguish models and classification sys-tems as follows: The purpose of a model is to give a simplified representation of knowledge about phenomena, whereas the purpose of a clas-sification system is the subdivision of phenomena into classes that form the basis for ordering ‘things’.  Very often a conceptual data model, repre-sented by means of an ER diagram or an UML diagram, is referred to as ontology. Our recom-mendation is to use the term ontology only as defined here.  2 Various types of ontologies In 2007, ISO Technical Committee 37, Termi-nology and Other Language Resources (ISO TC 37), set up an Ontology Task Force with the aim of proposing a strategy for the work on ontolo-gies within TC 37. As a basis for this strategy, the Task Force will develop an overview of re-lated ongoing projects, existing standards and proposals for future projects within TC 37 as well as an overview of examples of ontologies and projects 'outside' TC37. The first step in the work of the Ontology Task Force is to describe different types of knowledge representation re-sources, and to clarify the differences between these. One of the results is a systematic overview in the form of an ontology of ontologies which comprises proposals for definitions of the differ-ent types of ontology. 27 Figure 2: Ontology of ontologies.  Figure 2 presents this ontology of ontologies. The description of the concepts is to a great ex-tent based on Guarino (1998). In this ontology characteristics and subdivision criteria are intro-duced that clearly distinguish the types of on-tologies, e.g. LEVEL, DOMAIN and PURPOSE.  The broken lines between concepts represent part-whole relations. The ontology in Figure 2 may be characterized as a terminological ontology, i.e. an ontology that is based on the terminological method, mak-ing use of characteristics and subdivision criteria, cf. ISO 704 (2000). A terminological ontology is a domain specif-ic ontology. We use the term terminological on-tology as a synonym of the term concept system, which is normally used in terminology work, cf. for example ISO 704 (2000). Gruber (2007) de-scribes an ontology in the following way: An ontology specifies a vocabulary with which to make assertions, which may be inputs or outputs of knowledge agents (such as a software pro-gram). … an ontology must be formulated in some representation language … In our view, the demand for a representation language narrows the concept, i.e. Gruber’s definition describes the concept formal ontology in Figure 2.  3 Ontologies as the basis for classifica-tion systems  As already mentioned, we distinguish ontology and classification system with respect to purpose. However, we strongly recommend that a classifi-cation system is built on the basis of a termino-logical ontology or by using the principles of terminological ontologies.  In the extract of the product classification sys-tem eCl@ss in Figure 3, it is evident that by us-ing principles of terminological ontologies, this system could be structured in a more logical way, and thus could be intuitively easier to use: automobile, aircraft, railborne vehicle and water vehicle are distinguished with respect to ”channel of transportation”. For example automobiles are meant for traveling on streets or roads while air-crafts are designed to travel through the air. Farming vehicles and hoisting, lifting vehicles are characterized with respect to purpose. The order of the classes does not make this clear.   Figure 3: Extract of a product classification sys-tem.  Figure 4 presents an ontology with concepts corresponding to the classes in Figure 3.  Since some of the classes in Figure 3 do not refer to automobiles, the top concept chosen is vehicle.  28                    Figure 4: Ontology of vehicles.  In the ontology in Figure 4 the concepts are clearly delimited from each other by means of subdivision criteria: NAVIGATION, CHANNEL OF TRANSPORTATION, etc. It may be useful to introduce subdivision criteria also in a classi-fication system in order to make this clear.  1  vehicle 1.1     wheeled vehicle  1.1.1        road vehicle 1.1.1-1          tire 1.1.1.1           motor vehicle 1.1.1.1.1              automobile 1.1.1.1.2              motorbicycle 1.1.1.2           bicycle 1.1.2        railborne vehicle 1.2     craft  1.2.1        aircraft 1.2.2        water vehicle 1.3  farming vehicle  1.4  hoisting vehicle  1.5  lifting vehicle  1.6  special vehicle  2  trailer  3  container   Figure 5: Extract of a classification system.  It is not intuitively understandable why the class Bicycle belongs to Automotive technology in Figure 3, but it may be because this class comprises motor driven bicycles. However, a closer look into the class Bicycle, reveals that the class also comprises the class Bike. During the concept clarification process it turned out that there was a need for introducing the two concepts wheeled vehicle and craft which were not in the classification in Figure 3. Based on the ontology in Figure 4, a classifica-tion list like the one in Figure 5 can be devel-oped.  When building a classification system on the basis of an ontology, some simplifications will typically be made. In Figure 5 the concept self-propelled vehicle, which is a superordinate con-cept to motor vehicle and bicycle, is not found as a class. One may also consider to leave out the class bicycle for the above mentioned reasons. As already mentioned, it may be useful to in-troduce subdivision criteria in order to make ex-plicit the differences between the classes.  4 Classification systems compared to concept systems A characteristic of a classification system is that the nodes are not always concepts, but often groups of concepts. This is true in the Semantic Types of UMLS (Unified Medical Language System), cf. Figure 6.  The Semantic Network consists of (1) a set of broad subject categories, or Semantic Types, that provide a consistent categorization of all con-cepts represented in the UMLS Metathesaurus®, and (2) a set of useful and important relation-ships, or  Semantic  Relations,  that  exist be-tween Semantic  Types,  cf.  (Bodenreider, 2005)  and the Semantic Network Fact Sheet (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/umlssemn.html). 29Figure 6: Example from UMLS.  An example of a semantic type is ‘Body Part, Organ or Organ Component’, which conflates three concepts: body part, organ and organ com-ponent. In an ontology these three would be sep-arate concepts (nodes).  5 Ontologies as the basis for meta data taxonomies  In order to facilitate data exchange and interope-rability, it is important to be able to describe elements of data collections systematically and unambiguously. This is the reason why metadata registries comprising sets of metadata categories with negotiated definitions and examples, exist in many fields.  When defining a set of metadata categories it is very useful to base it on a kind of systematiza-tion, e.g. a taxonomy, specifying main catego-ries, categories and subcategories. Otherwise one may end up with an incomplete and inconsistent set of categories that is very difficult to use and to extend.  In order to obtain a well structured taxonomy we will argue that it should be based on the ela-boration of a terminological ontology. In this way the concepts of the domain and their interre-lations are clarified. In some cases it is even possible to generate a taxonomy on the basis of an ontology, i.e. some concepts of the ontology may more or less automatically be transformed into categories of the taxonomy. In other cases, the ontology renders the knowledge which forms the basis for the construction of the taxonomy. 6 Data categories for linguistic re-sources ISO 12620:1999, Computer assisted terminology management ― Data Categories specifies data categories used in terminological resources. These data categories are classified in three ma-jor groups and ten sub-groups:  Term and term-related data categories: A.1 term A.2 term-related information A.3 equivalence  Descriptive data categories: A.4 subject field  A.5 concept-related description A.6 concept relation A.7 conceptual structures A.8 note  Administrative data categories: A.9 documentary language A.10 administrative information  This structure is not homogenous, i.e. it reflects various subdividing criteria (dimensions), and it does not give a very clear overview of the data categories. One dimension is for example term-related in-formation vs. concept-related description. Here it is not clear why e.g. subject field and concept relation do not fall within the group: concept-related description. In 2003, it was proposed to set up a Data Category Registry (DCR) in TC 37 for all kinds 30of lexical data. Since this DCR also includes data categories of dictionaries, the above structure was not very appropriate. Consequently it was decided to give up a classification of the catego-ries. In our opinion it will, however, be difficult to ensure completeness, consistency, user-friendliness and extensibility of the above men-tioned DCR, if there is no structure at all of the data categories.  7 Ontologies as the basis for meta data taxonomies  Figure 7 presents an extract of a terminological ontology for concepts pertaining to semantic in-formation that may be registered in lexical data collections, such as e.g. termbases and electronic dictionaries. The three main types of semantic information are subject classification, content specification and semantic relation. This ontology uses type relations, part whole relations and associative relations (lines with the designation of the relation type and an arrow in-dicating the direction of the relation). The group of concepts on the right hand side, which are related by means of associative and part-whole relations, contribute to a better under-standing of the concepts that are central for se-mantic information.  For example, it is illustrated that a content specification describes the inten-sion of a concept, and that the intension consists of characteristic features.  8 The Danish standard of lexical re-sources The Danish Standard DS 2394-1:1998 comprises a taxonomy for the classification of lexical data, the STANLEX taxonomy. In STANLEX the main groups of information types are structured according to the linguistic disciplines: etymo-logical information, grammatical information, graphical information, phonetic information, se-mantic information and usage. Examples of cate-gories and sub categories are shown in Table 1.  9 From ontology to taxonomy The ‘backbone’ of the ontology in Figure 7 con-sists of the top concept semantic information and the subordinate concepts which are related to this concept by means of type relations: lexical para-phrase, analytic definition etc. These concepts will typically form the background for categories to be included in a taxonomy. As already men-tioned, the concepts that are related by means of part-whole relations or associative relations typi-cally give a better understanding of the central concepts, but it will often not be relevant to in-troduce corresponding categories in a taxonomy.   Figure 7: Ontology of semantic information.31Main group Category Subcategory Semantic information  Subject clas-sification • Classification system • Normative subject classifica-tion • Nonnormative subject classi-fication Semantic relations • Concept system • Position of concept in con-cept system • Generic relation • Partitive relation • Successive relation • Causal relation • Associative relation • Antonymy • Metonymy • Equivalence within one lan-guage • Equivalence between two or more languages • Equivalence constraint Content spe-cification • Lexical paraphrase • Analytic definition • Denotative definition • Ostensive definition • Additional information • Background information • Characteristic feature • Figurative meaning Table 1: Categories and subcategories of Semantic Information.  The nodes in a taxonomy represent categories, not concepts, and a taxonomy category may sometimes correspond to more concepts. This may be more user friendly, since the user of the taxonomy will then not have to worry about sub-tle distinctions. For example, in Figure 7, the concept additional information refers to informa-tion in the form of supplementary characteristics, while background information gives further in-formation about historical, technical, legal or other aspects of the semantics of the lexical en-try. In a taxonomy, one might decide to 'merge’ the two concepts additional information and background information into one category, since it may be difficult for the user of the taxonomy to choose between them.  Sometimes the taxonomy will not comprise the 'lowest’ levels of a hierarchy in the corre-sponding ontology. For example there may not be a need for distinguishing between delimiting characteristics and supplementary characteris-tics in the taxonomy. This is the case in the Dan-ish Standard of lexical data categories. In some cases it may be relevant to convert concepts of an ontology participating solely in associative or part-whole relations into catego-ries in a taxonomy. For example it may be rele-vant to include the categories feature specifica-tion, attribute and value from Figure 5 as taxon-omy categories. 10 Conclusion In this paper we have argued that by applying principles of terminological ontologies when constructing a product classification system or a metadata taxonomy, it is possible to obtain a clear and intuitively understandable structure and in this way to obtain completeness, consistency, user-friendliness and extensibility. In some cases an ontology may be mapped directly into a clas-sification system, but in other cases it will be necessary and useful to introduce adjustments into the classification system compared to the ontology. The principles that we introduce here are relevant for the development of all kinds of classification systems. References  Bodenreider, Olivier.  2005. Consistency between Metathesaurus and Semantic Network Workshop on The Future of the UMLS Semantic Network.  NLM.  DS 2394-1. 1998. Lexical data collections – De-scription of data categories and data structure – Part 1: Taxonomy for the classification of in-formation types, Danish Standards.  CWA 15045. 2005. CEN Workshop Agreement: Multilingual Catalogue Strategies for eCom-merce and eBusiness.  eCl@ss: http://www.eclass-online.com/  Gruber, Tom. 2008. Ontology. Encyclopedia of Da-tabase Systems, Ling Liu and M. Tamer Özsu (Eds.), Springer-Verlag. Looked up on February 23 2009: http://tomgruber.org/writing/ontology-definition-2007.htm  Gómez-Pérez, Asunción; Mariano Fernández-López & Oscar Corcho. 2004. Ontological Engineering – with examples from the areas of Knowledge Management, e-Commerce and the Semantic Web. London: Springer Verlag.  Guarino, Nicola. 1998. Formal Ontology and Infor-mation Systems. Formal Ontology in Informa-tion Systems, Proceedings of the First Interna-tional Conference (FOIS'98), Amsterdam: IOS Press.   ISO 704. 2000. Terminology work — Principles and methods. Genève: ISO.  32

Ontologies vs. classification systems

https://dspace.ut.ee/bitstream/10062/9840/1/13-4-Final-Ontologies_vs_classification_systems_NODALIDA-2009.pdf

Ontologies vs. classification systems

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DSpace at Tartu University Library