Re: taxonomy discussion at OASIS

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com>]

Eugene,

I agree with the distinction you make between supporting multiple
taxonomies and multiple coding schemes. They are indeed quite different.

FWIW, ebXML Registry has always had a very flexible classification
scheme that supports multi-faceted (i.e. multiple classification
schemes) classification using taxonomy trees that may be multi-level
deep. At Tokyo we further refined this flexible approach to support
context sensitive multi-faceted, multi-level classification. The ebXML
Registry specs define a general mechanism for adding such classification
or taxonomy trees to the registry while leaving the exact definition of
specific taxonomy trees to Core Components team.

The net effect is that a registry content may be classified by multiple
classification schemes. Each classification is either context free or is
defined in a specific context. Please refer to chapter 11 of Registry
Information Model v0.41 for details on teh ebXML Registry Classification
scheme support.

--

Regards,
Farrukh

Eugene van Roessel wrote:

>  Duane,
>
> Good idea.
>
> I see however a trap in this example. The statement "The registry
> allows for multiple classification schemes":
> -is true for keyword search, as you showed clearly in your example;
> -does not have to be true when browsing through a classification
> scheme to find the desired product. To do that, the classification
> structure should be stored in the registry.
>
> The big deal here is that your suggestion promotes using multiple
> coding schemes - not taxonomies as I consider it.
>
> The difference:
> - A coding scheme does basically nothing more than attaching a code to
> every product. Preferably this is a unique code per product and
> preferable the code is unambiguous.
> - A taxonomy, or classification scheme, on the other hand defines a
> structure between products within that taxonomy. This structure is a
> hierarchic structure.
> To put it shortly, a taxonomy adds a classification tree, connecting
> the products. A coding scheme is merely a set of product codes -
> altough the coding might imply a relationship between them.
>
> So, Duane, I think your suggestion is valuable, but it has to be
> recognised that to support a classification scheme fully, the ‘tree
> structure above’ should be stored somehow in the registry.
>
> Eugene
>
>
> At 10:14 22/11/00 -0800, Duane Nickull wrote:
>
>> Karl:
>>
>> This subject has been tackled by a few bold individuals.  The idea I
>> put
>> forth was to allow multiple classification schemes within a
>> specified
>> information model.  The RA can allow semantic references suggested
>> by
>> the SO or Data Steward to be referenced from the repository item.
>> An
>> Example which may work is a fictional "Skateboard" company.   They
>> may
>> have a regrep item which contains all the information about their
>> business including their products.  The document instance could
>> appear
>> similar to this:
>>
>> <ItemsWeManufacture>
>>   <item>
>> <classification  Scheme="NAICS"
>> value="SKT4-556">Skateboard</classification>
>> <classification  Scheme="UNSPSC"
>> value="9111234-4444">Skateboard</classification>
>> <classification  Scheme="UPC-FRANCAIS" value="10764001051">Board du
>> Skater</classification>
>>   </item>
>> </ItemsWeManufacture>
>>
>> This model would allow for efficient retrieval of items by writing a
>>
>> parser handler that can iterate through the child elements of each
>> <item> element seeking for a attribute value equivalent to a
>> recognized
>> Scheme.  A contextual query can also seek for a match on an
>> attribute
>> value of a recognized scheme and return a hash of positive matches
>> in a
>> business case where a user was intending to locate manufacturer's of
>> a
>> specific item.  Becuase there can be multiple schemes employed for
>> each
>> product or item,  there are no inherent limitations (hence
>> scalability,
>> extensibility).
>>
>> This is also not limited to items for manufacture.
>>
>> I believe that the OASIS, ebXML and UDDI registry models should
>> contain
>> information models which allow  multiple classification schemes.
>> Those
>> who wish to re-invent the wheel are free to do so and those who use
>> existing standards are also accomodated.
>>
>> My $0.02 CAD worth (now about $0.013 USD :(  )
>>
>> Duane Nickull
>>
>> Karl Best wrote:
>> >
>> > I've been noticing lately a bit of discussion related to
>> taxonomies in the
>> > XML e-business space. In particular, most e-business efforts
>> require some
>> > sort of registry/repository to store information about companies
>> with whom
>> > an organization may do business with, and the registry needs some
>> way to
>> > classify the businesses for simple searching. For instance,
>> >
>> > * The XML.org Registry stores schemas based on keywords, but needs
>> a
>> > taxonomy for better retrieval, as does the XML.org Portal which is
>> seeking
>> > to provide XML information sorted by vertical industry.
>> >
>> > * The ebXML registry/repository will store information about
>> businesses, but
>> > I'm not sure if a taxonomy has yet been defined.
>> >
>> > * UDDI will register businesses for the purpose of discovery, and
>> has
>> > selected for taxonomies NAICS, UNSPSC, an unnamed geographic
>> taxonomy, and a
>> > general purpose keyword classification (see
>> > http://uddi.org/pubs/UDDI_XML_Structure_Reference.pdf page 25).
>> >
>> > There's a real need to select a good taxonomy (or taxonomies) to
>> classify
>> > businesses and industries for the work that we're doing in
>> creating
>> > e-business registries. Notice that I say "select" and not "create"
>> -- I
>> > don't believe that XML experts should try to reinvent the wheel by
>> creating
>> > new taxonomies when there are better trained and more experienced
>> people in
>> > this field who do this stuff for a living. Robin Cover has done a
>> bit of
>> > research into the subject and has written a background on some of
>> the many
>> > taxonomies now available; see
>> > http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/classification.html. Perhaps one
>> or more of
>> > these taxonomies would work for what we need.
>> >
>> > I've set up an email list where we can discuss the use of
>> taxonomies in the
>> > XML e-business space. I'd like to discussed whether it's possible
>> to select
>> > an existing taxonomy that would meet the needs of ebXML, UDDI,
>> XML.org,
>> > etc., what the pros and cons of various taxonomies are, and what
>> criteria we
>> > should use to select them. The ultimate goal of this list would be
>> the
>> > creation of an OASIS technical committee, which would select
>> taxonomies for
>> > use at OASIS and XML.org as well as make recommendations to other
>> standards
>> > goups.
>> >
>> > This is an opt-in discussion list: to participate you must
>> subscribe to the
>> > discussion list by sending a message to
>> > taxonomy-discuss-request@lists.oasis-open.org with the word
>> "subscribe" as
>> > the body of the message. After you are subscribed, you may send
>> messages for
>> > the list to taxonomy-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org.
>> >
>> > </karl>
>> > ============================================================
>> > Karl F. Best
>> > OASIS - Director, Technical Operations
>> > 978.667.5115 x206
>> > karl.best@oasis-open.org  http://www.oasis-open.org
>
>
>

--
Regards,
Farrukh

begin:vcard 
n:Najmi;Farrukh 
tel;fax:781-442-1610
tel;work:781-442-0703
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:www.sun.com
org:Sun Microsystems;Java Software
adr:;;1 Network Drive, MS BUR02-302;Burlington;MA;01803-0902;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:najmi@east.sun.com
fn:Farrukh S. Najmi
end:vcard