Weaknesses of Traditional Notion Organizing Systems

Weaknesses of traditional notion organizing systems:

• Traditional notion organizing systems aim at providing experts --
  1. people who already know the professional vocabulary and the items the vocabulary refers to
  2. people who are trained in using notion organizing systems
  -- with a tool to find matching terms.
• The concept of notion traditional notion organizing systems make use of implies the real item too. Hence, in reality, notion organizing systems aren't organizing notions only, but also the items they refer to. -- That might be a reason for the omnipresent preference is a relationships over has a ones:
• Traditional notion organizing systems prefer is a relationships over has a ones: A car is a motorized vehicle, but a motorized vehicle is clearly not a part of a car. Therefore, a has a relationship to be established from car to motorized vehicle is wrong.

So, because traditional notion organizing system presuppose the notion to imply the matter item too, they at least require two different kinds of relationships to organize a professional vocabulary: the yet mentioned is a and has a relationships.

In my opinion, they are wrong about when//with implying the item to the notion instead of just dealing with the idea of the item and vocabulary for the item: The idea, i.e. the immaterial variant, of a motorized vehicle of course is a part of, or at least is included to, the idea of a car.


      
Updates: none so far