Ontology and Taxonomy

A taxonomic system (an example of a part of the broader field of systematics) requires the following features:
1) a heirarchy, i.e., there is a root from which all other members (taxa) of the taxonomy derive;
2) an implicit or explicit relationship between the members, e.g., submember has more attributes than supermember; and,
3) the members are distinguished semantically, i.e., by meaning, rather than mere spelling of a word.

Another term for a taxonomy is a "classification system". The list of the taxa of the taxonony is given in a classification schedule. In a patent classification system, the taxa represent a particularly defined concept having features that includes all of the features of the immediately superior taxon. the most superior taxon is called the root and has the broadest interpretation of the classification system, and the least number of specified features.

In the US Patent Classification System (USCS), there are over 400 classes, the root of each class is somewhat described by the name of the class, but not always. The features of the root of the class is described in the corresponding class definition. This explanatory Class Definition distinguishes the USCS from all other patent classification systems. By contrast, the European Patent Classification System (ECLA) has no separate definition of the classification groups, but rather has additional cross-references provided throughout the classification schedule. One additional distinction between the USCS and other patent classification systems (or "schemes") is that that Class Definitions in the USCS attempt to provide refinements in the nuances of the terms used for the taxa.

When the taxonomy is supported with additional rules adding further refinement to better define the taxa of the system, this becomes an ontology. The use of Class Definitions is one step toward an ontology in the USCS. Unfortunately, it appears that top members of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as well as members of the Senate Committee of the Judiciary are oblivious to the usefulness of this elaborate system, and appear to be satisfied with a less-detailed system, such as the International Patent Classification system (IPC), to organize the placement of US Patent documents. This is quite unfortunate. Also, the USPTO has relegated qualified examiners from the Classification Division back to the Examining Corps (i.e., the "production division"), just to meet congressional goals, showing that production to USPTO management has priority over the maintenance and improvement of the USCS. Management argues that they are "forced" into this change of status, because of congressional production goals. However, when do the senior management argue to Congress about the importance of the USCS? Hardly ever.

Francis Lorin
siberkhem.com