Example

*example of taxonomy in this website
http://www.amazon.com

for example is Book. after click this book, we have so many types of book which is

Amazon Kindle

Best Books

• Award Winners
• Best Books of the Month
• Best of the Year So Far

Books Categories

• Amazon Student
• Arts & Photography
• Audiobooks
• Audible Audiobooks
• Biographies & Memoirs
• Business & Investing
• Calendars

From this, we can apply it into e-sirah
Madinah - nama nabi -category of story which is animal or water

Research Background

Research Background

            My research title is taxonomy of e-sirah. Taxonomy is a familiar tool of educator. The taxonomy is a hierarchical structure that typically organized by generalization and specialization relationship. The cognitive and affective domain provided a way to organize thinking skills into six level which is knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. The original development committee produced the hierarchical levels for the cognitive and affective domain, but not for the psychomotor domain(Anderson & Krathwohl,2001).

            Taxonomy will be apply to the e-sirah portal that can have the right content.For example, a lot of  prophet story at Madinah.So, we categorize all of story into one superclass. That structure will make user better understanding.

            Organizational typologies  provide an affective data storage and retrieval system, as well as a mean for theory development.However, existing typologies are typically limited,failing to meet broad standerd.Taxonomy also discuss contemporary organizational classification in the context of empirical,theoritical, and evolutionary perspectives.Consideration is given to the theoritical and numerical basis for grouping organizations, and an overview is provided of the conceptual and operational development of hierarchical taxonomies and the selection of organozational variable.(Philip Rich,The organizational taxonomy).

           

Problem statement

Currently, there are no portal of e-sirah that apply taxonomy.

portal for islamic history :   http://pts.com.my/
portal islam Murabbi :       http://www.murabbi.net/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=228
mukmin portal :                 http://www.mukmin.com.my/baca.php?id=63&kategori=6
sirah nabi cariGold:           http://carigold.com/portal/forums/showthread.php?t=123683

http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/2/112.abstract

Using Semantic Concepts to Characterise Various Knowledge Representation Formalisms: A Method of Facilitating the Interface of Knowledge Base System Components

1. R. A. Frost*

+Author Affiliations

1. Department of Computer Science, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Abstract

Currently, there are a number of research groups working on various components for knowledge base system (KBSs). As example: (a) novel hardware is being developed for mass storage of simple facts, (b) machines are being built to speed up reasoning with rules expressed in languages such as PROLOG and LISP, (c)algorithms have been designed for automatic maintenance of semantic integrity and for deductive question answering, (d) logical systems are being axiomatised which can accommodate time, beliefs, non-monotonic reasoning and other aspects of knowledge which cannot be handled by classical truth-functional predicate logic, (e) methods are being developed to support multiple user-views of knowldege stored in some canonical from, and (f) some progress has been made in providing natural-language interfaces to knowledge base systems.

Improving access to and understanding of regulations through taxonomies  Original Research Article Government Information Quarterly, Volume 26, Issue 2, April 2009, Pages 238-245 Chin Pang Cheng, Gloria T. Lau, Kincho H. Law, Jiayi Pan, Albert Jones

 Increasingly, taxonomies are being developed to capture and represent those terms and vocabularies for a number of industry domains. Taxonomies describe concepts and entities in a subclass hierarchy through an “is–a” relationship. Since taxonomies contain well defined entities and hierarchical relationships, computers can interpret, understand, and reason about the terms and concepts described in a taxonomy. As a result, taxonomies can facilitate information interoperation and regulation retrieval. Interoperability is important because it allows practitioners – more importantly application programs – to access, relate, and combine information from multiple, heterogeneous sources. Recent studies by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have reported that the lack of interoperability led to significant costs to the construction as well as the automotive industries ( [Brunnermeier and Martin, 1999] and [Gallaher et al., 2004] ).

Ontologies, which describe the general semantics of concepts and entity relationships that are not limited to an “is–a” hierarchy, have been proposed as a way to address interoperability problems. One recent forecast estimates that “By 2010, ontologies …will be the basis for 80% of application integration projects” (Jacobs & Linden, 2002). Ontologies serve as a means for information sharing because they capture the semantics of domain-specific information in a formal and computer interpretable form. Utilizing ontologies as a means to automate much of the integration process might be able to reduce cost and time significantly. We believe that they can also be used to facilitate access to government regulations.

Building a single ontology for an entire industry domain is both inefficient and impractical. Rather, small communities that need to exchange information frequently build ontologies targeted to their own users and applications (Ray, 2002). This results in multiple terminology classifications and data model structures. For instance, the architectural, engineering and construction (AEC) community has built several ontologies that describe the semantics of buildings and their components ( [Begley et al., 2005] and [Lipman, 2006] ). Even though these ontologies are all targeted towards the same user group, their structures, vocabularies and coverage differ depending on the application.

Government agencies, on the other hand, often use terminology and organize regulations based on their own needs, rather than the needs of the industrial communities they serve (Fountain, 2003). Both the agencies and the communities see a clear benefit of bridging these two distinct needs. One way to build such a bridge is to enable practitioners to browse and retrieve government regulations using their own terms and vocabularies — as captured in existing industry taxonomies. This would minimize the need for users to learn new vocabularies and organizational schemes. Metadata such as taxonomiesand ontologies have been leveraged to facilitate locating and retrieval of government information ( [Moen, 2001] and [Prokopiadou et al., 2004] ). These metadata, however, capture the semantics of the government information for conceptualization rather than representing domain knowledge from industry practitioners for browsing and retrieval. To bridge the needs of policy makers and the needs of industrial communities, we need methods and tools that map taxonomies to regulations. In the remainder of this paper, we describe a collection of such methods and tools.

Research Background

taxonomy is a particular classification, arranged in a hierarchical structure or classification schema. Typically this is organized by supertype-subtype relationships, also called generalization-specialization relationships, or less formally, parent-child relationships, typically indicated by the phrase 'is a kind of' or 'is a subtype of'. For example: car is a kind of vehicle, so any car is also a vehicle, but not every vehicle is a car. Therefore a subtype needs to satisfy more constraints that its supertype. Thus to be a car is more constraint than to be a vehicle. If also other kinds of relationships between concepts are included a taxonomy is extended into an ontology.