Knowledge organization systems, network standards and semantic Web

Aimed at students of library and information science, this paper is introductory in nature and provides basic information about the relationship between knowledge organization systems, ontologies and the World Wide Web architecture known as the Semantic Web. The Web is expected to be gradually populated by content with formalized semantics that will enable the automation of content organization and its retrieval. As implied by its name, the Semantic Web will assume a higher level of connectivity which is going to be based on resource content and meaning while the information organization will predominantly be automatic i.e. based on machine to machine (m2m) information services. This is the reason why the Semantic idea is closely related to the development of ontologies (a simple explanation of an ontology and ontology languages is given based on relevant literature). Traditional knowledge organization systems (KOS) such as classifications and thesauri have been deployed for resource organization and discovery on the Internet and have become de facto standards in resource discovery. KOS tools are likely to become even more important with the Semantic Web, providing they can be exposed and shared using ontologically orientated standards.

[1]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  The Role of Frame-Based Representation on the Semantic Web , 2001 .

[2]  Ying Ding,et al.  A review of ontologies with the Semantic Web in view , 2001, J. Inf. Sci..

[3]  Jian Qin,et al.  Converting a controlled vocabulary into an ontology: the case of GEM , 2001, Inf. Res..

[4]  Alan Gilchrist,et al.  Thesauri, taxonomies and ontologies - an etymological note , 2003, J. Documentation.

[5]  Kim H. Veltman,et al.  Towards a Semantic Web for Culture , 2006, J. Digit. Inf..

[6]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  OIL in a Nutshell , 2000, EKAW.

[7]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  Ontologies Come of Age , 2003, Spinning the Semantic Web.

[8]  Aida Slavic,et al.  Data Models for Knowledge Organization Tools: Evolution and Perspectives , 2002 .

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

[10]  Stephen Cranefield,et al.  Networked Knowledge Representation and Exchange using UML and RDF , 2006, J. Digit. Inf..

[11]  Laurent Romary,et al.  Normalisation des échanges de données en terminologie : les cas des relations dites conceptuelles , 2001 .

[12]  C. Beghtol,et al.  Dynamism and Stability in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings of the Sixth International ISKO Conference 10.-13. July 2000, Toronto, Canada , 2000 .

[13]  N. F. Noy,et al.  Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology , 2001 .

[14]  Nicolas Spyratos,et al.  Extended faceted taxonomies for Web catalogs , 2002, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering, 2002. WISE 2002..

[15]  Kim H. Veltman,et al.  Syntactic and semantic interoperability: New approaches to knowledge and the semantic web , 2001 .

[16]  Dagobert Soergel The rise of ontologies or the reinvention of classification , 1999 .

[17]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean , 2002, CACM.

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

[19]  Diane Vizine-Goetz,et al.  Vocabulary Mapping for Terminology Services , 2004, J. Digit. Inf..

[20]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Understanding and building, using ontologies , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[21]  John F. Sowa,et al.  Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical, and computational foundations , 2000 .