[HN Gopher] A review of ontologies for describing scholarly and ...
___________________________________________________________________
A review of ontologies for describing scholarly and scientific
documents (2014) [pdf]
Author : breck
Score : 15 points
Date : 2021-12-20 20:22 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ceur-ws.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (ceur-ws.org)
| mistrial9 wrote:
| ok "ontology" -- a set of (explicitly named) concepts and
| categories in a subject area or domain that shows their
| properties and the relations between them.
|
| This paper is in English but the authors may be from outside the
| english-speaking world. This gets both a note of respect, since
| the paper is on the subtle uses of language in a formal way, and
| is also a reminder that a giant percentage of the entire world
| does not speak English language, yet researchers may find these
| concepts and methods very useful for their own science progress.
|
| With a stack of several hundred unsorted PDFs nearby, I begin to
| read about how to deeply and mathematically link the contents of
| formal papers. Immediately I am reminded of what others know so
| well -- the structure of the paper itself starts to appear in the
| linking.. so you have ontology of research paper layouts, and
| some standard for that. hmmm I am also immediately reminded that
| scientists describe science, which itself may be described. So
| you have ontology of science experiments, and on the other hand,
| ontology of references and prior arts publications.
|
| With efficiency the authors march through a few well known
| acronyms, like OWL and non-acronym Dublin-core. The pages start
| to roll by and I can see the end coming, so now I know this is
| not a reference work really, but instead a dilligent graduate
| student review. Still interested, but seeing the limitations..
|
| A good reference paper is a starting point to find those parts
| you are missing now.. this appears to be a good candidate for
| that, time allowing. It's worth revisiting whatever progress you
| the reader had made on OWL and Dublin-core in the past. Overall I
| am looking at the date of the paper, and shaking my head over the
| massive forward motion implemented and monetized in this
| information retrieval and search space, already.
|
| People with a few years in the trade may recall a time before
| Facebook, and maybe before Google (I do). There was a sense in an
| earlier phase of computer science that people and small teams
| might make a dent in information retrieval, using modest, small
| scale standards like these mentioned. Somehow, with market and
| internet, those efforts link and the intellectual garden grows.
| Not so, instead, we collectively were steam-rolled by armies,
| laying down veritable four and six lane highways of information,
| with impenetrable inner-workings and simplistic, modern branding.
| A billion people now use services daily, that are built on these
| concepts, without ever a peep to them, of their inner workings,
| implementations and especially short-comings.
|
| This paper probably got upvoted for the same reason a four-
| cylinder gas engine design would get upvoted.. for a nostalgia
| about when a serious inventor could try variations of that and
| actually mean something in the market. This paper is full of
| human-scale ideas for linking and classifying, while the world is
| now accustomed to network-scale implementations of these, as a
| service. As a person, I am reminded by reading and writing this,
| that I need to sort my pdfs manually and get on with it. At the
| same time, I encourage the majority of the world to take this
| English language work, its contents, and bring the concepts to
| your own literate fellows. The world is far too large to be one
| Internet information system alone.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-20 23:01 UTC)