research-article

The dream of a global knowledge network—A new approach

Authors:

Martin Doerr,

Dolores IorizzoAuthors Info & Claims

Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH), Volume 1, Issue 1

Article No.: 5, Pages 1 - 23

https://doi.org/10.1145/1367080.1367085

Published: 18 June 2008 Publication History

Get Access

Abstract

Decades of research have been devoted to the goal of creating systems which integrate information into a global knowledge network, yet we still face problems of cross-repository interoperability, lack of public infrastructure, and a coherent research agenda—both theoretical and practical—to face these challenges. Interest in the semantic Web has revived the dream, but many are sceptical. This article offers a breakthrough to problems of semantic interoperability and defends the feasibility of a global knowledge network against traditional counterarguments. It offers a new approach based on (i) interdisciplinary research of scholarly and scientific discourse, (ii) a generic global ontological model based on relations and co-reference rather than objects, (iii) semi-automatic maintenance of co-reference links, and (iv) public engagement in the creation and development of the network.

References

[1]

Aberer, K., Catarci, T., Cudre-Maruroux, P., Dillon, T. S., Grimm, S., Hacid, M.-S., Illarramendi, A., Jarrar, M., Kashyap, V., Mecella, M., Mena, E., Neuhold, E. J., Ouksel, A. M., Risse, T., Scannapieco, M., Saltor, F., Santis, L., Spaccapietra, S., Staab, S., Studer, R., and Troyer, O. 2004. Emergent semantics systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Semantics of a Networked World (ICSNW'04). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3226, 14--43.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[2]

Bayardo, R. J., Bohrer, W., Bnee, R., et al. 1997. InfoSleuth: Agent-based semantic integration of information in open and dynamic environments. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. vol. 26, 2, 195--206.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[3]

Berners-Lee, T. and Fischetti, M. 1999. Weaving The Web: The Original Design And Ultimate Destiny Of The World Wide Web by its Inventor. Harper Collins, New York, NY.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[4]

Berners-Lee, T., Handler, J., and Lassila, O. 2001. The Semantic Web. Scientific American. May.

Google Scholar

[5]

Bilenko, M. and Mooney, R. J. 2003. Adaptive duplicate detection using learnable string similarity measures. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD'03). Washington DC, 39--48.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[6]

Broder, A., Kumar, R., Maghoul, F., Raghavan, P., Rajagopalan, S., Stata, R., Tomkins, A., and Wiener, J. 2000. Graph structure in the Web. Comput. Netw.: Int. J. Comput. Telecomm. Netw. 33, 1--6, 309--320.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[7]

Cali, A. 2003. Reasoning in data integration systems: Why LAV and GAV are siblings. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Mothodologies for Intelligent System (ISMIS'03). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2871, 562--571.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[8]

Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., and Rosati, R. 1998. Description logic framework for information integration. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'98). 2--13.

Google Scholar

[9]

Cardoso, J. and Sheth, A. Eds. 2006. Semantic Web Services, Processes and Applications. Springer.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[10]

Cidoc, Crm. 2006. The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model. http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/.

Google Scholar

[11]

Crofts, N. 1999. Implementing the CIDOC CRM with a relational database. MCN Spectra. 24, 1.

Google Scholar

[12]

Crofts, N., Doerr, M., Gill, T., Stead, S., and Stiff M. 2005. Definition of the CIDOC conceptual reference model. http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/docs/cidoc_crm_version_4.2.doc.

Google Scholar

[13]

Cycorp, Inc. 2006. What does Cyc knowr&quest; http://www.cyc.com/cyc/technology/whatiscyc_dir/whatdoescycknow.

Google Scholar

[14]

Dionissiadou, I. and Doerr, M. 1994. Mapping of material culture to a semantic network. In Proceedings of the 1994 Joint Annual Meeting of the International Council of Museums Documentation Committee and Computer Network. Washington DC.

Google Scholar

[15]

Degen, W., Heller, B., Herre, H., and Smith, B. 2001. GOL—Towards an Axiomatized Upper-Level Ontology. Electron. Comput. Sci.

Google Scholar

[16]

Dewey, M. 2003. Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index. Ed. 22. Vol. 1--4, OCLC Forest Press.

Google Scholar

[17]

Dodds, L. 2004. An Introduction to FOAF. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/02/04/foaf.html.

Google Scholar

[18]

Doerr, M. 2003. The CIDOC CRM—An ontological approach to semantic interoperability of metadata. AI Magazine 24, 3.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[19]

Doerr, M., Hunter, J., and Lagoze, C. 2003. Towards a core ontology for information integration. J. Digital Inform. 4, Article 169.

Google Scholar

[20]

Doerr, M., Plexousakis, D., Kopaka, K., and Bekiari, C. 2004. Supporting chronological reasoning in archaeology. In Proceedings of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference (CAA'04). Prato, Italy, http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/publications/paperlink/caa2004_supporting_chronological_reasoning.pdf.

Google Scholar

[21]

Doerr, M., Schaller, K., and Theodoridou, M. 2004. Integration of complementary archaeological sources. In Proceedings of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference (CAA'04). Prato, Italy. http://www.ics. forth.gr/isl/publications/paperlink/doerr3_caa2004.pdf.

Google Scholar

[22]

Doerr, M. and Leboeuf, P. 2006. Modelling intellectual processes: The FRBR—CRM harmonization. In Conference Proceedings of ICOM-CIDOC Annual Meeting. Gothenburg, Sweden. 10--14.

Google Scholar

[23]

Doerr, M. and Kritsotaki, A. 2006. Documenting events in metadata. In The e-volution of Information Communication Technology in Cultural Heritage, 56--61.

Google Scholar

[24]

Dcmi. 2006. Dublin Core metadata initiative, Making it easier to find information. http://dublincore.org/.

Google Scholar

[25]

Dworman, G. O., Kimborough, S. O., and Patch, C. 2000. Pattern-directed search of archives and collections, J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. 51, 1, (Special issue. When museum informatics meets the World Wide Web), 14--23.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[26]

Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. 2002. The Way we Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Complexities. Basic Books, New York, NY.

Google Scholar

[27]

P. Leboeuf Ed. 2005. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR): Hype or Cure-All&quest;. Haworth Press, Inc.

Google Scholar

[28]

Gardin, J.-Cl. 1990. The structure of archaeological theories. In Studies in Modern Archaeology, vol. 3, 7--25.

Google Scholar

[29]

Genereux, M. and Niccolucci, F. 2006. Extraction and mapping of CIDOC-CRM encodings from texts and other digital formats. In The e-volution of Information Communication Technology in Cultural Heritage, 56--61.

Google Scholar

[30]

Gruber, T. R. 1993. Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Inter. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 43, 907--928.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[31]

Guarino, N. 1998. Formal ontology and information systems. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference. Formal Ontology in Information Systems. Trento, Italy. IOS Press, 3--15

Google Scholar

[32]

Guarino, N. and Welty, C. 2001. Identity and subsumption. LADSEB-CNR Internal Report 01/2001.

Google Scholar

[33]

Halsall, P. 1997. Modern history sourcebook: The Yalta conference, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1945YALTA.html.

Google Scholar

[34]

Kim, S., Lewis, P., and Martinez, K. 2004. SCULPTEUR D7.1, Semantic Network of Concepts and their Relationships. http://www.sculpteurweb.org/html/events/D7.1_Public.zip.

Google Scholar

[35]

Lagoze, C., Krafft, D. B., Payette, S., and Jesurogai, S. 2005. What Is a digital library anymore, anyway&quest; D-Lib Magazine 11, 11.

Google Scholar

[36]

Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Google Scholar

[37]

Levesque, H. J. 1984. Foundations of a functional approach to knowledge representation. AI 23, 2, 155--212.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[38]

Levy, A. Y., Rajaraman, A., and Ordille, J. 1996. Querying heterogeneous information sources using source descriptions. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Very Large Databases. Bombay, India, 251--262.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[39]

Lu, J. J., Nerode, A., and Subrahmanian, V. S. 1996. Hybrid knowledge bases. IEEE Trans. Knowledge and Data Engineering, Volume 8, Issue 5, 773--785, ISSN:1041-434.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[40]

Magkanaraki, A., Alexaki, S., Christophides, V., and Plexousakis, D. 2002. Benchmarking RDF schemata for the Semantic Web. In Proceedings of the 1st International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC'02). Sardinia, Italy, Vol. 2342/2002, Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[41]

Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., and Oltramari, A. 2001. The WonderWeb Library of Foundational Ontologies and the DOLCE ontology. http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org/deliverables/documents/D18.pdf.

Google Scholar

[42]

Nussbaumer, P. and Haslhofer, B. 2007. CIDOC CRM in action—Experiences and challenges. In Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 532--533.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[43]

Patel, M., Koch, T., Doerr, M., Tsinaraki, C., Gioldasis, N., Golub, K., and Tudhope, D. 2005. Semantic Interoperability in Digital Library Systems, DELOS Network of Excellence on Digital Libraries.

Google Scholar

[44]

Podnar, I., Luu, T., Rajman, M., Klemm, F., Aberer, K. 2006. A peer-to-peer architecture for information retrieval across digital library collections. In Proceedings of 10th European Conference (ECDL'06). Alicante, Spain, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 14--25.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[45]

Rdf Semantics. 2004. W3C Recommendation 2004, version http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/. P. Hayes, Ed. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/.

Google Scholar

[46]

Reed, P.-A. 1995. CIDOC relational data model, A guide. http://www.willpowerinfo.myby.co.uk/cidoc/model/relational.model/datamodel.pdf.

Google Scholar

[47]

Roux, V. and Blasco P. 2004. Logicisme et format SCD: d'une épistémologie pratique à de nouvelles pratiques édito-riales Hermès. CNRS-éditions.

Google Scholar

[48]

Rodriguez, M. A., Steinbock, D. J., Watkins, J. H., Gershenson, C., Bollen, J., Grey, V., and Degraf, B. 2007. Smartocracy: Social networks for collective decision making. In Proceedings of IEEE Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science (HICSS'07), 90.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[49]

Ryan, W. and Pitman, W. 1998. Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event That Changed History. Sinon & Schuster.

Google Scholar

[50]

Schorlemmer, M. and Kalfoglou, Y. 2005. Progressive ontology alignment for meaning coordination: an information-theoretic foundation. In Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS'05). Utrecht, Holland.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[51]

Sinclair, P., Addis, M., Choi, F., Doerr, M., Lewis, P., and Martinez, K. 2006. The use of CRM Core in multimedia annotation. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Semantic Web Annotations for Multimedia (SWAMM'06). Edinburgh, Scotland.

Google Scholar

[52]

Smith, B. 2003. Ontology. In The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information, L. Floridi, Ed. Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 155--166.

Google Scholar

[53]

Sowa, J. F. 1992. Semantic networks. In Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, 2nd Ed. S. C. Shapiro, Ed. John Wiley, NewYork, NY, 1493--1511.

Google Scholar

[54]

Storey, V. C. 2005. Comparing relationships in conceptual modelling: Mapping to semantic classifications. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Engin. 17, 11.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[55]

Streitz, N. A., Haake, J. M., Hannemann, J., Lemke, A. C., Schuler, W., Schutt, H. A., and Thuring, M. 1992. SEPIA: A cooperative hypermedia authoring environment. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (ECHT'92), D. Lucarella, J. Nanard, M. Nanard, and P. Paolini, Eds., ACM Press, 11--22.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[56]

Toulmin, S. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Google Scholar

[57]

UMLS® KNOWLEDGE SOURCES. 2000. February Release 2006AA Documentation. US, National Library of medicine, National Institutes of Health. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/archive/2006AA/umlsdoc.html.

Google Scholar

[58]

Vincent, K. P. 2005. Text mining methods for event recognition in stories. Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK, Tech. Rep. kmi-05-02, http://kmi.open.ac.uk/publications/pdf/kmi-05-2.pdf.

Google Scholar

[59]

Weibel, S., Iannella, R., and Cathro, W. 1997. The 4th Dublin Core metadata workshop report. D-Lib Magazine.

Google Scholar

[60]

Wiederhold, G. 1992. Mediators in the architecture of future information systems. IEEE Computer.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[61]

Wiggins, D. 2001. Identity and Substance Renewed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.

Google Scholar

[62]

Wittgenstein, L. 1984. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Tagebücher 1915--1916. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, Germany.

Google Scholar

[63]

Wordnet. 2006. WordNet a lexical database for the English language. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/.

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Beretta F(2024)Conceptualising Information Production in the Context of the SDHSS Ontology EcosystemMéthodos10.4000/12xqn24Online publication date: 2024
https://doi.org/10.4000/12xqn
Peponakis MKapidakis SDoerr MTountasaki E(2024)From Calculations to ReasoningSocial Science Computer Review10.1177/0894439323116769242:1(84-102)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1177/08944393231167692
Dayan R(2024)Knowledge Versus Terror: Knowledge Transfer to Address the Terrorist Threat to the Smart CityIssues of Terrorism in the Post-Coronavirus Era10.1007/978-3-031-68542-2_4(63-89)Online publication date: 28-Nov-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68542-2_4
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Research between natural and cultural history information: Benefits and IT-requirements for transdisciplinarity

This article describes an approach to transdisciplinary information integration employing a core ontology. Information is modeled here with an ontology based on the CIDOC-Conceptual Reference Model (ISO 21127). When instantiated with some realistic ...
Knowledge network of scientific claims derived from a semantic publication system
16th International Conference on Electronic Publishing --ELPUB 2012 --Social Shaping of Digital Publishing: Exploring the Interplay between Culture and Technology

Currently, the conventional communication channel for reporting scientific results is Web electronic publishing of scientific articles in paper print formats, such as PDFs. The emergence of the Semantic Web and Linked Data environment provides new ...
Toward semantic interoperability with linked foundationalontologies in ROMULUS
K-CAP '13: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on Knowledge capture

A purpose of a foundational ontology is to solve interoperability issues among ontologies. Many foundational ontologies have been developed, re-introducing the ontology interoperability problem. We address this with the new online foundational ontology ...

Reviews

Reviewer: Constantin S Chassapis

The fundamental objective of users seeking information is not to "get an object," which is what happens, for example, after following a Web hyperlink, but to understand a subject. Understanding is unveiled through associations?associations of database records, digital objects, metadata, or indices. Knowledge is understanding?and vice versa. The feasibility of a global knowledge network is not a dream anymore. This is a direct consequence of the line of reasoning presented in this paper, based on a generic global ontological model that is based on relationships and coreference rather than objects. This fine paper presents a work that I can describe as knowledge engineering at its best. Even though the Web is densely linked, the information itself is not generally related in a meaningful way. As Doerr and Iorizzo point out, "current search engines will never be enough because they fail to provide epistemological and historical context of a question which gives results meaning. [T]hey are designed as a tool for information aggregation [,] not knowledge integration." We can distinguish ontologies as: core ontologies for schema semantics, such as "part of," "located at," "used for," and "made from" (these are small and rich); ontologies that are used as categorical data for reference and agreement on ensembles of things, such as "football shoe," "physician," and "African elephant"; and factual background knowledge for reference and agreement. The International Committee for Documentation (CIDOC) conceptual reference model (CRM) (ISO21127:2006 standard) is a core ontology?of just 80 classes and 132 properties?that describes the underlying semantics of schemata and structures from all museum disciplines, archives, and libraries. It has been developed by the CIDOC CRM special interest group of the International Council of Museums (ICOM), following an initiative of the Institute of Computer Science of the Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas (ICS-FORTH). In essence, the CIDOC CRM is a generic model of recording "what has happened." It can generate huge, meaningful networks of knowledge. It possesses a quality that points to its fundamental nature: minimal or no specialization allows for covering new domains. This fine paper will not only be helpful to people who wish to understand the CIDOC CRM, but also to information technology professionals who build knowledge management systems (KMSs) or document management systems (DMSs), as well as to all of us who aspire to build an Internet of knowledge and not only of data, a vehicle for understanding and not only for commerce. Online Computing Reviews Service

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage

Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage Volume 1, Issue 1

June 2008

124 pages

ISSN:1556-4673

EISSN:1556-4711

DOI:10.1145/1367080

Issue’s Table of Contents

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 18 June 2008

Accepted: 01 November 2007

Revised: 01 May 2007

Received: 01 December 2006

Published in JOCCH Volume 1, Issue 1

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

28
Total Citations
View Citations
2,113
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)15
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5

Reflects downloads up to 25 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Beretta F(2024)Conceptualising Information Production in the Context of the SDHSS Ontology EcosystemMéthodos10.4000/12xqn24Online publication date: 2024
https://doi.org/10.4000/12xqn
Peponakis MKapidakis SDoerr MTountasaki E(2024)From Calculations to ReasoningSocial Science Computer Review10.1177/0894439323116769242:1(84-102)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1177/08944393231167692
Dayan R(2024)Knowledge Versus Terror: Knowledge Transfer to Address the Terrorist Threat to the Smart CityIssues of Terrorism in the Post-Coronavirus Era10.1007/978-3-031-68542-2_4(63-89)Online publication date: 28-Nov-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68542-2_4
Beretta F(2023)Données ouvertes liées et recherche historique : un changement de paradigmeHumanités numériques10.4000/revuehn.3349Online publication date: 1-Jul-2023
https://doi.org/10.4000/revuehn.3349
Fafalios PPetrakis KSamaritakis GDoerr KKritsotaki ATzitzikas YDoerr M(2021)FAST CATJournal on Computing and Cultural Heritage 10.1145/346146014:4(1-20)Online publication date: 16-Jul-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3461460
Fafalios PKonsolaki KCharami LPetrakis KPaterakis MAngelakis DTzitzikas YBekiari CDoerr M(2021)Towards Semantic Interoperability in Historical Research: Documenting Research Data and Knowledge with SynthesisThe Semantic Web – ISWC 202110.1007/978-3-030-88361-4_40(682-698)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-88361-4_40
Isa WZin NRosdi FSarim HWook THusin SJusoh SLawiAli S(2020)An Ontological Approach for Creating a Brassware Craft Knowledge BaseIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2020.30227958(163434-163446)Online publication date: 2020
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3022795
Henninger M(2018)From mud to the museumJournal of Information Science10.1177/016555151774179044:5(658-670)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1177/0165551517741790
Holdaway SEmmitt JPhillipps RMasoud-Ansari S(2018)A Minimalist Approach to Archaeological Data Management DesignJournal of Archaeological Method and Theory10.1007/s10816-018-9399-6Online publication date: 24-Sep-2018
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-018-9399-6
Guillem ABruseker GRonzino P(2017)Process, concept or thing? Some initial considerations in the ontological modelling of architectureInternational Journal on Digital Libraries10.1007/s00799-016-0188-018:4(289-299)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s00799-016-0188-0
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Research between natural and cultural history information: Benefits and IT-requirements for transdisciplinarity

Knowledge network of scientific claims derived from a semantic publication system

Toward semantic interoperability with linked foundationalontologies in ROMULUS

Reviews

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Comments

Published In

Publisher

Publication History

Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Other Metrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Cited By

Login options

Full Access

PDF

eReader

Abstract

References

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Research between natural and cultural history information: Benefits and IT-requirements for transdisciplinarity

Knowledge network of scientific claims derived from a semantic publication system

Toward semantic interoperability with linked foundationalontologies in ROMULUS

Reviews

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Comments

Information

Published In

Publisher

Publication History

Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

eReader

Figures

Other

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media

Affiliations