Relations in KOS: is it possible to couple a common nature with different roles?

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper, which increases and deepens what was expressed in a previous work (Mazzocchi et al., 2007), is to scrutinize the underlying assumptions of the types of relations included in thesauri, particularly the genus-species relation. Logicist approaches to information organization, which are still dominant, will be compared with hermeneutically oriented approaches. In the light of these approaches, the nature and features of the relations, and what the notion of a priori could possibly mean with regard to them, are examined, together with the implications for designing and implementing knowledge organizations systems (KOS). Design/methodology/approach The inquiry is based on how the relations are described in literature, engaging in particular a discussion with Hjørland (2015) and Svenonius (2004). The philosophical roots of today’s leading views are briefly illustrated, in order to put them under perspective and deconstruct the uncritical reception of their authority. To corroborate the discussion a semantic analysis of specific terms and relations is provided too. Findings All relations should be seen as “perspectival” (not as a priori). On the other hand, different types of relations, depending on the conceptual features of the terms involved, can hold a different degree of “stability.” On this basis, they could be used to address different information concerns (e.g. interoperability vs expressiveness). Research limitations/implications Some arguments that the paper puts forth at the conceptual level need to be tested in application contexts. Originality/value This paper considers that the standpoint of logic and of hermeneutic (usually seen as conflicting) are both significant for information organization, and could be pragmatically integrated. In accordance with this view, an extension of thesaurus relations’ set is advised, meaning that perspective hierarchical relations (i.e. relations that are not logically based but function contingently) should be also included in such a set.

A Semantic-relations taxonomy for knowledge representation

“…According to Mazzocchi, this is the main element for distinguishing one species from all other species that share the same genus. Finally, for Mazzocchi (2017), the genus-species relationship is seen as truly definitive and independent of the context. The simple hyponym relation was proposed by Stock (2010); Cruse (2002).…”

“…At the concept level, characteristics are the attributes or elements of the concepts. For Mazzocchi (2017), the hyponym-hypernym relationship corresponds to the genus-species relation. According to him, this relation links a genus with its species or a class with its subclasses.…”

“…According to Mazzocchi (2017), hyponym-hypernym relations have historically been portrayed using the Porphyry Tree (Figure 12). Porphyry, a Neoplatonic philosopher of the third century, followed this method to carry out the correct division of the supreme genera (or categories) for individual species.…”

A new framework for ethical creation and evaluation of multi-perspective knowledge organization systems

“…Suchman states that actions are contingent on the "complex world of objects, artifacts, and other actors, located in space and time" (p. 177); however, this "complex world" is not an "extraneous problem," but the "essential resource that makes knowledge possible and gives action its sense" (p. 177). Along these lines, Mazzocchi (2017) has coined the term perspectiveness to reflect the situatedness of the world, according to which knowledge is "made of. .…”

Sistemas e processos de organização do conhecimento

“…O conceito de "linguagens documentárias" inclui, numa espécie de definição extensional, os sistemas de classificação bibliográfica, as listas de cabeçalhos de assunto e os tesauros. Em função da semelhança de algumas propostas no que tange às suas aplicações, às suas estruturas de base relacional e a alguns subsídios teórico-metodológicos compartilhados, tornou-se comum, principalmente na literatura da International So-ciety of Knowledge Organization (ISKO), a utilização da expressão knowledge organization systems (KOS) -em português, sistemas de organização do conhecimento (SOC) -para se referir aos instrumentos utilizados para a organização e representação do conhecimento (Zeng, 2008;Barité Roqueta, 2011;Souza, Thudope e Almeida;Hjørland, 2015;Hjørland, 2016;Mazzocchi, 2017aMazzocchi, , 2017b. Verifica-se um movimento semelhante em algumas publicações brasileiras (Carlan, 2010;Brascher e Carlan, 2010;Carlan e Medeiros, 2011;Lara, 2015).…”