NEEDED: ontology behind Factbook

This is an example from Factbook that is easier than most to make sense of:

However, I really need to see an Ontology for Factbook to make this truly make sense/to be useful.

It appears that you are using "concept" in the same sense as I would naturally use "entity." I can somewhat buy into your use of "Cultural Ontology" by why do these two pairs exist as duples when I see no entry under Simeon for Simon Peter? Note that there are other alternatives in the Peter header that don't have this characteristic e.g. Symeon

Concept › Cultural Ontology › Person › Simeon (Name) › Peter

Concept › Cultural Ontology › Person › Simon (Name) › Peter

Concept › Personal Name › Simeon (Name) › Peter

Concept › Personal Name › Simon (Name) › Peter

Or even more confusing why is the tool of writing present under the text of the writing as in

Concept › Cultural Ontology › Object › Tools › Writing › Bibliology › Special Revelation › Bible › Old Testament › Heptateuch › Book of Exodus

Concept › Cultural Ontology › Object › Tools › Writing › Bibliology › Special Revelation › Bible › Old Testament › Hexateuch › Book of Exodus

Concept › Cultural Ontology › Object › Tools › Writing › Bibliology › Special Revelation › Bible › Old Testament › Pentateuch › Tetrateuch › Book of Exodus

Concept › Cultural Ontology › Object › Tools › Writing › Book › Book of Exodus

Concept › Cultural Ontology › Object › Tools › Writing › Named Text › Book of Exodus

Concept › Implements › Tools › Writing › Bibliology › Special Revelation › Bible › Old Testament › Heptateuch › Book of Exodus

Concept › Implements › Tools › Writing › Bibliology › Special Revelation › Bible › Old Testament › Hexateuch › Book of Exodus

Concept › Implements › Tools › Writing › Bibliology › Special Revelation › Bible › Old Testament › Pentateuch › Tetrateuch › Book of Exodus

Concept › Implements › Tools › Writing › Book › Book of Exodus

Concept › Implements › Tools › Writing › Named Text › Book of Exodus

Under what circumstances would I be concerned with the tools used for writing ... or the original text? for the editing of the text? for the final Masoretic text? What about those of us who suspect the true original is oral?

So, yes, to you the principles behind the Factbook ontology may be obvious ... but trust me, I can find ambiguity and confusion in the simplest of undocumented ontologies.

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Jimmy Parks

The Factbook ontology is not yet a fully curated hierarchy. It pulls together many different datasets and databases into one place. We are working on unifying these datasets and databases so that they are more inline with each other and work like a hierarchy is expected to work. However, that is still a work in progress. Since the data itself is not structured in a way to work as a complete hierarchy, there are embeddings used to get data together in the Factbook table of contents. This is a reason why something like writing and implements are connected. This is a known issue and one that we are actively working on.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1299552#Comment_1299552

Thank you for the explanation. May I ask a more basic question? Why is Logos so hung up on hierarchy when a graph/web approach is closer to real life? Yes, I'm thinking of the Bible Sense Lexicon which would be much more powerful if not flattened into a hierarchy but rather left as a word web.

Jimmy Parks

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1299596#Comment_1299596

I wouldn't frame the issue as Logos being hung up on a style of data organization. The tree based hierarchies are embedded in books and book-like resources. They serve as the organizing principles for almost all of the third party resources that we accommodate. Also, graph databases and web-oriented views of data are relatively new. There is a risk involved with spending time and effort investing in a newer technology, especially if that effort comes at the cost of delivering more/new data.

With that said, Content Innovation has been migrating data into a graph database in an effort to unify and better organize all of our data. but that organization will still be delivered through the hierarchical UI in Logos for the time being. The UI demands of migrating all resources into a web view seem far off.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1299596#Comment_1299596

I'm thinking of the Bible Sense Lexicon which would be much more powerful if not flattened into a hierarchy but rather left as a word web.

Yes! That was an unfortunate design decision. It closed off how hebrew, greek, etc could be displayed (types of usage, semantics, theology, etc). Arbitrary so not submittable to neurals. And inefficient storage as well.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1299608#Comment_1299608

Thanks for the explanation, Jimmy.