What is this category about?

(TransforMap Collective) #1

How we agree on terms and use them to structure data (badger circle)

Here we gather all discussions that are related on ways to structure data. Vocabularies can be ontologies, taxonomies. Among other things, our OpenStreetMap Taxonomy proposal is being discussed here.

(Jon Richter) #2

I’m a bit unhappy with the title. Could it be something like

  • Data : Modeling, Pretests and Realted?
  • Data, Mappings and Vocabularies


(Adrien Labaeye) #3

[quote=“almereyda, post:2, topic:133”]
Data, Mappings and Vocabularies
[/quote] +1
I like it, but would expect that some would prefer Taxonomy instead of Vocabularies.

(Jon Richter) #4

Well, but that would be backwards-oriented. A taxonomy is just a special case of a vocabulary, as is an ontology. So the term makes perfect sense. If you find other arguments despite assumed preferred terms, we can discuss, of course. But just going for the ease and thereby neglecting the upcoming work will just not work in the long term.

(Adrien Labaeye) #5

I prefer vocabularies. I just anticipate reactions from the wider group. It would need to be explained. This may be enough:

(Stefan A) #6

Continuing the discussion from Working concepts:

Continuing the discussion from Working concepts:

This is my point with working definition. It’s just about choosing the words we want to use and make sure they can be understood by the wider community.

(Jon Richter) #11

For me it is interesting to be able to see how we converse around definitions of terms. These are some of the most interesting discussions! We could also use these threads as de facto category Lounges for metadiscussions about the category itself.

It is important we don’t scrub conversations too much, so they become meaningless.
The distinction between Taxonomy and Vocabulary is one such example: intuitively we would prefer a more simple term for talking about something that is actually richer.

But we have to think the other way now. There is always more complexity to integrate.
Look at the

for example.

Within a graph of relations between Vocabularies, I could possibly explain the relations between the signifiers and the significants. Which is still a very positivist approach, if you’d ask me, but I couldn’t do so in the limited set of a

because it doesn’t allow serendipitious connections.

Let’s have a look at the broad picture at http://discourse.transformap.co/:

The first sentence in a category’s description is shown there. It usually features a tagline and a link to the respective zoo section. We should have the same here.

Following then could be the explanation of our data curation and transformation practice.

(Thomas Kalka) #12

Yes. There is a (to less documented feature), where one could select the intruduction text. I used it somewhere in the FAQ section. Have to search for it.