JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
The Basic Concepts Classification as a Bottom-Up Strategy for the Semantic Web
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
The Basic Concepts Classification as a Bottom-Up Strategy for the Semantic Web
Szostak, Rick;
  PDF(new window)
 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
Classification;Ontology;Semantic Web;RDF Triples;Basic Concepts;
 Language
English
 Cited by
1.
이용자맞춤형정책정보서비스 수요분석 연구,곽승진;노영희;김동석;

한국문헌정보학회지, 2015. vol.49. 2, pp.75-109 crossref(new window)
 References
1.
Davies, R. (1989). The Creation of New Knowledge by Information Retrieval and Classification. Journal of Documentation, 45(4), 273-301. crossref(new window)

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. crossref(new window)

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. crossref(new window)

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. crossref(new window)

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.