Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.5771/0943-7444-2021-1-55
Xiaoya Tang, Wei Fu, Yan Liu
The scale of knowledge is growing rapidly in the big data environment, and traditional knowledge organization and services have faced the dilemma of semantic inaccuracy and untimeliness. From a knowledge fusion perspective-combining the precise semantic superiority of traditional ontology with the large-scale graph processing power and the predicate attribute expression ability of property graph-this paper presents an ontology and property graph fusion framework (OPGFF). The fusion process is divided into content layer fusion and constraint layer fusion. The result of the fusion, that is, the knowledge representation model is called knowledge big graph. In addition, this paper applies the knowledge big graph model to the ownership network in the China’s financial field and builds a financial ownership knowledge big graph. Furthermore, this paper designs and implements six consistency inference algorithms for finding contradictory data and filling in missing data in the financial ownership knowledge big graph, five of which are completely domain agnostic. The correctness and validity of the algorithms have been experimentally verified with actual data. The fusion OPGFF framework and the implementation method of the knowledge big graph could provide technical reference for big data knowledge organization and services.
{"title":"Knowledge Big Graph Fusing Ontology with Property Graph: A Case Study of Financial Ownership Network","authors":"Xiaoya Tang, Wei Fu, Yan Liu","doi":"10.5771/0943-7444-2021-1-55","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2021-1-55","url":null,"abstract":"The scale of knowledge is growing rapidly in the big data environment, and traditional knowledge organization and services have faced the dilemma of semantic inaccuracy and untimeliness. From a knowledge fusion perspective-combining the precise semantic superiority of traditional ontology with the large-scale graph processing power and the predicate attribute expression ability of property graph-this paper presents an ontology and property graph fusion framework (OPGFF). The fusion process is divided into content layer fusion and constraint layer fusion. The result of the fusion, that is, the knowledge representation model is called knowledge big graph. In addition, this paper applies the knowledge big graph model to the ownership network in the China’s financial field and builds a financial ownership knowledge big graph. Furthermore, this paper designs and implements six consistency inference algorithms for finding contradictory data and filling in missing data in the financial ownership knowledge big graph, five of which are completely domain agnostic. The correctness and validity of the algorithms have been experimentally verified with actual data. The fusion OPGFF framework and the implementation method of the knowledge big graph could provide technical reference for big data knowledge organization and services.","PeriodicalId":46091,"journal":{"name":"Knowledge Organization","volume":"48 1","pages":"55-71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70899097","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Digital images of cultural heritage (CH) contain rich semantic information. However, today’s semantic representations of CH images fail to fully reveal the content entities and context within these vital surrogates. This paper draws on the fields of image research and digital humanities to propose a systematic methodology and a technical route for semantic enrichment of CH digital images. This new methodology systematically applies a series of procedures including: semantic annotation, entity-based enrichment, establishing internal relations, event-centric enrichment, defining hierarchy relations between properties text annotation, and finally, named entity recognition in order to ultimately provide fine-grained contextual semantic content disclosure. The feasibility and advantages of the proposed semantic enrichment methods for semantic representation are demonstrated via a visual display platform for digital images of CH built to represent the Wutai Mountain Map, a typical Dunhuang mural. This study proves that semantic enrichment offers a promising new model for exposing content at a fine-grained level, and establishing a rich semantic network centered on the content of digital images of CH.
{"title":"Representation and Display of Digital Images of Cultural Heritage: A Semantic Enrichment Approach","authors":"Xu Tan, Xiaoxi Luo, Xiaoguang Wang, Hongyu Wang, Xilong Hou","doi":"10.5771/0943-7444-2021-3-231","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2021-3-231","url":null,"abstract":"Digital images of cultural heritage (CH) contain rich semantic information. However, today’s semantic representations of CH images fail to fully reveal the content entities and context within these vital surrogates. This paper draws on the fields of image research and digital humanities to propose a systematic methodology and a technical route for semantic enrichment of CH digital images. This new methodology systematically applies a series of procedures including: semantic annotation, entity-based enrichment, establishing internal relations, event-centric enrichment, defining hierarchy relations between properties text annotation, and finally, named entity recognition in order to ultimately provide fine-grained contextual semantic content disclosure. The feasibility and advantages of the proposed semantic enrichment methods for semantic representation are demonstrated via a visual display platform for digital images of CH built to represent the Wutai Mountain Map, a typical Dunhuang mural. This study proves that semantic enrichment offers a promising new model for exposing content at a fine-grained level, and establishing a rich semantic network centered on the content of digital images of CH.","PeriodicalId":46091,"journal":{"name":"Knowledge Organization","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70899383","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.5771/0943-7444-2021-3-248
Dong-Geun Oh
The Korean Decimal Classification (KDC) is a national standard classification system of the Korean library community published and maintained by the Classification Committee of the Korean Library Association. This article examines its general history from its advent to the latest edition (KDC 6), its usage, external characteristics including format and layout, internal principles and characteristics including outline and classificatory principles applied, general aspects of the schedule and the major tables, development and maintenance, and general evaluation. It concludes with some ideas and recommendations for future research and development.
{"title":"Korean Decimal Classification (KDC): Its History, Development, Characteristics, and Future Prospect","authors":"Dong-Geun Oh","doi":"10.5771/0943-7444-2021-3-248","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2021-3-248","url":null,"abstract":"The Korean Decimal Classification (KDC) is a national standard classification system of the Korean library community published and maintained by the Classification Committee of the Korean Library Association. This article examines its general history from its advent to the latest edition (KDC 6), its usage, external characteristics including format and layout, internal principles and characteristics including outline and classificatory principles applied, general aspects of the schedule and the major tables, development and maintenance, and general evaluation. It concludes with some ideas and recommendations for future research and development.","PeriodicalId":46091,"journal":{"name":"Knowledge Organization","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70899466","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.5771/0943-7444-2021-4-307
Dominic J. Farace, Hélène Prost, A. Zane, Birger Hjørland
This article presents and discusses different kinds of data documents, including data sets, data studies, data papers and data journals. It provides descriptive and bibliometric data on different kinds of data documents and discusses the theoretical and philosophical problems by classifying documents according to the DIKW model (data documents, information documents, knowledge documents and wisdom documents). Data documents are, on the one hand, an established category today, even with its own data citation index (DCI). On the other hand, data documents have blurred boundaries in relation to other kinds of documents and seem sometimes to be understood from the problematic philosophical assumption that a datum can be understood as “a single, fixed truth, valid for everyone, everywhere, at all times”
{"title":"Data Documents","authors":"Dominic J. Farace, Hélène Prost, A. Zane, Birger Hjørland","doi":"10.5771/0943-7444-2021-4-307","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2021-4-307","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents and discusses different kinds of data documents, including data sets, data studies, data papers and data journals. It provides descriptive and bibliometric data on different kinds of data documents and discusses the theoretical and philosophical problems by classifying documents according to the DIKW model (data documents, information documents, knowledge documents and wisdom documents). Data documents are, on the one hand, an established category today, even with its own data citation index (DCI). On the other hand, data documents have blurred boundaries in relation to other kinds of documents and seem sometimes to be understood from the problematic philosophical assumption that a datum can be understood as “a single, fixed truth, valid for everyone, everywhere, at all times”","PeriodicalId":46091,"journal":{"name":"Knowledge Organization","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70899562","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-19DOI: 10.5771/0943-7444-2020-3-199
Luís Miguel Oliveira Machado, M. Almeida, R. R. Souza
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.
{"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":"https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2020-3-199","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":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41923227","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-28DOI: 10.5771/0943-7444-2020-6-486
Carlin Soos, G. Leazer
The “author” is a concept central to many publication and documentation practices, often carrying legal, professional, social, and personal importance. Typically viewed as the solitary owner of their creations, a person is held responsible for their work and positioned to receive the praise and criticism that may emerge in its wake. Although the role of the individual within creative production is undeniable, literary (Foucault 1977; Bloom 1997) and knowledge organization (Moulaison et. al. 2014) theorists have challenged the view that the work of one person can-or should-be fully detached from their professional and personal networks. As these relationships often provide important context and reveal the role of community in the creation of new things, their absence from catalog records presents a falsely simplified view of the creative process. Here, we address the consequences of what we call the “author-as-owner” concept and suggest that an “author-as-node” approach, which situates an author within their networks of influence, may allow for more relational representation within knowledge organization systems, a framing that emphasizes rather than erases the messy complexities that affect the production of new objects and ideas.
{"title":"Presentations of Authorship in Knowledge Organization","authors":"Carlin Soos, G. Leazer","doi":"10.5771/0943-7444-2020-6-486","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2020-6-486","url":null,"abstract":"The “author” is a concept central to many publication and documentation practices, often carrying legal, professional, social, and personal importance. Typically viewed as the solitary owner of their creations, a person is held responsible for their work and positioned to receive the praise and criticism that may emerge in its wake. Although the role of the individual within creative production is undeniable, literary (Foucault 1977; Bloom 1997) and knowledge organization (Moulaison et. al. 2014) theorists have challenged the view that the work of one person can-or should-be fully detached from their professional and personal networks. As these relationships often provide important context and reveal the role of community in the creation of new things, their absence from catalog records presents a falsely simplified view of the creative process. Here, we address the consequences of what we call the “author-as-owner” concept and suggest that an “author-as-node” approach, which situates an author within their networks of influence, may allow for more relational representation within knowledge organization systems, a framing that emphasizes rather than erases the messy complexities that affect the production of new objects and ideas.","PeriodicalId":46091,"journal":{"name":"Knowledge Organization","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43369857","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-28DOI: 10.5771/0943-7444-2020-6-461
Birger Hjørland
Section 1 raises the issue of this article: whether knowledge organization systems (KOS) and knowledge organization processes (KOP) are neutral or political by nature and whether it is a fruitful ideal that they should be neutral. These questions are embedded in the broader issue of scientific and scholarly research methods and their philosophical assumptions: what kinds of methods and what epistemological assumptions lie behind the construction of KOS (and research in general)? Section 2 presents and discusses basic approaches and epistemologies and their status in relation to neutrality. Section 3 offers a specific example from feminist scholarship in order to clearly demonstrate that methodologies that often claim to be or are considered apolitical represent subjectivity disguised as objectivity. It contains four subsections: 3.1 Feminist views on History, 3.2 Psychology, 3.3 Knowledge Organization, and 3.4. Epistemology. Overall, feminist scholarship has argued that methodologies, claiming neutrality but supporting repression of groups of people should be termed epistemological violence and they are opposed to social, critical, and pragmatic epistemologies that reflect the interaction between science and the greater society. Section 4 discusses the relation between the researchers’ (and indexers’) political attitudes and their paradigms/indexing. Section 5 considers the contested nature of epistemological labels, and Section 6 concludes that the question of whose interest a specific KOS, algorithm, or information system is serving should always be at the forefront in information studies and knowledge organization (KO).
{"title":"Political Versus Apolitical Epistemologies in Knowledge Organization","authors":"Birger Hjørland","doi":"10.5771/0943-7444-2020-6-461","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2020-6-461","url":null,"abstract":"Section 1 raises the issue of this article: whether knowledge organization systems (KOS) and knowledge organization processes (KOP) are neutral or political by nature and whether it is a fruitful ideal that they should be neutral. These questions are embedded in the broader issue of scientific and scholarly research methods and their philosophical assumptions: what kinds of methods and what epistemological assumptions lie behind the construction of KOS (and research in general)? Section 2 presents and discusses basic approaches and epistemologies and their status in relation to neutrality. Section 3 offers a specific example from feminist scholarship in order to clearly demonstrate that methodologies that often claim to be or are considered apolitical represent subjectivity disguised as objectivity. It contains four subsections: 3.1 Feminist views on History, 3.2 Psychology, 3.3 Knowledge Organization, and 3.4. Epistemology. Overall, feminist scholarship has argued that methodologies, claiming neutrality but supporting repression of groups of people should be termed epistemological violence and they are opposed to social, critical, and pragmatic epistemologies that reflect the interaction between science and the greater society. Section 4 discusses the relation between the researchers’ (and indexers’) political attitudes and their paradigms/indexing. Section 5 considers the contested nature of epistemological labels, and Section 6 concludes that the question of whose interest a specific KOS, algorithm, or information system is serving should always be at the forefront in information studies and knowledge organization (KO).","PeriodicalId":46091,"journal":{"name":"Knowledge Organization","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46327253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：