Pieterse, V.; Kourie, D.G.: Lists, taxonomies, lattices, thesauri and ontologies : paving a pathway through a terminological jungle (2014)
0.01
0.011558416 = product of:
0.046233665 = sum of:
0.046233665 = weight(_text_:communication in 1386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046233665 = score(doc=1386,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
0.04488925 = queryNorm
0.23853138 = fieldWeight in 1386, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1386)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- This article seeks to resolve ambiguities and create a shared vocabulary with reference to classification-related terms. Due to the need to organize information in all disciplines, knowledge organization systems (KOSs) with varying attributes, content and structures have been developed independently in different domains. These scattered developments have given rise to a conglomeration of classification-related terms which are often used inconsistently both within and across different research fields. This terminological conundrum has impeded communication among researchers. To build the ideal Semantic Web, this problem will have to be surmounted. A common nomenclature is needed to incorporate the vast body of semantic information embedded in existing classifications when developing new systems and to facilitate interoperability among diverse systems. To bridge the terminological gap between the researchers and practitioners of disparate disciplines, we have identified five broad classes of KOSs: lists, taxonomies, lattices, thesauri and ontologies. We provide definitions of the terms catalogue, index, lexicon, knowledge base and topic map. After explaining the meaning and usage of these terms, we delineate how they relate to one another as well as to the different types of KOSs. Our definitions are not intended to replace established definitions but rather to clarify their respective meanings and to advocate their proper usage. In particular we caution against the indiscriminate use of the term ontology in contexts where, in our view, the term thesaurus would be more appropriate.
