Sunburst charts
Bruce Schuman
I was fascinated to recently discover the concept of "sunburst chart", which is now a default option in MS Excel 2016 -- https://goo.gl/6w6c15 -- and seems intimately and directly related to ancient deep intuition and holistic symbolism -- https://goo.gl/WHT4Ix
Here's a link to a series of such charts:
I also encountered an article from Stanford that reviews many emerging approaches to data visualization -- this appears to be the most accessible version of this “Tour Through the Visualization Zoo” article:
http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~jheer/files/zoo/
Another survey of graphic visualization
http://www.informatik.uni-rostock.de/~hs162/treeposter/oldposter/treevis_hires.pdf
A few minutes ago on MSNBC I saw an advertisement for Hewlett-Packard Enterprise "Hybrid Infrastructure that scales on demand", showing a variety of such diagrams, so I looked for it on YouTube and quickly found it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDa74W_4c2A
Here's a quick review of why this looks so interesting to me. I'd like to find an algebraic generalization of "the absolute foundations of semantic ontology" and this looks like an interesting and essentially simple direction to pursue. This is a differentiable cascade from the top-level “one” as a purely abstract set-theoretic container to continuously differentiable data at “the lowest level” – in a format that approaches the definition of the real number line in terms of “cuts”.
Questions:
1) Is this form a fractal? Is it “100% linearly recursive”?
2) Is there a possible generalization of taxonomic form inherent in this layout?
3) Can we directly map the relationship of a “taxon” to a species of the taxon (as per “genus/species”)?
4) Is there a meaningful linear measure in the radial distance between concentric rings?
5) Is each concentric ring a “taxon” – such that any linear measure across the “width” of a taxon would define a bound on the properties of the taxon (i.e., can we define a linear dimensional measure of, for example, a “mammal” – such that all elements within the higher and lower boundary values could be called mammals – and if so, what are the properties of the dimensional unit for that measure)?
6) Is “the one” at the top of the semantic ontology an “absolute”, such that everything that cascades from it is thereby “relative to it” in a form that can be defined as a coordinate frame, or a nested cascade of such frames?
7) Is there a single axial center that extends across levels, aligning them all to common center, and if so, what is the meaning of that axis? Does that axis align the properties of “judgment” – as for example assisting in avoiding bias? Could this kind of framework be used as a way to guide collective judgment by preserving holistic integrity in an extremely complex and fragmentation-prone environment?
It seems that what we are looking for is fully plastic and ad-hoc/context-specific continuous differentiation in all distinctions and categorical boundaries. This would be a 100% fluent differentiation of “absolute one” in any possible/conceivable direction or dimension for any conceivable purpose. All categories and terms (classes, categories, types, etc.) would derive their meaning through this kind of 100% fluent differentiation.
Bruce Schuman, Santa Barbara CA USA
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ontolo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2016 6:21 AM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com; ontolog...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Jay Bennett <jben...@aitia.io>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] RE: [Ontology Summit] Reference Ontologies in support of Semantic Interoperability
Gary, Mike, Leo, Matthew, Cory, et al.,
GBC
Among the requirements for [a reference ontology] :
> * Foundational Grounding
> * broad coverage of their domain
> * Detailed and vigorous axiomization of the needed semantics in
> a representation language that affords automated verification
> and reasoning.
By the way, "automated verification" implies some kind of testing or comparison with some other specification. What is the notation used for that other spec? Is it some NL? Or another formalism?
MB
> The Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO) was created according
> to exactly these principles...
Leo
> Yes, there are currently many such in the biomedical community...
MW
> ISO 15926 of course. Main domain is process engineering...
CC
> I would also like to point out the OMG initiative for threat and risk...
Summary of the issues:
1. Digital systems have been successfully interoperating on shared
data for over a century -- ever since punched-card equipment
was designed and implemented for the 1890 census.
2. The primary requirement for successful interoperability has been
and always will be agreement on syntax -- from punched-card
formats to XML, JSON, or whatever.
3. The only widely accepted notation for defining the semantics
has been some version of natural language supplemented with
various diagrams and notations. Many of the notations were
formalized by some standards bodies. But the semantics of
those notations were expressed in NLs -- supplemented with
other diagrams and notations.
4. Even today, the most widely used standards for data sharing
and interoperability -- Schema.org and the Amazon DB schema,
for example -- are based on formally defined syntax with
informal NL definitions for the semantics.
5. More detailed axiomatizations can only be enforced for projects
that are governed by some authority that can exert financial pain
for noncompliance.
6. More often than not, strictly enforced standards lead to "silos"
with enhanced interoperability among systems within a silo, but
a severe *reduction* in interoperability among silos.
7. Attempts to promote interoperability among silos usually lead
to YASPI (Yet Another Standard to Promote Interoperability).
Repeat from step #3.
I discussed some related topics in the slides I presented at the first session of the Ontology Summit in February, and I extended them with more slides after the next couple of sessions:
http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/interop.pdf
For further discussion of the semantic issues, see below.
John
_____________________________________________________________________
From p. 19 of http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/worlds.pdf
5. Making Possible Worlds Meaningful
One of the oldest controversies about Aristotle's categories was whether they represent the kinds of things that exist or the way people perceive, think, and talk about things that exist.
Theophrastus, Aristotle's successor as head of the Lyceum, said that the categories were intended in all those ways — in modern terms, ontological, epistemological, and lexical. Yet the fragmented methodologies of those subjects are scattered across the fields of philosophy, linguistics, and artificial intelligence, in each of which the researchers who work on formal semantics or lexical semantics are disjoint sets. For linguistics, Partee (2005) hoped that "these different approaches can be seen as complementary and not necessarily antagonistic."
One reason for hoping that Peirce's semiotics can help relate the fragmented subfields is that the scope of his research was as broad as Aristotle's. In addition to his research on mathematics, physics, and logic, he had been an associate editor of the Century Dictionary, for which he wrote, revised, or edited over 16,000 definitions. The combined influence of logic and lexicography is apparent in a letter he wrote to to B. E. Smith, the editor of that dictionary:
The task of classifying all the words of language, or what's
the same thing, all the ideas that seek expression, is the most
stupendous of logical tasks. Anybody but the most accomplished
logician must break down in it utterly; and even for the strongest
man, it is the severest possible tax on the logical equipment and
faculty.
In this remark, Peirce equated the lexicon with the set of expressible ideas and declared logic the primary means of analysis. Unlike Frege, Husserl, and Russell, he did not avoid the challenge of characterizing the language people actually use by escaping to some purified realm of formal semantics or ontology.
Semiotics is a unified subject that addresses all possible uses of signs by all possible species. Various students of the subject may prefer to analyze different aspects or to adopt a philosophical, mathematical, or applied approach, but academic compartmentalization should not create artificial barriers...
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/570118C0.9070504%40bestweb.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Matthew West
Dear Bruce,
Interesting. Florence Nightingale used charts like that to illustrate the causes of mortality in the Crimea War…
http://www.florence-nightingale-avenging-angel.co.uk/Coxcomb.htm
Regards
Matthew West
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/001701d1901e%24a3ca5560%24eb5f0020%24%40cox.net.
Steve Ray
Seems like it would only be good for trees and not for graphs.
- Steve
Steven R. Ray, Ph.D.
Distinguished Research Fellow
Carnegie Mellon University
NASA Research Park
Building 23 (MS 23-11)
P.O. Box 1
Moffett Field, CA 94305-0001
Email: stev...@sv.cmu.edu
Phone: (650) 587-3780
Cell: (202) 316-6481
Skype: steverayconsulting
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/00aa01d1903f%2429563530%247c029f90%24%40gmail.com.
Bruce Schuman
Yes, this idea has ancient roots – thanks Matthew.
I’m looking around for more on Florence Nightingale – it seems she was a mathematician – very interesting.
That coxcomb animated graphic is hard to view. Here’s another animated gif that unfolds the sunburst levels in a web business context
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ontolo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Matthew West
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 1:02 PM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Sunburst charts
Dear Bruce,
Interesting. Florence Nightingale used charts like that to illustrate the causes of mortality in the Crimea War…
http://www.florence-nightingale-avenging-angel.co.uk/Coxcomb.htm
Regards
Matthew West
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ontolo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Schuman
Sent: 06 April 2016 17:09
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Sunburst charts
I was fascinated to recently discover the concept of "sunburst chart", which is now a default option in MS Excel 2016 -- https://goo.gl/6w6c15 -- and seems intimately and directly related to ancient deep intuition and holistic symbolism -- https://goo.gl/WHT4Ix
Here's a link to a series of such charts:
I also encountered an article from Stanford that reviews many emerging approaches to data visualization -- this appears to be the most accessible version of this “Tour Through the Visualization Zoo” article:
http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~jheer/files/zoo/
Another survey of graphic visualization
http://www.informatik.uni-rostock.de/~hs162/treeposter/oldposter/treevis_hires.pdf
A few minutes ago on MSNBC I saw an advertisement for Hewlett-Packard Enterprise "Hybrid Infrastructure that scales on demand", showing a variety of such diagrams, so I looked for it on YouTube and quickly found it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDa74W_4c2A
Here's a quick review of why this looks so interesting to me. I'd like to find an algebraic generalization of "the absolute foundations of semantic ontology" and this looks like an interesting and essentially simple direction to pursue. This is a differentiable cascade from the top-level “one” as a purely abstract set-theoretic container to continuously differentiable data at “the lowest level” – in a format that approaches the definition of the real number line in terms of “cuts”.
.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/001701d1901e%24a3ca5560%24eb5f0020%24%40cox.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to
ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/00aa01d1903f%2429563530%247c029f90%24%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Nolan Nichols
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/001c01d19051%248f675680%24ae360380%24%40cox.net.
Bruce Schuman
> Reminds me a bit of the "connectograms" used for brain connectivity and genomics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectogram
> There is an implementation of this here: http://circos.ca/
Yes, very much so. Thanks, hadn’t seen this.
It feels to me like there is some very interesting convergence going on – kind of in the old spirit of “mapping neurons onto logic gates” – but in a more sophisticated way.
When I got into the HP Enterprise video this morning, the next video YouTube wanted to show me was on the subject “How to build a brain in a box”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRyksSxpoyI
This is brief, with a very smart clear-thinking engineer.
He mentions the “DARPA Synapse” program – http://www.artificialbrains.com/darpa-synapse-program -- which led me to this graphic – which I find specially interesting because it maps across levels – and does so in a way that seem to imply “axial centrism” across levels, which is a subject I think could become very powerful.
Some people now are starting to say that the structure of the brain, rather than being “incredibly complex”, might be more usefully understood as “incredibly simple”.
????
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ontolo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nolan Nichols
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 3:32 PM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Sunburst charts
Reminds me a bit of the "connectograms" used for brain connectivity and genomics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectogram
There is an implementation of this here: http://circos.ca/
Cheers,
Nolan
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Bruce Schuman <bruces...@cox.net> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/001c01d19051%248f675680%24ae360380%24%40cox.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CALLiDF3UvrJy%3DeyBebCOJVwUdAS3dzy6TEhuuqw_50GdYfhXCw%40mail.gmail.com.
Bruce Schuman
> Seems like it would only be good for trees and not for graphs.
Thanks for the thought. I poked around a bit and found the below recent citation on “ontology and integration for smart communities”
I’m not sure my response is relevant – but I was involved in “smart community” stuff here in Santa Barbara back in the 1990’s – and this paper looks like the kinds of things I am exploring right now.
I’m interested in a “nested cascade” approach – because I want to see “local” or apparently “independent” community processes held or aligned within a framework of inherent higher-level (or global-scale) “wholeness” – not only because we need a connectivity matrix that intersects every relevant variable linked between, for example, climate change, local and global economy, energy distribution, water supply – and who knows what else, infrastructure, etc – all in a integrating “trans-silo” format that links through an ascending ontological cascade to “the whole” in such a way as to define a simple but universal ethic for decision-making at the local point. This idea relates to the concept of “glocalism” – positioning the local within the global, and making them converge in mutually influencing ways towards a common understanding.
So, the grand notion is that something like “homeostatic balance” is the desired ideal in all collective decision-making at any level of scale (individual human / small group / large group / global), and that some notion of “many/one” is the essential principle of “community”. All these levels of scale are nested.
Community is – in one interpretation of Cantor’s theory of sets – “A Many that allows itself to be thought of as a One”.
So – if things are interconnected and mutually influencing – then all collective decision-making (“democracy”) occurs within the framework of “the whole” at some level of scale. If “wholeness” can be understood as not only a system principle but also an inherent guiding ethic, then it might be possible to maintain a smooth direct mapping between “the whole” at the top level of the ontology to any decision-point along the descending path -- from “everything” to any particular decision in any particular context. That smooth mapping could be an ethical guideline – a plumbline for balanced accurate judgment. “As above, so below, wholeness in all things” – that sort of thing. “True North”
***
As regards “trees” – I came up with this thought in response to your note:
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ontolo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Ray
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 1:55 PM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Sunburst charts
Seems like it would only be good for trees and not for graphs.
- Steve
Steven R. Ray, Ph.D.
Distinguished Research Fellow
Carnegie Mellon University
NASA Research Park
Building 23 (MS 23-11)
P.O. Box 1
Moffett Field, CA 94305-0001
Email: stev...@sv.cmu.edu
Phone: (650) 587-3780
Cell: (202) 316-6481
Skype: steverayconsulting
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ontolo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Matthew West
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 1:02 PM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Sunburst charts
Dear Bruce,
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/00aa01d1903f%2429563530%247c029f90%24%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/57057794.689b420a.d7c7d.fffff215%40mx.google.com.
Azamat Abdoullaev
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/004201d19063%2421034700%246309d500%24%40cox.net.
Matthew West
Dear Bruce,
Yes, that GIF is poor, I have seen a really good representation of her graph sometime, but can’t remember where now.
What she was able to show was that far more soldiers died from infection than directly from their wounds, and the graph presented it in such a profound way that it was impossible to ignore. This brought about important changes in hygiene that we have all benefited from since.
Regards
Matthew
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/001c01d19051%248f675680%24ae360380%24%40cox.net.
Frank Guerino
Frank Guerino, Chairman
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)
Reply-To: <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:09 PM
To: <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Sunburst charts
Bruce Schuman
Dear Frank – thanks for this reply.
I had seen the Coffee Wheel chart – but did not realize it was interactive. It’s very elegant – and for me, worth some careful study. https://goo.gl/yn1TFv
Its creator, Jason Davies, says he is “a freelance software engineer looking for challenging data visualisation projects.”
I’m wondering if there is a trend here? Maybe I should talk to him.
We are still discussing “charts” – and the objective is really effective graphic presentation of data initially defined in other formats – and the tradeoffs for various methods of presentation. But it looks to me like this graphic approach is really a kind of mathematics itself – maybe related to “topology” or some kind of generalizing graphic approach to taxonomy or set theory. These emerging new graphic methods appear to be high-dimensional frameworks for overcoming issues inherent in basic two-dimensional matrix representation. I did find some interesting PDFs relating to this possibility today, including this, which does a comparative review of various methods, and seems to offer a sophisticated mathematical approach: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1407/1407.2117.pdf
Another document I will review carefully is http://www.st.uni-trier.de/~diehl/pubs/isvc08.pdf -- also with good graphics and good math.
I also found some mention of Gestalt Psychology (more or less the psychology of wholes) in related articles – relating to the “quantification of intuition”.
On Quora, I ran into this question: https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-taxonomy-of-logic-as-in-a-visual-representation-of-how-all-the-concepts-of-reasoning-and-logic-are-connected -- https://goo.gl/PdcYIT
This Quora question – has anybody indexed or compiled a single visual representation of “all of reasoning and logic”? – is in the illusive direction that tends to intrigue me.
My instinct – misguided perhaps, but definitely persistent – is that something like the sunburst chart offers enough holistically-interconnected simultaneous dimensionality that with some adaptation or “topological” generalization might be candidate for a “universal ontology” – for a lot of reasons:
1) I think there’s a generic dimension-based approach to explicit semantic definition of abstract terms implicit in these concentric multi-level differentiations. It looks to me as though all abstract categories are most accurately defined as “context-specific top-down intentional stipulations” – and the sunburst chart can diagram that cascade across levels of abstraction, in a taxonomic way – from high-level abstract terms to specifics or “actual instances”.
2) I think the “polar center” of its method offers a way to define “opposites” in terms of dimensionality – “hot” and “cold” are values that can be indexed as opposites – with intervening fuzzy values like “warm” or “cool” defined stipulatively as specific measureable quantitative values, across a cascade of levels.
3) And the hierarchical cascade aspects of this model make me wonder if most kinds of basic logic can reasonably be diagrammed across the common cascade of levels – such that many (or all) kinds of logic can be described as “top-down” or “bottom-up” – or “from more abstract to less abstract” – such that oppositional pairs like “analysis/synthesis” or “deduction/induction” or “particular/general” or “specific/universal” or “empirical/abstract” or maybe even “local/global” (maybe with implications for GIS) can be mapped on the same framework – and “part-of” and “is-a” hierarchies as well.
4) And there is something intriguing about this link to or support for “interconnected local and relativistic cartesian coordinate frames in a global context” – perhaps defined at every point of intersection between a radial partition and a concentric partition. Can the entire structure be defined as a single integral cascade from a single absolute center? The answer might (?) be yes. Does this kind of “relative/absolute” coordinate frame have implications for physics? If physics is really a sophisticated exercise in complex data-representation (modeling) with an emphasis on correlating data against empirical testing – this might be a validation of physicist Sir Arthur Eddington’s thesis that “All the laws of nature that are usually classified as fundamental can be foreseen wholly from epistemological considerations” – an ambitious, controversial and somewhat mystical claim. http://originresearch.com/docs/EddingtonsRareVision.pdf (p.236)
Is reality understood this way a massively integrated and relativistic “cascade of cuts” (distinctions) in a constantly shape-shifting context-specific format, within the bounds of which all human categorization and description exist (or occur)? Are those “cuts” identical to the “Dedekind cuts” that anchor contemporary mathematical definition and quantitative measurement in the real number line?
These rather grand and potent possibilities go to challenging issues that arise for me – about “closing the space” – or somehow “sealing” the entire range of logic or reasoning within some single integral context – maybe a “one-sided” context that exists like a kind of closed-loop self-referential soap bubble –perhaps grounded in the kind of “oneness” defined by the Greek philosopher Plotinus:
"Plotinus taught that there is a supreme, totally transcendent 'One', containing no division, multiplicity or distinction and beyond all categories of being and non-being. His One 'cannot be any existing thing', nor is it merely the sum of all things but 'is prior to all existents'. Plotinus identified his One with the concept of Good and the principle of Beauty." https://goo.gl/ek39zO
No distinctions. So – the grand ontological scheme within the soap bubble is a “nest of all possible distinctions” that arise within this universal unmarked oneness, as a process of “motivated duality” – out of which then springs all dimensional measurement, all comparisons (and all metaphors and analogies), all “opposites”, all categories and classes and types, all generals and particulars – all in a single framework – a framework that might (??) look a lot like intuitive diagrams produced by visionary philosophers (and mystics) since the beginning of civilization.
Again, thank you for your message and your “answers” – which I will keep looking at.
Bruce Schuman, Santa Barbara CA USA
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ontolo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Frank Guerino
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2016 7:20 AM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Sunburst charts
Hi Bruce,
The Data Driven Documents (D3) community has multiple examples of, both, static and interactive Sunburst Charts in their Examples Gallery. D3 is a Javascript library for visualization development and is one of the fastest growing and largest open source communities.
I took a stab at some of your questions…
You asked: “Is this form a fractal? Is it “100% linearly recursive”?”
If you think of every node as an circular Sector between two Arcs, then the answer is most likely “yes.” Even the center node can be considered a circular Sector bound by two Arcs of 360 degrees, each.
You asked: “Is there a possible generalization of taxonomic form inherent in this layout?”
There are are definitively cases where the visualization can contain and/or represent a taxonomy. I say “can” because not all taxonomies are single-parent-multiple-child hierarchies.
You wrote: “Is there a meaningful linear measure in the radial distance between concentric rings?”
Not always but there certainly can be. For example, you may want to use the radius to represent the ratio between the percentage of children vs. parent for each ring.
You wrote “Is “the one” at the top of the semantic ontology an “absolute”, such that everything that cascades from it is thereby “relative to it” in a form that can be defined as a coordinate frame, or a nested cascade of such frames?”
I have yet to see a case where the root is not an absolute.
My Best,
Frank
--
Frank Guerino, Chairman
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)
From: Bruce Schuman <bruces...@cox.net>
Reply-To: <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:09 PM
To: <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Sunburst charts
I was fascinated to recently discover the concept of "sunburst chart", which is now a default option in MS Excel 2016 -- https://goo.gl/6w6c15 -- and seems intimately and directly related to ancient deep intuition and holistic symbolism -- https://goo.gl/WHT4Ix
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/001701d1901e%24a3ca5560%24eb5f0020%24%40cox.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D32D3120.14205B%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
Frank Guerino
Frank Guerino, Chairman
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)
To: <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Sunburst charts