The Current State of SKOS Vocabularies on the Web

We present a survey of the current state of Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) vocabularies on the Web. Candidate vocabularies were gathered through collections and web crawling, with 478 identified as complying to a given definition of a SKOS vocabulary. Analyses were then conducted that included investigation of the use of SKOS constructs; the use of SKOS semantic relations and lexical labels; and the structure of vocabularies in terms of the hierarchical and associative relations, branching factors and the depth of the vocabularies. Even though SKOS concepts are considered to be the core of SKOS vocabularies, our findings were that not all SKOS vocabularies published explicitly declared SKOS concepts in the vocabularies. Almost one-third of the SKOS vocabularies collected fall into the category of term lists, with no use of any SKOS semantic relations. As concept labelling is core to SKOS vocabularies, a surprising find is that not all SKOS vocabularies use SKOS lexical labels, whether skos:prefLabel or skos:altLabel , for their concepts. The branching factors and maximum depth of the vocabularies have no direct relationship to the size of the vocabularies. We also observed some common modelling slips found in SKOS vocabularies. The survey is useful when considering, for example, converting artefacts such as OWL ontologies into SKOS, where a definition of typicality of SKOS vocabularies could be used to guide the conversion. Moreover, the survey results can serve to provide a better understanding of the modelling styles of the SKOS vocabularies published on the Web, especially when considering the creation of applications that utilize these vocabularies.

[1]  Marcin Roszkowski.  Using taxonomies for knowledge exploration in subject gateways , 2011 .

[2]  Gail Hodge,et al.  Systems of Knowledge Organization for Digital Libraries: Beyond Traditional Authority Files , 2000 .

[3]  Ceri Binding.  Implementing Archaeological Time Periods Using CIDOC CRM and SKOS , 2010, ESWC.

[4]  C. Henry,et al.  Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR) , 2010 .

[5]  Antoine Isaac,et al.  LCSH, SKOS and Linked Data , 2008, Dublin Core Conference.

[6]  Li Ding,et al.  Characterizing the Semantic Web on the Web , 2006, SEMWEB.

[7]  L Poole David,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: Foundations of Computational Agents , 2010 .

[8]  Sean Bechhofer,et al.  SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference , 2009 .

[9]  Dean Allemang,et al.  The Semantic Web - ISWC 2006, 5th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2006, Athens, GA, USA, November 5-9, 2006, Proceedings , 2006, SEMWEB.

[10]  Lora Aroyo,et al.  The Semantic Web: Research and Applications , 2009, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[11]  Christoph Tempich,et al.  Towards a benchmark for Semantic Web reasoners - an analysis of the DAML ontology library , 2003, EON.

[12]  Marcia Lei Zeng,et al.  Modeling Classification Systems in SKOS: Some Challenges and Best-Practice Recommendations , 2009, Dublin Core Conference.

[13]  Véronique Malaisé,et al.  A Method to Convert Thesauri to SKOS , 2006, ESWC.

[14]  James A. Hendler,et al.  A Survey of the Web Ontology Landscape , 2006, SEMWEB.

[15]  Marcia Lei Zeng,et al.  Trends and issues in establishing interoperability among knowledge organization systems , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..