What Researchers are Currently Saying about Ontologies: A Review of Recent Web of Science Articles

IF 0.6 4区 管理学 Q3 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Knowledge Organization Pub Date : 2020-11-19 DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2020-3-199
Luís Miguel Oliveira Machado, M. Almeida, R. R. Souza
{"title":"What Researchers are Currently Saying about Ontologies: A Review of Recent Web of Science Articles","authors":"Luís Miguel Oliveira Machado, M. Almeida, R. R. Souza","doi":"10.5771/0943-7444-2020-3-199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Traditionally connected to philosophy, the term ontology is increasingly related to information systems areas. Some researchers consider the approaches of the two disciplinary contexts to be completely different. Others consider that, although different, they should talk to each other, as both seek to answer similar questions. With the extensive literature on this topic, we intend to contribute to the understanding of the use of the term ontology in current research and which references support this use. An exploratory study was developed with a mixed methodology and a sample collected from the Web of Science of articles published in 2018. The results show the current prevalence of computer science in studies related to ontology and also of Gruber's view suggesting ontology as kind of conceptualization, a dominant view in that field. Some researchers, particularly in the field of biomedicine, do not adhere to this dominant view but to another one that seems closer to ontological study in the philosophical context. The term ontology, in the context of information systems, appears to be consolidating with a meaning different from the original, presenting traces of the process of “metaphorization” in the transfer of the term between the two fields of study.","PeriodicalId":46091,"journal":{"name":"Knowledge Organization","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knowledge Organization","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2020-3-199","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Traditionally connected to philosophy, the term ontology is increasingly related to information systems areas. Some researchers consider the approaches of the two disciplinary contexts to be completely different. Others consider that, although different, they should talk to each other, as both seek to answer similar questions. With the extensive literature on this topic, we intend to contribute to the understanding of the use of the term ontology in current research and which references support this use. An exploratory study was developed with a mixed methodology and a sample collected from the Web of Science of articles published in 2018. The results show the current prevalence of computer science in studies related to ontology and also of Gruber's view suggesting ontology as kind of conceptualization, a dominant view in that field. Some researchers, particularly in the field of biomedicine, do not adhere to this dominant view but to another one that seems closer to ontological study in the philosophical context. The term ontology, in the context of information systems, appears to be consolidating with a meaning different from the original, presenting traces of the process of “metaphorization” in the transfer of the term between the two fields of study.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
研究人员目前对本体论的看法:最近科学网络文章综述
传统上与哲学相关的术语本体越来越多地与信息系统领域相关。一些研究人员认为这两种学科背景的方法是完全不同的。另一些人则认为,尽管他们不同,但他们应该互相交谈,因为他们都在寻求类似的问题的答案。有了关于这个主题的大量文献,我们打算有助于理解术语本体在当前研究中的使用,以及哪些参考文献支持这种使用。一项探索性研究采用了混合方法,并从2018年发表的科学网络文章中收集了样本。结果表明,当前计算机科学在本体论相关研究中的盛行,以及格鲁伯认为本体论是一种概念化的观点,这是该领域的主导观点。一些研究人员,特别是生物医学领域的研究人员,并不坚持这种占主导地位的观点,而是坚持另一种似乎更接近于哲学背景下的本体论研究的观点。在信息系统语境下,“本体”一词似乎正在以一种不同于原有意义的方式进行整合,在两个研究领域之间的转移中呈现出“隐喻化”过程的痕迹。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Knowledge Organization
Knowledge Organization INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
28.60%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Research on Coronary Heart Disease Knowledge Organization Based on Follow-up Data The Systems Approach in Soil Science and Landscape Science Scope - Aims Comparative Analysis of National Classification Systems: Cases of Korean Decimal Classification (KDC) and Nippon Decimal Classification (NDC) Organization of Complex Topics in Comprehensive Classification Schemes: Case Studies of Disaster and Security
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1