Ontologies and the Semantic Web: Problems and Perspectives for LIS Professionals

Many years have passed since Berners-Lee envi- sioned the Web as it should be (1999), but still many information professionals do not know their precise role in its development, especially con- cerning ontologies –considered one of its main elements. Why? May it still be a lack of under- standing between the different academic commu- nities involved (namely, Computer Science, Lin- guistics and Library and Information Science), as reported by Soergel (1999)? The idea behind the Semantic Web is that of several technologies working together to get optimum information re- trieval performance, which is based on proper resource description in a machine-understandable way, by means of metadata and vocabularies (Greenberg, Sutton and Campbell, 2003). This is obviously something that Library and Information Science professionals can do very well, but, are we doing enough? When computer scientists put on stage the ontology paradigm they were asking for semantically richer vocabularies that could support logical inferences in artificial intelligence as a way to improve information retrieval systems. Which direction should vocabulary development take to contribute better to that common goal? The main objective of this paper is twofold: 1) to identify main trends, issues and problems con- cerning ontology research and 2) to identify pos- sible contributions from the Library and Information Science area to the development of ontologies for the semantic web. To do so, our paper has been structured in the following manner. First, the methodology followed in the paper is reported, which is based on a thorough literature review, where main contributions are analysed. Then, the paper presents a discussion of the main trends, issues and problems concerning ontology re- search identified in the literature review. Recom- mendations of possible contributions from the Library and Information Science area to the devel- opment of ontologies for the semantic web are finally presented.

Term Morphologies as Meaningful Typology Characteristics for Indexing Languages

Every indexing language is made up of terms. Those terms have morphological characteristics. These include terms made up of single words, two words, or more. We can also take into account the total number of terms.We can assemble these measures, normalize them, and then cluster indexing languages based on this common set of measures [1].Cluster analysis reviews discrete groups based on term morphology that comport with traditional design assumptions that separate ontologies, from thesauri, and folksonomies.

Terminology Cross-Domain Final Report

The InterPARES 2 Terminology Cross-Domain has created three terminological instruments in service to the project, and by extension, Archival Science. Over the course of the five-year project this Cross-Domain has collected words, definition, and phrases from extant documents, research tools, models, and direct researcher submission and discussion. From these raw materials, the Cross-Domain has identified a systematic and pragmatic way establishing a coherent view on the concepts involved in dynamic, experiential, and interactive records and systems in the arts, sciences, and e-government.The three terminological instruments are the Glossary, Dictionary, and Ontologies. The first of these is an authoritative list of terms and definitions that are core to our understanding of the evolving records creation, keeping, and preservation environments. The Dictionary is a tool used to facilitate interdisciplinary communication. It contains multiple definitions for terms, from multiple disciplines. By using this tool, researchers can see how Archival Science deploys terminology compared to Computer Science, Library and Information Science, or Arts, etc. The third terminological instrument, the Ontologies, identify explicit relationships between concepts of records. This is useful for communicating the nuances of Diplomatics in the dynamic, experiential, and interactive environment.All three of these instruments were drawn from a Register of terms gathered over the course of the project. This Register served as a holding place for terms, definitions, and phrases, and allowed researchers to discuss, comment on, and modify submissions. The Register and the terminological instruments were housed in the Terminology Database. The Database provides searching, display, and file downloads – making it easy to navigate through the terminological instruments.Terminology used in InterPARES 1 and the UBC Project was carried forward to this Database. In this sense, we are building on our past knowledge, and making it relevant to the contemporary environment.

Layered Information Modeling and a Knowledge Organization Paradigm: Inherent Classification and the Design of Interoperable Systems

In knowledge technology work, as expressed by the scope of this conference, there are a number of communities, each uncovering new methods, theories, and practices. The Library and Information Science (LIS) community is one such community. This community, through tradition and innovation, theories and practice, organizes knowledge and develops knowledge technologies formed by iterative research hewn to the values of equal access and discovery for all. The Information Modeling community is another contributor to knowledge technologies. It concerns itself with the construction of symbolic models that capture the meaning of information and organize it in ways that are computer-based, but human understandable. A recent paper that examines certain assumptions in information modeling builds a bridge between these two communities, offering a forum for a discussion on common aims from a common perspective. In a June 2000 article, Parsons and Wand separate classes from instances in information modeling in order to free instances from what they call the “tyranny” of classes. They attribute a number of problems in information modeling to inherent classification – or the disregard for the fact that instances can be conceptualized independent of any class assignment. By faceting instances from classes, Parsons and Wand strike a sonorous chord with classification theory as understood in LIS. In the practice community and in the publications of LIS, faceted classification has shifted the paradigm of knowledge organization theory in the twentieth century. Here, with the proposal of inherent classification and the resulting layered information modeling, a clear line joins both the LIS classification theory community and the information modeling community. Both communities have their eyes turned toward networked resource discovery, and with this conceptual conjunction a new paradigmatic conversation can take place. Parsons and Wand propose that the layered information model can facilitate schema integration, schema evolution, and interoperability. These three spheres in information modeling have their own connotation, but are not distant from the aims of classification research in LIS. In this new conceptual conjunction, established by Parsons and Ward, information modeling through the layered information model, can expand the horizons of classification theory beyond LIS, promoting a cross-fertilization of ideas on the interoperability of subject access tools like classification schemes, thesauri, taxonomies, and ontologies. This paper examines the common ground between the layered information model and faceted classification, establishing a vocabulary and outlining some common principles. It then turns to the issue of schema and the horizons of conventional classification and the differences between Information Modeling and Library and Information Science. Finally, a framework is proposed that deploys an interpretation of the layered information modeling approach in a knowledge technologies context. In order to design subject access systems that will integrate, evolve and interoperate in a networked environment, knowledge organization specialists must consider a semantic class independence like Parsons and Wand propose for information modeling.

Constructs in Knowledge Organization Systems: Rhythm in Time, Intention, and Form

In the context of the International Society for Knowledge Organization, we often consider knowledge organization systems to comprise catalogues, thesauri, and bibliothecal classification schemes – schemes for library arrangement. In recent years we have added ontologies and folksonomies to our sphere of study. In all of these cases it seems we are concerned with improving access to information. We want a good system.And much of the literature from the late 19th into the late 20th century took that as their goal – to analyze the world of knowledge and the structures of representing it as its objects of study; again, with the ethos for creating a good system. In most cases this meant we had to be correct in our assertions about the universe of knowledge and the relationships that obtain between its constituent parts. As a result much of the literature of knowledge organization is prescriptive – instructing designers and professionals how to build or use the schemes correctly – that is to maximize redundant success in accessing information.In 2005, there was a turn in some of the knowledge organization literature. It has been called the descriptive turn. This is in relation to the otherwise prescriptive efforts of researchers in KO. And it is the descriptive turn that makes me think of context, languages, and cultures in knowledge organization–the theme of this year’s conference.Work in the descriptive turn questions the basic assumptions about what we want to do when we create, implement, maintain, and evaluate knowledge organization systems. Following on these assumptions researchers have examined a wider range of systems and question the motivations behind system design. Online websites that allow users to curate their own collections are one such addition, for example Pinterest (cf., Feinberg, 2011). However, researchers have also looked back at other lineages of organizing to compare forms and functions. For example, encyclopedias, catalogues raisonnés, archival description, and winter counts designed and used by Native Americans.In this case of online curated collections, Melanie Feinberg has started to examine the craft of curation, as she calls it. In this line of research purpose, voice, and rhetorical stance surface as design considerations. For example, in the case of the Pinterest, users are able and encouraged to create boards. The process of putting together these boards is an act of curation in contemporary terminology. It is describing this craft that comes from the descriptive turn in KO.In the second case, when researchers in the descriptive turn look back at older and varied examples of knowledge organization systems, we are looking for a full inventory of intent and inspiration for future design. Encyclopedias, catalogues raisonnés, archival description, and works of knowledge organization in other cultures provide a rich world for the descriptive turn. And researchers have availed themselves of this.

Experientialist Epistemology and Classification Theory: Embodied and Dimensional Classification

What theoretical framework can help in building, maintaining and evaluating networked knowledge organization resources? Specifically, what theoretical framework makes sense of the semantic prowess of ontologies and peer-to-peer sys- tems, and by extension aids in their building, maintenance, and evaluation? I posit that a theoretical work that weds both for- mal and associative (structural and interpretive) aspects of knowledge organization systems provides that framework. Here I lay out the terms and the intellectual constructs that serve as the foundation for investigative work into experientialist classifi- cation theory, a theoretical framework of embodied, infrastructural, and reified knowledge organization. I build on the inter- pretive work of scholars in information studies, cognitive semantics, sociology, and science studies. With the terms and the framework in place, I then outline classification theory s critiques of classificatory structures. In order to address these cri- tiques with an experientialist approach an experientialist semantics is offered as a design commitment for an example: metadata in peer-to-peer network knowledge organization structures.

Function, Purpose, Predication, and Context of Information Organization Frameworks

This paper outlines the purposes, predications, functions, and contexts of information organization frameworks; including: bibliographic control, information retrieval, resource discovery, resource description, open access scholarly indexing, personal information management protocols, and social tagging in order to compare and contrast those purposes, predications, functions, and contexts. Information organization frameworks, for the purpose of this paper, consist of information organization systems (classification schemes, taxonomies, ontologies, bibliographic descriptions, etc.), methods of conceiving of and creating the systems, and the work processes involved in maintaining these systems. The paper first outlines the theoretical literature of these information organization frameworks. In conclusion, this paper establishes the first part of an evaluation rubric for a function, predication, purpose, and context analysis.