Abstract
This study considers the expressiveness (that is, the expressive power or expressivity) of different types of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) and discusses its potential to be machine-processable in the context of the semantic web. For this purpose, the theoretical foundations of KOS are reviewed based on conceptualizations introduced by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) and the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS); natural language processing techniques are also implemented. Applying a comparative analysis, the dataset comprises a thesaurus (Eurovoc), a subject headings system (LCSH) and a classification scheme (DDC). These are compared with an ontology (CIDOC-CRM) by focusing on how they define and handle concepts and relations. It was observed that LCSH and DDC focus on the formalism of character strings (nomens) rather than on the modelling of semantics; their definition of what constitutes a concept is quite fuzzy, and they comprise a large number of complex concepts. By contrast, thesauri have a coherent definition of what constitutes a concept, and apply a systematic approach to the modelling of relations. Ontologies explicitly define diverse types of relations, and are by their nature machine-processable. The paper concludes that the potential of both the expressiveness and machine processability of each KOS is extensively regulated by its structural rules. It is harder to represent subject headings and classification schemes as semantic networks with nodes and arcs, while thesauri are more suitable for such a representation. In addition, a paradigm shift is revealed which focuses on the modelling of relations between concepts, rather than the concepts themselves.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For an analysis of these issues see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini.
FRSAD is incorporated in the consolidate edition of FRBR, known as Library Reference Model (LRM) [42], which was endorsed by the IFLA Professional Committee in the summer of 2017. But, in the LRM there are no concept, object and event entities of FRSAD; neither the term thema which is generalized and renamed as res (Latin for “thing”) in order to serve as the top entity in the hierarchy. Basically, LRM is not concerned with aboutness, and it ostracizes the structure of KOSs from the issues of concern. The only definition that LRM contains is that a res has nomens and that it may be related with another res.
Certainly, this is not unconditional, since there are exceptions like interdisciplinary numbers.
It is acknowledged that in OWL everything is a subclass of thing, but this does not mean that every class of the ontology follows an internal hierarchy.
References
Kuhn, T.: A survey and classification of controlled natural languages. Comput. Linguist. 40, 121–170 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00168
Stock, W.G.: Concepts and semantic relations in information science. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61, 1951–1969 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21382
Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Sci. Am. 284, 34–43 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0501-34
Antoniou, G., Van Harmelen, F.: A Semantic Web Primer. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)
Smiraglia, R.P.: The Elements of Knowledge Organization. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Hjørland, B.: Semantics and knowledge organization. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 41, 367–405 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2007.1440410115
Hjørland, B.: Concepts, paradigms and knowledge organization. In: Gnoli, C., Mazzocchi, F. (eds.) Paradigms and Conceptual Systems in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings of the 11th International ISKO Conference, 23–26 February 2010, Rome, Italy, pp. 38–42. Ergon, Würzburg (2010)
Margolis, E., Laurence, S.: Concepts (2011). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/concepts/. Accessed 30 May 2018
Lakoff, G.: Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1990)
Rips, L.J., Smith, E.E., Medin, D.L.: Concepts and categories: memory, meaning, and metaphysics. In: Holyoak, K.J., Morrison, R.G. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, pp. 177–209. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M.: Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2003)
Pinker, S.: The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, New York (2007)
Smiraglia, R., den Heuvel, C.V.: Classifications and concepts: towards an elementary theory of knowledge interaction. J. Doc. 69, 360–383 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-07-2012-0092
Blair, D.: Wittgenstein, Language and Information: “Back to the Rough Ground!”. Springer, Dordrecht (2006)
Jacob, E.K.: Classification and categorization: a difference that makes a difference. Libr. Trends. 52, 515–540 (2004)
Hjørland, B.: Is classification necessary after Google? J. Doc. 68, 299–317 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411211225557
Zavalina, O.L.: Subject access: conceptual models, functional requirements, and empirical data. J. Libr. Metadata 12, 140–163 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2012.699829
Svenonius, E.: LCSH: semantics, syntax and specificity. Cat. Classif. Q. 29, 17–30 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v29n01_02
Salah, A.A., Gao, C., Suchecki, K., Scharnhorst, A., Smiraglia, R.P.: The evolution of classification systems: ontogeny of the UDC. In: Neelameghan, A., Raghavan, K.S. (eds.) Categories, Contexts and Relations in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings of the 12th International ISKO Conference, 6–9 August 2012, Mysore, India, pp. 51–57. Ergon, Würzburg (2012)
Mai, J.-E.: A postmodern theory of knowledge organization. In: Woods, L. (ed.) ASIS’99: Proceedings of the 62nd ASIS Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, October 31–November 4, 1999: Knowledge, Creation, Organization and Use, pp. 547–556. Information Today, Medford, NJ (1999)
Szostak, R.: Complex concepts into basic concepts. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 62, 2247–2265 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21635
Hjørland, B.: Concept theory. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 1519–1536 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21082
Hjørland, B., Pedersen, K.N.: A substantive theory of classification for information retrieval. J. Doc. 61, 582–597 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510625804
Mai, J.-E.: The modernity of classification. J. Doc. 67, 710–730 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411111145061
Olson, H.A.: Difference, culture and change: the untapped potential of LCSH. Cat. Classif. Q. 29, 53–71 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v29n01_04
Olson, H.A.: The power to name: representation in library catalogs. Signs 26, 639–668 (2001)
Sperberg-McQueen, C.M.: Classification and its structures. In: Schreibman, S., Siemens, R., Unsworth, J. (eds.) A Companion to Digital Humanities. Blackwell, Oxford (2004)
Alexiev, B., Marksbury, N.: Terminology as organized knowledge. In: Gnoli, C., Mazzocchi, F. (eds.) Paradigms and Conceptual Systems in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings of the 11th International ISKO Conference, 23–26 February 2010, Rome, Italy, pp. 363–370. Ergon, Würzburg (2010)
L’Homme, M.-C., Bernier-Colborne, G.: Terms as labels for concepts, terms as lexical units: A comparative analysis in ontologies and specialized dictionaries. Appl. Ontol. 7, 387–400 (2012). https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-2012-0116
Goguen, J.A.J.: Concept representation in natural and artificial languages: axioms, extensions and applications for fuzzy sets. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 6, 513–561 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(74)80017-9
Clarke, S.D.: Thesaural relationships. In: Bean, C.A., Green, R. (eds.) Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge, pp. 37–52. Springer, Amsterdam (2001)
Green, R.: Relationships in the organization of knowledge: an overview. In: Bean, C.A., Green, R. (eds.) Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge, pp. 3–18. Springer, Amsterdam (2001)
Engerer, V.: Control and syntagmatization: vocabulary requirements in information retrieval thesauri and natural language lexicons. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 68, 1480–1490 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23783
IFLA: Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD): A Conceptual Model. IFLA, Edinburgh (2010)
Furner, J.: FRSAD and the ontology of subjects of works. Cat. Classif. Q. 50, 494–516 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2012.681269
Gemberling, T.: Thema and FRBR’s third group. Cat. Classif. Q. 48, 445–449 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/01639371003745413
Panzer, M.: Two tales: aligning FRSAD with SKOS. In: Boteram, F., Gödert, W., Hubrich, J. (eds.) Concepts in Context: Proceedings of the Cologne Conference on Interoperability and Semantics in Knowledge Organization, July 19th–20th, 2010, pp. 157–168. Ergon, Würzburg (2010)
O’Neill, E.T., Kammerer, K.A., Bennett, R.: The aboutness of words. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 68, 2471–2483 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23856
BBC: The man who has focused on one word for 23 years (2017). http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40781213. Accessed 30 May 2018
Peponakis, M.: In the name of the name: RDF literals, ER attributes and the potential to rethink the structures and visualizations of catalogs. Inf. Technol. Libr. 35, 19–38 (2016). https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v35i2.8749
Nelson, S.J., Johnston, W.D., Humphreys, B.L.: Relationships in medical subject headings (MeSH). In: Bean, C.A., Green, R. (eds.) Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge, pp. 171–184. Springer, Amsterdam (2001)
IFLA: IFLA Library Reference Model: A Conceptual Model for Bibliographic Information. IFLA, Edinburgh (2017)
Ben Abacha, A., Zweigenbaum, P.: MEANS: a medical question-answering system combining NLP techniques and semantic Web technologies. Inf. Process. Manag. 51, 570–594 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2015.04.006
Shiri, A.: Linked data meets big data: a knowledge organization systems perspective. Adv. Classif. Res. Online. 24, 16–20 (2014). https://doi.org/10.7152/acro.v24i1.14672
W3C: SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference. W3C, Cambridge (2009)
Baker, T., Bechhofer, S., Isaac, A., Miles, A., Schreiber, G., Summers, E.: Key choices in the design of simple knowledge organization system (SKOS). Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 20, 35–49 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2013.05.001
Maltese, V., Farazi, F.: Towards the integration of knowledge organization systems with the linked data cloud. In: Slavic, A., Civallero, E. (eds.) Classification and Ontology: Formal Approaches and Access to Knowledge: Proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 19–20 September 2011, The Hague, the Netherlands, Organized by UDC Consortium, The Hague, pp. 75–90. Ergon, Würzburg (2011)
W3C: SKOS eXtension for Labels (SKOS-XL) Namespace Document—HTML Variant. W3C, Cambridge (2009)
Mader, C., Haslhofer, B., Isaac, A.: Finding quality issues in SKOS vocabularies. In: Zaphiris, P., Buchanan, G., Rasmussen, E., Loizides, F. (eds.) Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries. Springer, Paphos (2012)
Kless, D., Jansen, L., Milton, S.: A content-focused method for re-engineering thesauri into semantically adequate ontologies using OWL. Semant. Web 7, 543–576 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-150194
Jain, P., Hitzler, P., Yeh, P.Z., Verma, K., Sheth, A.: Linked data is merely more data. In: Brickley, D., Chaudhri, V.K., Halpin, H., McGuinness, D. (eds.) Linked Data Meets Artificial Intelligence, pp. 82–86. AAAI Press, California (2010)
Comrie, B.: Language universals and linguistic typology: syntax and morphology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1989)
Stump, G.T.: Inflectional morphology: a theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)
Pirkola, A.: Morphological typology of languages for IR. J. Doc. 57, 330–348 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007085
Prokopidis, P., Georgantopoulos, B., Papageorgiou, H.: A suite of NLP tools for Greek. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of Greek Linguistics, Komotini, Greece (2011)
de Abreu, S.C., Vieira, R.: RelP: portuguese open relation extraction. Knowl. Organ. 44, 163–177 (2017). https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2017-3-163
Bean, C.A., Green, R., Myaeng, S.H.: Introduction. In: Green, R., Bean, C.A., Myaeng, S.H. (eds.) The Semantics of Relationships, pp. vii–xvi. Springer, Amsterdam (2002)
Wacholder, N., Liu, L.: User preference: a measure of query-term quality. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 57, 1566–1580 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20315
Lioma, C., Ounis, I.: A syntactically-based query reformulation technique for information retrieval. Inf. Process. Manag. 44, 143–162 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2006.12.005
Murphy, G.L.: The Big Book of Concepts. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)
Mastora, A., Peponakis, M., Kapidakis, S.: SKOS concepts and natural language concepts: an analysis of latent relationships in KOSs. J. Inf. Sci. 43, 492–508 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551516648108
Johansson, I.: Four kinds of Is_a relation. In: Munn, K., Smith, B. (eds.) Applied Ontology: An Introduction, pp. 235–254. De Gruyter, Berlin (2008)
Peters, I., Weller, K.: Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations in knowledge organization systems. Inf. Wiss. Prax. 59, 100–107 (2008)
ISO: ISO 25964-1: Information and Documentation—Thesauri and Interoperability with Other Vocabularies—Part 1: Thesauri for Information Retrieval. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva (2011)
Aitchison, J., Clarke, S.D.: The thesaurus: a historical viewpoint, with a look to the future. Cat. Classif. Q. 37, 5–21 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v37n03_02
Doerr, M.: Semantic problems of thesaurus mapping. J. Digit. Inf. 1 (2001). https://journals.tdl.org/jodi/index.php/jodi/article/view/31
Stellato, A.: Dictionary, thesaurus or ontology? Disentangling our choices in the semantic web jungle. J. Integr. Agric. 11, 710–719 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(12)60060-4
Alexiev, V., Isaac, A., Lindenthal, J.: On the composition of ISO 25964 hierarchical relations (BTG, BTP, BTI). Int. J. Digit. Libr. 17, 39–48 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-015-0162-2
Stone, A.T.: The LCSH century: a brief history of the library of congress subject headings, and introduction to the centennial essays. Cat. Classif. Q. 29, 1–15 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v29n01_01
Heiner-Freiling, M.: Survey on subject heading languages used in national libraries and bibliographies. Cat. Classif. Q. 29, 189–198 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v29n01_13
Harper, C.A.: Encoding library of congress subject headings in SKOS: authority control for the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, Manzanillo, Mexico (2006)
Summers, E., Isaac, A., Redding, C., Krech, D.: LCSH, SKOS and linked data. In: Greenberg, J., Wolfgang, K. (eds.) Metadata for Semantic and Social Applications: Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, pp. 25–33. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, Berlin, Germany (2008)
Kwaśnik, B.H.: Approaches to providing context in knowledge representation structures. In: Slavic, A., Civallero, E. (eds.) Classification and Ontology: Formal Approaches and Access to Knowledge: Proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 19–20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands, Organized by UDC Consortium, The Hague, pp. 9–23. Ergon, Würzburg (2011)
Panzer, M.: Cool URIs for the DDC: towards web-scale accessibility of a large classification system. In: Greenberg, J., Wolfgang, K. (eds.) Metadata for Semantic and Social Applications: Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, pp. 183–190. Berlin, Germany (2008)
Hjørland, B.: The concept of ‘subject’ in information science. J. Doc. 48, 172–200 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026895
Green, R., Panzer, M.: Relations in the notational hierarchy of the dewey decimal classification. In: Slavic, A., Civallero, E. (eds.) Classification and Ontology: Formal Approaches and Access to Knowledge: Proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 19–20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands, Organized by UDC Consortium, The Hague, pp. 161–176. Ergon, Würzburg (2011)
Mazzocchi, F.: Relations in KOS: Is it possible to couple a common nature with different roles? J. Doc. 73, 368–383 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2016-0063
Mitchell, J.S., Zeng, M.L., Žumer, M.: Modeling classification systems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. Cat. Classif. Q. 52, 90–101 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2013.845620
Poli, R., Obrst, L.: The interplay between ontology as categorial analysis and ontology as technology. In: Poli, R., Healy, M., Kameas, A. (eds.) Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer Applications, pp. 1–26. Springer, Amsterdam (2010)
Gruber, T.R.: Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 43, 907–928 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1995.1081
Kohne, J.: Ontology, its origins and its meaning in information science. In: Hagengruber, R., Riss, U. (eds.) Philosophy, Computing and Information Science, pp. 85–89. Pickering & Chatto, London (2014)
Pattuelli, M.C., Provo, A., Thorsen, H.: Ontology building for linked open data: a pragmatic perspective. J. Libr. Metadata 15, 265–294 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2015.1099979
Doerr, M.: The CIDOC conceptual reference module: an ontological approach to semantic interoperability of metadata. AI Mag. 24, 75 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v24i3.1720
ISO: ISO 21127: Information and Documentation: A Reference Ontology for the Interchange of Cultural Heritage Information. ISO, Geneva (2006)
Jupp, S., Bechhofer, S., Stevens, R.: SKOS with OWL: Don’t be full-ish! In: Presented at the CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2009)
Nowroozi, M., Mirzabeigi, M., Sotudeh, H.: The comparison of thesaurus and ontology: case of ASIS&T web-based thesaurus and designed ontology. Libr. Hi Tech. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1108/lht-03-2017-0060
Hoeppe, G.: Representing representation. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 40, 1077–1092 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915594025
de Almeida Campos, M.L., Gomes, H.E.: Ontology: several theories on the representation of knowledge domains. Knowl. Organ. 44, 178–186 (2017). https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2017-3-178
Kless, D., Milton, S., Kazmierczak, E., Lindenthal, J.: Thesaurus and ontology structure: Formal and pragmatic differences and similarities. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66, 1348–1366 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23268
Spero, S.E.: LCSH is to thesaurus as doorbell is to mammal: visualizing structural problems in the library of congress subject headings. In: Metadata for Semantic and Social Applications: Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, p. 203 (2008)
Schwarz, U., Smith, B.: Ontological relations. In: Munn, K., Smith, B. (eds.) Applied Ontology An Introduction. De Gruyter, Berlin (2008)
Fauconnier, G., Turner, M.: The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. Basic Books, New York (2003)
Wilmont, I., Hengeveld, S., Barendsen, E., Hoppenbrouwers, S.: Cognitive mechanisms of conceptual modelling. In: Ng, W., Storey, V.C., Trujillo, J.C. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling, pp. 74–87. Springer, Berlin (2013)
Zeng, M.L., Mayr, P.: Knowledge organization systems (KOS) in the semantic web: a multi-dimensional review. Int. J. Digit. Libr. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-018-0241-2
Kless, D., Lindenthal, J., Milton, S., Kazmierczak, E.: Interoperability of knowledge organization systems with and through ontologies. In: Slavic, A., Civallero, E. (eds.) Classification and Ontology: Formal Approaches and Access to Knowledge: Proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 19–20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands, Organized by UDC Consortium, The Hague, pp. 55–74. Ergon, Würzburg (2011)
Wittgenstein, L.: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Routledge, London (2001)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Peponakis, M., Mastora, A., Kapidakis, S. et al. Expressiveness and machine processability of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS): an analysis of concepts and relations. Int J Digit Libr 20, 433–452 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-019-00269-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-019-00269-0