NucLexNuclear Medicine Lexicon and Theranostics Ontology
Stage W0: private living prototype12 of 30 manuscripts drafted, 0 reviewed; 50 lexicon entries in draftWhat each later stage would need to show

The human story of meaning

Taxonomy

A hierarchy says what belongs under what. It does not say why.

MonographBriefNX-M03Proposed length 2,500 to 5,000 words

Writing brief. This monograph has been assigned but the manuscript is not yet written or approved. What follows is the commissioning brief: its question, outline, evidence instructions, and review requirements.

Central question

What does a hierarchy express?

Reader promise

The reader will be able to say what a taxonomy commits its author to, what criterion a given hierarchy uses, and why placing a thing under a parent explains nothing about it beyond that criterion.

Required development

  1. Explain classification criteria and hierarchy. Define a taxonomy as kinds arranged under kinds by a stated criterion, with Aristotle's genus and species and Linnaeus's ranked system as historical anchors. Show that a hierarchy without a stated criterion has a hidden one.
  2. Compare classification axes. Take one synthetic set of radiopharmaceuticals and classify it three ways: by radionuclide, by intended use (diagnostic or therapeutic), and by molecular target. Show that each tree is correct, that the trees disagree about neighbors, and that no single tree can show a relation that cuts across its branches.
  3. Distinguish categories from individuals. A node in a taxonomy is a kind; a preparation in a syringe is an individual. Explain why a taxonomy of kinds says nothing about any particular individual except that it falls under a node.
  4. Demonstrate synthetic radiopharmaceutical classification. Use local teaching identifiers only. Show a case where two agents share a parent and differ in every property that matters clinically, to make the review gate concrete.

Evidence and review

Evidence to obtain: reliable editions of the Categories and of Linnaeus for the historical account; Bowker and Star for the consequences of classification choices; the SNOMED CT documentation of its is a hierarchy and the distinction between a hierarchy and defining relationships, cited to the current release. Record for each historical claim the edition, date, and page or section.

Review concern: a reader may treat a taxonomic parent as explaining its children, as if "therapeutic radiopharmaceutical" explained why a given agent works. The manuscript must show that the parent records only the criterion of classification and that explanation requires relations the taxonomy does not carry.

Taxonomy, Concept, Relationship, Ontology for the contrast between a hierarchy and a full account of kinds and relations, and Thesaurus for the retrieval-oriented alternative. Link at the point of use.

Review requirements

Source check of historical editions. Domain review by a nuclear medicine physician or radiochemist to confirm the classification axes are ones practitioners use. Editorial check that no synthetic agent is mistakable for a real product.

Review gate for this monograph

A taxonomic parent is not a causal explanation.

The assignment exists. The manuscript has not been written or approved.