Ontologies in Knowledge Organization: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 3 by Catherine Yang and Version 6 by Vicky Zhou.

Within the knoTwledge organization systems (KOS) set, the term “ontology” is paradigmatic of the terminological ambiguity in different typo perspectives on ontologies. Contributing to this situation is the indiscriminate association of the term “ontology”, both as a specific type of KOS and as a process of categorization, due to the interdisciplinary use of the term with different meanings. We present a systemati coexist in knowledge organization of the perspectives of different authors of ontologies, as representational artifacts, seeking to contribute to terminological clarification. Focusing the analysis on the intention, semantics and modulation of ontologies, it was possible to notice two broad perspectives regarding ontologies as artifacts that coexist in the knowledge organization systems spectrum. We ha systems spectrum. On the one hand, we have ontologies viewed, on the one hand, a as an evolution in terms of complexity of traditional conceptual systems, and such as thesaurus, on the other hand, as a, a system that organizes ontological rather than epistemological knowledge. The focus of ontological analysis is the item to model and not the intentions that motivate the construction of the systemontology. 

  • ontology
  • Knowledge organization systems
  • ontological knowledge
  • ontologies
  • knowledge organization
  • KOS
In the knowledge organization (KO)/information science (IS) community several authors, such as

1. Introduction

Despite early uses of the term ontology

[1][2]

to designate a “theory of a modeled world”,

[3]

the first formulation of a definition for ontology in the context of information systems it only happened in 1991: “the ontology of a system consists of its vocabulary and a set of constraints on the way terms can be combined to model a domain.”

[4]

. Some authors, e.g.

[5], see the work on ontology coming from the computation field as a kind of reinvention of the wheel or an etymological issue, as it concerns classification and other well-known aspects of knowledge organization processes. This situation was reflected in the different views regarding the typology of ontologies as representational artifacts, also known as knowledge organization systems (KOS). Considering the different technical, structural and functional characteristics of KOS, Mazzocchi

, consider the study of Neches and others to be a pioneer in the area of ​​Information Science (IS) despite the connection of its authors, particularly Gruber, to the area of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Others authors, e.g.

[6] presents as a common denominator the function for which these “semantic tools” were designed: supporting the organization of knowledge and information, in order to facilitate their management and recovery.
Within the KOS set, the term “ontology” is paradigmatic of the terminological ambiguity in different typologies. Pieterse and Kourie [7] (p. 227), e.g., state that the term “ontology” refers to “a KOS that can be classified as a relationship list in Hodge’s classification [and] which is classified as a thesaurus in our classification.” Unlike these authors, Biagetti

, pointing to an assumed author of IS

[8] (Section 3.1) considers that “ontologies are a kind of KOS that present the highest degree of semantic richness, as they allow to establish a great number of relations between terms, and provide attributes for each class.” Hjørland

 as the first author of the area to address ontology.

Different views of IS, with a more or less computerized focus

[9] (Section 3.3) also sees ontologies as a different kind of KOS “more general and more abstract” than other “traditional” KOS but, for the author, these “may just be understood as being restricted kinds of ontologies.” Contributing to the latter position will be the indiscriminate association of the term “ontology”, both as a specific type of KOS and as a categorization process, the latter considered by Smiraglia

, contribute to the lack of terminological clarity given the use of the same term, ontology, to designate related but distinct artifacts as to their objectives. Prima facie, while in IS the emphasis is placed on building structures for document content representation and retrieval in Computer Science (CS) the intention is to create models of the world emphasizing the process of automated inference

[10] to be a pillar in the development of any KOS. Though the association of the term “ontology” with the artifact and the process is founded, its indiscriminate use is not advised by Souza and others

. Directly associated with the specificity of the objectives of the two areas, some authors, e.g.

[11] (p. 187): “it might be asserted that all KOS are the products of some kind of ontological modeling, but using the term ‘ontologies’ arbitrarily can cause confusion.” In addition to the KO/IS and computer science areas, another area, philosophy, is necessary to bring to the debate to understand why the term “ontology” is also used as a categorization process.

, place the fields of study: Knowledge Organization (KO) and Knowledge Representation (KR), respectively, within IS and within CS. Although the distinction of these areas of study may be necessary, in the development of knowledge organization systems (KOS) it does not seem possible to separate the two processes. The organization of knowledge is a condition for its representation, which in turn functions as an instrument for the organization to be effective[12].

The set of items called KOS is vast and unclear as to the meaning of much of the terminology used for the various types where the term ontology is paradigmatic of this ambiguity[13][14][15]. The disregard of the multiple dimensions (intrinsic and extrinsic) of the various types of KOS and the undifferentiation between ideal KOS types and particular instances are pointed out by Souza and others[14] as causes for this lack of clarity. Considering only the modeling process, as the authors point out: “[i]t might be asserted that all KOS are the products of some kind of ontological modeling, but using the term ‘ontologies’ arbitrarily can cause confusion.”[14] Applying a similar criterion, we could also designate as ‘classifications’ all KOS as they employ in their development the process of classifying, as Soergel[16] appears to do: “other fields, such as AI, natural language processing, and software engineering, have discovered the need for classification, leading to the rise of what these fields call ontologies.” Disagreeing with Soergel's position, Hjørland[17] considers ontologies "more general and more abstract forms of KOS" than traditional ones, such as classification systems and thesauri, which, for the author, can be understood as "restricted kinds of ontologies."

The fact that many researchers, particularly in the CS-related community as point out in[18], adopt Gruber’s definition: “[a]n ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization,” proposed in[19] and reinforced in[20], favors the indiscriminate use of the term ontology to designate different types of KOS. Criticizing this “mechanical definition” and the uniquely technical guidelines of the W3C RDFS and OWL standards, Kless and others[21] state: “In fact, it implies that any KOS could simply become an ontology by simply changing its representation format.” The authors distinguish two types of ontologies: “data modeling ontologies,” tied to the RDF-based semantics; and the “reality representation ontologies” associated with the description logic semantics. Adding, in relation to the latter: “[i]t can be questioned, whether they should be called ontologies at all and whether they are truly interoperable in the sense of being combinable and reusable.”[21]. Since the 1990s, the proliferation of these systems was due to the search to provide the Web with systems capable of automatic inferences in the context of the so-called Semantic Web (SW). The ability to generate inferences is, however, restricted to the semantic expressiveness of the language used which, in the case of RDFS, is quite limited. RDFS is a web-oriented language and not a true SW (or KR) language[22]. Despite these limitations, it is these systems that underlie what may be called the Web of Linked Data[23] and it is possible to see in this development of the Web a “democratization” of knowledge representation[24].

In terms of interoperability and reusability these lightweight ontologies, as they are often called, face also several limitations due to the ad-hoc approach generally employed in their construction[25]. One consequence of the ad-hoc approach is the continuation of the siloing of data, which ontologies should solve or at least minimize. That's one of the reasons Smith[26] considers this the wrong way to build ontologies. While condescending that a similar approach may be used in some cases of purpose-built application ontologies, the researcher totally dismisses it for the so-called reference ontologies. These, designed to serve scientific purposes, should be developed according to the “principle of orthogonality”[26]. This approach would not only address the data silos problem, but would bring additional benefits such as: mutual consistency of ontologies; unnecessary mapping between ontologies; reduced redundancy; facilitated findability of specific ontological resources; and optimized management of the ontological labor division. Essential to Smith's approach is the articulation with ontological study from his disciplinary area of origin - the philosophy: “information-systems ontology is itself an enormous new field of practical application that is crying out to be explored by the methods of rigorous philosophy.”[27] Articulation seen as necessary for the correct development of ontologies by various researchers, e.g.[10][28][29].

The rigor sought in the ontological representation of reality, advocated for systems of the type of reference ontologies, is relegated to the background by authors such as Gruber[30]: “[i]f ontologies are engineered things, then we don’t have to worry so much about whether they are right and get on with the business of building them to do something useful.” It is, like Smith[26] says, “as if all ontologies, both inside and outside science, are assigned by default the status of application ontologies.” Linked to this approach to ontologies is the conception that ontologies are the result of the common agreement of a community over a portion of the world. This conception is questioned by Poli and Obrst[28] since this result is usually obtained by the lowest common denominator whose utility will be quite doubtful “because it is inconsistent, has uneven and wrong levels of granularity, and doesn’t capture real semantic variances that are crucial for adoption by members of a community.”[28]

2. Conclusions

Summarizing, two perspectives on ontologies coexist in KOS ecosystems, on the one hand, we have ontologies viewed as a more complex conceptual system, on the other, a system that organizes ontological rather than epistemological knowledge. The focus of ontological analysis is the item to model and not the intentions that motivate the construction of ontology. This process involves an analytical complexity that makes the development of such systems quite onerous. However, it is the quality of this analysis that determines its true usefulness.

Given the interdisciplinary nature of this topic, terminology issues are of vital importance for proper communication between different communities. In this context, we aim to present a systematization of the perspectives of different authors of ontologies, as representational artifacts, seeking to contribute to terminological clarification. This paper, in addition to this introduction, contains three more sections. In the second section, we present a brief historical contextualization of the term “ontology”, for a better understanding of the interdisciplinary issue. Then, in the third section, we present the systematization referred to above, focusing on the intention, semantics and modulation of ontologies, based on the two major approaches detected in the different perspectives. Finally, in the fourth section, we synthesize the insights of the present work.

Despite the inherent epistemological interference, i.e., the adjudication of the truth by the modeler, it is the objects, relations, and rules of reality that the ontologist must model. Ultimately "[w]ithout ontology, there is no firm basis for epistemology."[28]

References

  1. Gilchrist, A. Thesauri, Taxonomies and Ontologies—An Etymological Note. J. Doc. 2003, 59, 7–18. Patrick Hayes. The naive physics manifesto. In Expert systems in the micro-electronic age; D. Michie, Eds.; Edinburgh University Press: Trowbridge, 1979; pp. 242–270.
  2. Vickery, B.C. Ontologies. J. Inf. Sci. 1997, 23, 277–286. George H. Mealy; Another look at data. Proceedings of the November 14-16, 1967, joint computer conference on - AFIPS '67 1967, (fall), 525-534, 10.1145/1465611.1465682.
  3. Soergel, D. The Rise of Ontologies or the Reinvention of Classification. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 1999, 50, 1119–1120. Thomas Gruber. Ontology. In Encyclopedia of Database Systems; L. Liu; M. Ozsu, Eds.; Springer: New York. 2009, 1963–1965.
  4. Currás, E. Ontologies, Taxonomies and Thesauri in Systems Science and Systematics; Chandos Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2010; ISBN 978-1-84334-612-8. Robert Neches; Richard Fikes; Tim Finin; Thomas Gruber; Ramesh Patil; Ted Senator; William Swartout; Enabling Technology for Knowledge Sharing. AI Magazine 1991, 12, 36–56.
  5. Dahlberg, I. What Is Knowledge Organization? Knowl. Organ. 2014, 41, 85–91. Qiaoli Zhu; Xuesong Kong; Song Hong; Junli Li; Zongyi He; Global ontology research progress: a bibliometric analysis. Aslib Journal of Information Management 2015, 67, 27-54, 10.1108/ajim-05-2014-0061.
  6. Mazzocchi, F. Knowledge Organization System (KOS). Encycl. Knowl. Organ. 2019. Available online: http://www.isko.org/cyclo/kos (accessed on 29 November 2020).Alan Gilchrist; Thesauri, taxonomies and ontologies – an etymological note. Journal of Documentation 2003, 59, 7-18, 10.1108/00220410310457984.
  7. Pieterse, V.; Kourie, D. Lists, Taxonomies, Lattices, Thesauri and Ontologies: Paving a Pathway Through a Terminological Jungle. Knowl. Organ. 2014, 41, 217–229. Gercina Lima; Benilde Maculan; Estudo comparativo das estruturas semânticas em diferentes sistemas de organização do conhecimento. Ciência da Informação 2017, 46, 60-72.
  8. Biagetti, M.T. Ontologies (as Knowledge Organization Systems). Encycl. Knowl. Organ. 2020. Available online: https://www.isko.org/cyclo/ontologies (accessed on 29 November 2020).Brian Vickery; Ontologies. Journal of Information Science 1997, 23, 277-286, 10.1177/016555159702300402.
  9. Hjørland, B. Knowledge Organization (KO). Encycl. Knowl. Organ. 2019. Available online: http://www.isko.org/cyclo/knowledge_organization (accessed on 29 November 2020).Luís Machado; Maria Simões; Renato Souza; Relações disciplinares entre a Ciência da Informação e a “tríade” Biblioteconomia, Arquivística e Documentação (1960-2000). Ciência da Informação 2017, 46, 33–50.
  10. Smiraglia, R.P. The Elements of Knowledge Organization; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; ISBN 978-3-319-09356-7. Maurício Almeida; Revisiting ontologies: A necessary clarification. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2013, 64, 1682-1693, 10.1002/asi.22861.
  11. Souza, R.R.; Tudhope, D.; Almeida, M.B. Towards a Taxonomy of KOS: Dimensions for Classifying Knowledge Organization Systems. Knowl. Organ. 2012, 39, 179–192. Giunchiglia Fausto; Dutta Biswanath; Maltese Vincenzo; From Knowledge Organization to Knowledge Representation. Knowledge Organization 2014, 41, 44-56.
  12. Maria Campos; Linair Campos; A organização do conhecimento e suas teorias de representação: A ontologia de fundamentação como um modelo teórico para a representação de domínios. In Proceedings of the XIII Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em Ciência da Informação (Enancib); Rio de Janeiro. Proceedings of the XIII Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em Ciência da Informação (Enancib) 2012, (October 28-31), 1-18.
  13. Fulvio Mazzocchi. Knowledge organization system (KOS). Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization; B. Hjørland; C. Gnoli, Eds.; ISKO. 2019. http://www.isko.org/cyclo/kos
  14. Renato Souza; Douglas Tudhope; Maurício Almeida; Towards a Taxonomy of KOS: Dimensions for Classifying Knowledge Organization Systems. Knowledge Organization 2012, 39, 179-192, 10.5771/0943-7444-2012-3-179.
  15. Vreda Pieterse; Derrick G. Kourie; Lists, Taxonomies, Lattices, Thesauri and Ontologies: Paving a Pathway Through a Terminological Jungle. Knowledge Organization 2014, 41, 217-229, 10.5771/0943-7444-2014-3-217.
  16. Dagobert Soergel; The rise of ontologies or the reinvention of classification. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1999, 50, 1119-1120, 10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(1999)50:12<1119::aid-asi12>3.0.co;2-i.
  17. Birger Hjørland. Knowledge organization (KO). Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization; B. Hjørland; C. Gnoli, Eds.; ISKO. 2019. http://www.isko.org/cyclo/knowledge_organization
  18. Luís Machado; Maurício Almeida; Renato Souza; What Researchers are Currently Saying about Ontologies: A Review of Recent Web of Science Articles. Knowledge Organization 2020, 47, 199-219, 10.5771/0943-7444-2020-3-199.
  19. Thomas Gruber; A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 1993, 5, 199-220, 10.1006/knac.1993.1008.
  20. Thomas Gruber; Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 1995, 43, 907-928, 10.1006/ijhc.1995.1081.
  21. Daniel Kless; Jutta Lindenthal; Simon Milton; Edmund Kazmierczak. Interoperability of Knowledge Organization Systems with and through Ontologies. In Universal Decimal Classification Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge. The Hague: UDC Consortium. 2011.
  22. Mauricio Almeida; Renato Souza; Fred Fonseca; Semantics in the Semantic Web: A Critical Evaluation. Knowledge Organization 2011, 38, 187-203, 10.5771/0943-7444-2011-3-187.
  23. Luís Machado; Renato Souza; Maria Simões; Semantic Web or Web of Data? A Diachronic Study (1999 to 2017) of the Publications of Tim Berners‐Lee and the World Wide Web Consortium. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2019, 70, 701–714, 10.1002/asi.24111.
  24. Daniel Martinéz-Ávila; Melodie Fox. The Construction of Ontology: A Discourse Analysis. In Ontology for knowledge organization; R. Smiraglia; H. Lee, Eds.; Ergon-Verlag: Würzburg, 2015; pp. 13–37.
  25. Stefano Borgo; Pascal Hitzler; Some Open Issues After Twenty Years of Formal Ontology. Formal Ontology in Information Systems Proceedings of the 10th International Conference 2018, 306, 1–9.
  26. Barry Smith; Ontology (Science). Formal Ontology in Information Systems Proceedings of the 5th International Conference 2008, 183, 21–35.
  27. Barry Smith. Ontology. In Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information; L. Floridi, Eds.; Blackwell: Oxford, 2003; pp. 155–166.
  28. Roberto Poli; Leo Obrst. The Interplay Between Ontology as Categorial Analysis and Ontology as Technology. In Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer Applications; R. Poli; M. Healy; A. Kameas, Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, 2010; pp. 1–26.
  29. John Sowa; Top-level ontological categories. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 1995, 43, 669-685, 10.1006/ijhc.1995.1068.
  30. Thomas Gruber; “Every ontology is a treaty – a social agreement – among people with some common motive in sharing.”: Tom Gruber’s interview by Miltiadis Lytras. Bull. AIS Spec. Interest Group Semantic Web Inf. Syst. 2004, 1, 1-5.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback