International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology

Research Institute for Knowledge Content Development & Technology (건국대학교 지식콘텐츠연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Basic Concepts Classification as a Bottom-Up Strategy for the Semantic Web

  • Received : 2014.03.18
  • Accepted : 2014.06.01
  • Published : 2014.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The paper proposes that the Basic Concepts Classification (BCC) could serve as the controlled vocabulary for the Semantic Web. The BCC uses a synthetic approach among classes of things, relators, and properties. These are precisely the sort of concepts required by RDF triples. The BCC also addresses some of the syntactic needs of the Semantic Web. Others could be added to the BCC in a bottom-up process that carefully evaluates the costs, benefits, and best format for each rule considered.

Keywords

References

  1. Davies, R. (1989). The Creation of New Knowledge by Information Retrieval and Classification. Journal of Documentation, 45(4), 273-301. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026846
  2. DeRidder, J.L. (2007). The immediate prospects for the application of ontologies in digital libraries. Knowledge Organization, 34(4), 227-46.
  3. Guns, R. (2013). Tracing the Origins of the Semantic Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(10), 2173-81. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22907
  4. Hart, G., & Dolbear, C. (2013). Linked Data: A Geographic Perspective. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  5. Integrative Levels Classification (ILC). (2014). Available at Retrieved 2014.05.15.
  6. Lukoianova, Tatiana, & Rubin, Victoria L. (2013). Veracity roadmap: Is big data objective, truthful, and credible? Advances in Classification Research Online. Available at Retrieved 2014.05.15.
  7. Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., & Oltramari, A. (2003). Ontology Library. Laboratory for Applied Ontology - ISTC-CNR. Available at Retrieved 2014.05.15.
  8. Mazzocchi, F., Tiberi, M., De Santis, B., & Plini, P. (2007). Relational semantics in thesauri: some remarks at theoretical and practical levels. Knowledge Organization, 34(4), 197-214.
  9. Pattuelli, M.C., & Rubinow, S. (2013). The knowledge organization of DBpedia: A case study. Journal of Documentation, 69(6), 762-72. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-07-2012-0084
  10. Sequeda, Juan. (2012). The Open World Assumption versus Closed World Assumption. Semantic web.com. Available at Retrieved 2014.05.15.
  11. Svenonius, E. (2004). The Epistemological Foundations of Knowledge Representations. Library Trends, 52(3), 571-87.
  12. Szostak, R. (2003). A Schema for Unifying Human Science: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Culture. Selinsgrove PA: Susquehanna University Press.
  13. Szostak, R. (2011). Complex concepts into basic concepts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 62(1), 2247-65. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21635
  14. Szostak, R. (2012a). Toward a Classification of relationships. Knowledge Organization, 39(2), 83-94.
  15. Szostak, R. (2012b). Classifying relationships. Knowledge Organization, 39(3), 165-78.
  16. Szostak, R. (2013a). Basic Concepts Classification. Available at Retrieved 2014.05.15.
  17. Szostak, R. (2013b). Translation table: DDC [Dewey Decimal Classification] to Basic Concepts Classification. Available at Retrieved 2014.05.15.
  18. Szostak, R. (2015). "A Pluralistic Approach to the Philosophy of Information Science" Invited for a special issue of Library Trends.

Cited by

  1. A Study on Need Analysis for User-Customized Policy Information Services vol.49, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2015.49.2.075