could choose instead of or as well as his/her original terms(s). (See ISO 25964-1 clause 10.3.1) This function is very different from the inferencing applications and other automated functions that might be expected of an ontology. You refer to "bundling" of semantic relations, by which I guess you mean the thesaural practice of giving many distinct semantic relationships the same "RT" label. This would never do in an ontology, where (for example) the semantics of "apple tree isDamagedBy canker" must be distinguished from "canker isTreatedWith octithilinone" if a computer is to instruct the grower in how to protect his crop. But a knowledgeable human searcher faced with "canker RT apple tree" and "canker RT octithilinone" has no difficulty deciding whether "apple tree" or "octithilinone" is more relevant to his enquiry, and so no need for the type of relationship to be (Dextre Clarke 2015-06-10; informal communication). specified.” Before considering the arguments in this quote it should be mentioned that Kless et al also speak in support of the thesaurus principles, thus, for example: relationships and associative relationships in thesauri appear to describe a “[W]hole-part kind of prototypical reality—one that describes the things in their idealized—that is, or Sometimes, the associative relationships also “common,” “usual,” ”normal”—form. appear to express experience or things that are noteworthy in some context, such as Thesauri use the relationships in this way because they “Fertilizers cause soil pollution.” (a) allow navigating the concepts of a thesaurus, (b) guide the indexer and searcher in selecting indexing/search terms, or (c) serve other purposes of information retrieval
could choose instead of or as well as his/her original terms(s). (See ISO 25964-1 clause 10.3.1) This function is very different from the inferencing applications and other automated functions that might be expected of an ontology. You refer to "bundling" of semantic relations, by which I guess you mean the thesaural practice of giving many distinct semantic relationships the same "RT" label. This would never do in an ontology, where (for example) the semantics of "apple tree isDamagedBy canker" must be distinguished from "canker isTreatedWith octithilinone" if a computer is to instruct the grower in how to protect his crop. But a knowledgeable human searcher faced with "canker RT apple tree" and "canker RT octithilinone" has no difficulty deciding whether "apple tree" or "octithilinone" is more relevant to his enquiry, and so no need for the type of relationship to be specified.” (Dextre Clarke 2015-06-10; informal communication). Before considering the arguments in this quote it should be mentioned that Kless et al also speak in support of the thesaurus principles, thus, for example: “[W]hole-part relationships and associative relationships in thesauri appear to describe a kind of prototypical reality—one that describes the things in their idealized—that is, “common,” “usual,” or ”normal”—form. Sometimes, the associative relationships also appear to express experience or things that are noteworthy in some context, such as “Fertilizers cause soil pollution.” Thesauri use the relationships in this way because they (a) allow navigating the concepts of a thesaurus, (b) guide the indexer and searcher in selecting indexing/search terms, or (c) serve other purposes of information retrieval
Hjorland_.docx