Possibilities and limits of thesauri compared to other knowledge organization systems: folksonomies, taxonomies and ontologies

Authors

  • Concha Soler Monreal Universidad Politécnica de Valencia
  • Isidoro Gil Leiva Universidad de Murcia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rib.7647

Keywords:

thesauri, folksonomies, taxonomies, ontologies, knowledge, representation languages, comparative analysis

Abstract

On the basis of such variables as objective, source, environment, structure, producers and elaboration costs, a comparative analysis was made among thesauri, folksonomies, taxonomies and ontologies as systems of knowledge organization and representation. Although these tools share the same objective, their characteristics are in direct relationship with their application and their complexity. The results were systematized in dual tables. The conclusion was arrived at that digital environments have stimulated the reuse and adaptation of traditional tools of knowledge representation, as it happens with taxonomies and folksonomies; they have allowed for a natural transference of some tools from the analogical to the electronic world such as thesauri, and they have promoted the development of other new tools such as ontologies. It is also remarked that these systems of knowledge organization and representation are not compatible among them and that, in fact, can be simultaneously incorporated in the design of one and the same web tool.

|Abstract
= 229 veces | PDF (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))
= 202 veces|

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Concha Soler Monreal, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

Doctor in Documentation from the Polytechnic University of Valencia. Valencia Spain. Associate Professor, Department of History of Science and Documentation, University of Valencia.

Isidoro Gil Leiva, Universidad de Murcia

Doctor from the University of Murcia, Current Techniques and Methods Program in Information and Documentation. Associate Professor, Faculty of Communication and Documentation, University of Murcia.

References

ANSI/NISO Z39.19:2005. Guidelines for the construction, format and management of monolingual controlled vocabularies. 4. ed. Bethesda, Md .: National Information Standards Organization, 2005. 184 p.

CÁMARA DE LA FUENTE, L. 2004. La representación lingüística del conocimiento y su relevancia en la ingeniería lingüística [on line]. Hipertext.net, 2004, no 2. [citado marzo 9, 2010].Disponible en la Web: http://www.hipertext.net

DACONTA, M.C., OBRST, L.J. y SMITH, K.T. 2003. The semantic web: a guide to the future of XML, web services, and knowledge management. Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing, 2003.

DAVIS, M. 2006. Semantic wave 2006: executive guide to the business value of semantic technologies. [en línea] USA : Semantic Interoperability Community of Practice, 2006. 56 p. (SICoP white paper series, module 2). [citado mayo 4, 2010] Disponible en Internet: http://web-services.gov/ SICOPsemwave2006v1.0.doc.

FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ, A. 2007. Organización de los contenidos en los sitios web: las taxonomías. Acimed [en línea], 2007, vol.15, no. 5 [citado septiembre 27, 2010]. Disponible en: http://bvs.sld.cu/ revistas/aci/vol15_05_07/aci12507.htm

GIL LEIVA, I. 2008. Manual de indización: teoría y práctica. Gijón: Trea, 2008. 429 p. Disponible par 429 p. Disponible parcialmente en Internet: http://webs.um.es/isgil/

GILCHRIST, A. 2001. Getting the measure of taxonomies. Information World Review, 2001, no. 172, p. 34.

GÓMEZ-PÉREZ, A., FERNÁNDEZ-LÓPEZ, M. y CORCHO, M. 2004. Ontological engineering: with examples from the areas of knowledge management, e-commerce and semantic web. Londres: Springer Verlag, 2004. 403 p.

GROVE, A. 2003. Taxonomy. Encyclopedia of library and information science. 2. ed. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2003, p. 2770-2777.

GRUBER, T. 1993. A translating approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 1993, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 199-220.

Published

2010-12-27

How to Cite

Soler Monreal, C., & Gil Leiva, I. (2010). Possibilities and limits of thesauri compared to other knowledge organization systems: folksonomies, taxonomies and ontologies. Revista Interamericana De Bibliotecología, 33(2), 361–377. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rib.7647

Issue

Section

Investigaciones

Most read articles by the same author(s)