FSR 17 18 Feb 2014 Rome Which knowledge
FSR, 17 -18 Feb 2014, Rome Which knowledge organization systems for conceptual interoperability? Claudio Gnoli ISKO Italy
Convergence Libraries (IFLA) Archives (ICA, IASA) Museums (ICOM) + Galleries Zoological gardens Botanical gardens Websites etc. [University of Virginia Art Museum on Vimeo] All store and give access to documents (information resources)
Convergence Encouraged by the digital formats [Rayward as early as 1998] Ideally, people should input a single search and be able to navigate between digital documents (or digital representations of material documents) irrespective of their nature, source and institution
Convergence . . . but is all this real ? ?
Interoperability The Internet, XML-RDF, linked data are boosting technical interoperability. What about conceptual interoperability?
Interoperability <dc: Subject>590</dc: Subject> <owl: Class>Animaux</owl: Class> Technically but not conceptually interoperable metadata Several barriers implied here. . .
Potential information sources Example: “where can I find information on badgers in Tuscany? ”
Potential information sources Well, in books. . .
Potential information sources … in adademic papers. . .
Potential information sources . . . in local museums. . . [Wikimedia]
Potential information sources . . . in zoological gardens [dailymash. co. uk]
Potential information sources (sometimes with Twitter output). . .
Potential information sources … or even in churches fresco in the abbey of Monte Oliveto Maggiore (Tuscany)
Potential information sources All these sources can provide some relevant information (e. g. , that there were tame badgers in 16 th c. Tuscany) So where is their union catalogue ? . . .
KOS The only bridge to retrieve different information sources on a same subject are knowledge organization systems (KOS)
KOS The notion of KOS is useful as it includes tools developed in different communities: keywords and tags terminologies taxonomies subject heading lists } controlled thesauri } vocabularies s. s. classification schemes ontologies. . . Different features but common basic principles
Knowledge Organization (KO) A term in use since the 1970 s [Dahlberg] with precursors [Bliss 1929] includes “subject indexing”, “classification”, “categorization”, “book indexing”, “taxonomies”, “system of the sciences”. . .
Limits to interoperability Acknowledging the common notion of KOS is a first step. However, there are many different KOSs and KOS types which limits conceptual interoperability in several ways: (1) (2) (3) (4) language disciplines representation alignment
Limits to interoperability. 1: Language All verbal KOSs are only useful to speakers of their language. en: fr: it: de: ru: zh: badger blaireau tasso Dachs yazvik 獾亚科
Limits to interoperability. 1 We need multilingual verbal KOSs (e. g. MACS) or classification systems based on notation (e. g. UDC)
Limits to interoperability. 2: Disciplines Library classifications are based on disciplines, while taxonomies or thesauri are not. Please, are you husbandry, or zoology, or entertainment? . . . Well, I'm a badger. . .
Limits to interoperability. 2: Disciplines The León Manifesto recommends that KOSs distinguish phenomena from disciplines and carriers and allow to search independently for each, e. g. : horses badgers in in in military science husbandry comics frescos
Limits to interoperability. 3: Representation Markup formats don't always represent all features of a KOS. E. g. , full faceted structures cannot be represented in MARC (based on non-faceted DDC and LCC), nor in SKOS (based on thesauri) [Gnoli et al. 2011]. <Growth> skos: facet. Of <Animals> <Growth> skos: category <Process>
Limits to interoperability. 3: Representation Most CMSs for the Web don't manage systematic sorting through a notation. OWL allows for any relationship [Zeng et al. 2010], but is mostly used for hierarchical ones until now. . .
Limits to interoperability. 4: Alignment Every KOS organizes knowledge in its own way. Mapping is not always obvious: Aubergines Horticulture =EQ Egg-plants ~EQ Gardening Inland waterways EQ Rivers|Canals [Dextre Clarke 2011 on ISO 25964]
Limits to interoperability. 4: Alignment According to domain analytical theory [Hjørland], KOSs may be incommensurable. Others are more optimistic [Szostak]: circumlocutions always helped translation and trade Fuzzy relationships as in ISO 25964 may be a solution. Still, mapping is costly. . . [sheppardsoftware. com]
Recommendations KOSs should be interoperable as for: (1) language: <. . . lang=“en”> (2) disciplines <Animals> studied. By <Zoology> (3) representation Publish (your KOS in LOD) or perish (4) alignment Invest in mapping
Recommendations – Use KOSs! (Any is better than none. ) - Use interoperable KOSs!
Thanks for your attention! claudio. gnoli@unipv. it @scritur
- Slides: 29