Relational semantics in thesauri: Some remarks at theoretical and practical levels

Knowledge Organization

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 197-214

  Mazzocchi, Fulvio ^a   Tiberi, Melissa ^b   De Santis, Barbara ^a   Plini, Paolo ^a  

^a CNR   (Italy)

^b Central National Library of Florence   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 40749136173     PISSN: 09437444     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5771/0943-7444-2007-4-197     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Ahmad, Khurshid and Fulford, Heather. 1992. Semantic relations and their use in elaborating terminology. Computing Science reports CS-92-7. Surrey: University of Surrey.
2. American Library Association (ALA), Subject Analysis Committee, Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures. 1997. Final report to the ALCTS/CCS Subject Analysis Committee, http://www.ala.org/ala/ alctscontent/catalogingsection/catcommittees/subjectanalysis/subjectrelations/ finalreport.htm (consulted: 15.09.2007).
3. Andersen, Jack and Christensen, Frank Sejer. 1999. Wittgenstein and indexing theory. In Albrechtsen, Hanne and Mai, Jens-Erik eds. Advances in classi-fication research. Proceedings of the 10th ASIG SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop vol. 10. Medford, NJ: Information Today, pp. 1-21.
4. Chaffin, Roger and Herrmann, Douglas J. 1988. The nature of semantic relations: a comparison of two approaches In Evens, MarthaWalton, ed. Relational model of the lexicon, representing knowledge in semantic networks. Studies in natural language processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 249-94.
5. Chaffin, Roger, Herrmann, Douglas J., and Winston, Morton. 1988. An empirical taxonomy of partwhole relations: effects of part-whole type on relation identification. Language and cognitive processes 3: 17-48.
6. Cruse, D. Alan. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Dextre Clarke, Stella G. 2001. Thesaural relationships. In Bean, Carol and Green, Rebecca, eds. Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 37-52.
8. Eco, Umberto. 1983. L'antiporfirio. In Vattimo, Gianni and Rovatti, Pier Aldo, eds., Il pensiero debole. Milan: Feltrinelli, pp. 52-80.
9. Fischer, Dietrich. 1998. From thesauri towards ontologies? In el-Hadi, Mustafa, Maniez, Jacque, and Pollitt, Stephen A. eds., Structure and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 5th International ISKO Conference. Würzburg: Ergon, pp. 18-30.
10. Foskett, Douglas J. 1980. Thesaurus. In Kent, Allen, ed., Encyclopedia of library and information science, vol. 20. New York: Marceli Dekker, Inc., pp. 416-63.
11. Fugmann, Robert. 1993. Subject analysis and indexing, theoretical foundation and practical advice. Frankfurt/Main: INDEKS Verlag.
12. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1976. Truth and method, trans. G. Barden and J. Cumming from the 2nd German ed. London: Sheed and Ward.
13. Gerstl, Peter and Pribbenow, Simone. 1995. Midwinters, end games and body parts: a classification of part-whole relations. International journal of human-computer studies 43. 865-89.
14. HJ0rland, Birger. 1998. Information retrieval, text composition, and semantics. Knowledge organization 25: 16-31.
15. Hjorland, Birger. 2007. Semantics and knowledge organization. Annual review of information science and technology 41: 367-405.
16. Hjorland, Birger Pedersen, Karsten Nissen. 2005. A substantive theory of classification for information retrieval. Journal of documentation 61: 582-97.
17. International Standards Organization (ISO). 1986. ISO 2788: Documentation-guidelines for the establishment and development of monolingual thesauri. 2nd ed. Geneva: ISO.
18. Iris, Madelyn A., Litowitz, Bonnie E. and Evens, Martha Walton. 1988. Problems of the part-whole relation. In Evens, Martha Walton, ed., Relational model of the lexicon, representing knowledge in semantic networks. Studies in natural language processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 261-88.
19. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970 The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Kuhn, Thomas S. 2000 The road since structure: philosophical essays, 1970-1993, with an autobiographical interview. Conant, James and Haugeland, John, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21. Maniez, Jacques. 1988. Relationships in thesauri: Some critical remarks. International classification 15. 133-38.
22. Mazzocchi, Fulvio & Plini, Paolo. 2005. Thesaurus classification and relational structure: the EARTh experience. In Madsen, Bodil Nistrup and Thomsen, Hanne Erdman, eds., Terminology and content development. Proceedings of the 7th International conference on Terminology and Knowledge Engineering. Copenhagen pp. 265-78.
23. Milstead, Jessica L. 2001. Thesaural relationships. In Bean, Carol and Green, Rebecca, eds., Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 53-66.
24. National Information Standards Organization (NISO). 2005. ANSI/NISO 2.39.19.2005: Guidelines for the construction, format and management of monolingual controlled vocabularies. Bethesda (USA): NISO Press.
25. Paling, Stephen. 2004. Classification, rhetoric, and the classification horizon. Library trends 52(3). 588-603.
26. Porphyry. Isagoge, Girgenti, Giuseppe ed.. 2004. Milan: Bompiani.
27. Schmitz-Esser, Windfried. 1991. New approaches in thesaurus application. International classification 18: 143-47.
28. Smith, Barry, Ceusters, Werner, Klagges, Bert, Köhler, Jacob, Kumar, Anand, Lomax, Jane, Mungall, Chris, Neuhaus, Fabian, Rector, Alan L. and Rosse, Cornelius. 2005. Relations in biomedical ontologies. Genome biology, 6: R46.
29. Soergel, Dagobert. 1974. Indexing languages and thesauri: construction and maintenance. Los Angeles: Melville Publishing.
30. Soergel, Dagobert. 1995. The Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT): a critical appraisal. Visual resource 10.369-400.
31. Soergel, Dagobert, Lauser, Boris, Liang, Anita, Fisseha, Frehiwot, Keizer, Johannes and Katz, Stephen. 2004. Reengineering thesauri for new applications: the AGROVOC Example. Journal of digital information 4 issue. 4. Article No. 257. http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v04/i04/Soergel/ (consulted: 01.10.2007).
32. Sowa, John F. 2000. Knowledge representation, logical, philosophical, and computational foundations. New York: Brooks/Cole.
33. Svenonius, Elaine. 2000. The intellectual foundation of information organization. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
34. Svenonius, Elaine. 2004. The epistemological foundations of knowledge representations. Library trends 52(3). 571-87.
35. Tudhope, Douglas, Alani, Harith and Jones, Christopher. 2001. Augmenting thesaurus relationships: possibilities for Retrieval. Journal of digital information 1, Issue 8, Article N.41. http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/ v01/i08/Tudhope/ (consulted: 01.10.2007)
36. Van Slype, Georges. 1976. Definition of the essential characteristics of thesauri. Prepared for the Commission of the European Communities. Bruxelles: Bureau Marcel van Dijk.
37. Winston, Morton E., Chaffin, Roger, and Herrmann Douglas J. 1987. A taxonomy of part-whole relations. Cognitive science 11: 417-44.
38. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical investigations, trans. Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe. New York: Macmillan.