Complex concepts into basic concepts

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 62, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 2247-2265

  Szostak, Rick ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BASIC CONCEPTS;

PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS;

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS;

EID: 80054692429     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.21635     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Alvesson, M., (2002). Postmodernism and social research. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
2. Armstrong, S.L., Gleitman, L.R., &, Gleitman, H., (1999). What some concepts might not be. In, E. Margolis, &, S. Laurence, (Eds.), Concepts: Core readings (pp. 225-259). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Chalmers, A.F., (1999). What is this thing called science ? (3rd ed.). Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University Press.
4. Collins, R., (1998). The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap (Harvard University) Press.
5. Davies, R., (1989). The creation of new knowledge by information retrieval and classification. Journal of Documentation, 45 (4), 273-301.
6. Dousa, T., (2010). Classical pragmatism and its varieties: On a pluriform metatheoretical perspective for knowledge organization. Knowledge Organization, 37 (1), 65-71.
7. Durbin, P.T., (1988). Dictionary of concepts in the philosophy of science. New York: Greenwood Press.
8. Earl, D., (2007). Concepts. Retrieved from
9. Fodor, J., (1981). The present status of the innateness controversy. In his Representations: Philosophical Essays on the Foundations of Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Fodor, J., (1998). Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. New York: Oxford University Press.
11. Fodor, J., &, Lepore, E., (1992). Holism: A shopper's guide. Oxford: Blackwell.
12. Foskett, A.C., (1996). The subject approach to information (5th ed.). London: Library Association Publishing.
13. Gelman, S., (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. Gnoli, C., (2006). The meaning of facets in nondisciplinary classifications. In, G. Budin, C. Swertz, &, K. Mitgutsch, (Eds.), Knowledge organization for a global learning society, Proceedings of the Ninth International ISKO Conference (pp. 11-18). Würzburg, Germany: Ergon.
15. Gnoli, C., &, Szostak, R., (2008). Classifying by phenomena, theories, and methods: Examples with focused social science theories. In, C. Arsenault, &, J. Tennis, (Eds.), Culture and identity in knowledge organization, Proceedings of the 10th International ISKO Conference (pp. 205-211). Würzburg, Germany: Ergon.
16. Goddard, C., (n.d.). Natural semantic metalanguage. Retrieved from
17. Green, R., (2002). Internally structured conceptual models in cognitive semantics. In, R. Green, C. Bean, &, S. Myaeng, (Eds.), The semantics of relationships (pp. 73-90). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
18. Green, R., (2008). Relationships in knowledge organization. Knowledge Organization, 35 (2/3), 150-159.
19. Hjørland, B., (2009). Concept theory. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (8), 1519-1536.
20. Hudon, M., (2001). Relationships in multilingual thesauri. In, C. Bean, &, R. Green, (Eds.), Relationships in the organization of knowledge (pp. 67-80). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
21. ISKO Italia. (2004). Integrative levels classification. Retrieved from
22. ISKO Italia. (2007). Leõn Manifesto. Retrieved from
23. Jackson, F., (1998). From metaphysics to ethics: A defence of conceptual analysis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
24. Khoo, C., (1995). Automatic identification of causal relations in text and their use for improving precision in information retrieval (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Syracuse University.
25. Laurence, S., &, Margolis, E., (1999). Concepts and cognitive science. In, E. Margolis, &, S. Laurence, (Eds.), Concepts: Core readings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
26. Margolis, E., &, Laurence, S., (2006). Concepts. Retrieved from
27. Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., &, Oltramari, A., (n.d.). Ontology library. Laboratory for Applied Ontology-ISTC-CNR. Retrieved from
28. 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.
29. Merrill, G.H., (2010). Ontological realism: Methodology or misdirection ? Applied Ontology, 5, 75-108.
30. Millikan, R., (2000). On clear and confused ideas. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31. Murphy, G., (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32. Perrault, J., (1994). Categories and relators: A new schema. Knowledge Organization, 21 (4), 189-98.
33. Pitt, D., (1999). In defense of definitions. Philosophical Psychology, 12 (2), 139-156.
34. Prinz, J.J., (2002). Furnishing the mind: Concepts and their perceptual basis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Ranganathan, S.R., (1967). Prolegomena to library classification (3rd ed). Bangalore: SRELS. Retrieved from
36. Spelke, E., (2003). What makes us smart? Core knowledge and natural language. In, D. Gentner, &, S. Goldin-Meadow, (Eds.), Language in mind (pp. 277-311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. Stock, W.G., (2010). Concepts and semantic relations in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 61 (10), 1951-1969.
38. Szostak, R., (2004). Classifying science: Phenomena, data, theory, method, practice. Dordrecht: Springer.
39. Szostak, R., (2008a). Classification, interdisciplinarity, and the study of science. Journal of Documentation, 64 (3), 319-32.
40. Szostak, R., (2008b). Interdisciplinarity and classification: A reply to Hjørland. Journal of Documentation, 64 (4), 479-481.
41. Szostak, R., (2010a). Universal and domain-specific classifications from an interdisciplinary perspective. In, C. Gnoli, &, F. Mazzocchi, (Eds.), Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization, Proceedings of the 2010 Conference of the International Society for Knowledge Organization. Würzburg, Germany: Ergon.
42. Szostak, R., (2010b) Comment on Hjørland's concept theory. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 61 (5), 1076-1077.
43. Szostak, R., (2011a). Basic concepts classification. Retrieved from
44. Szostak, R., (2011b). Translation table: DDC to basic concepts classification. Retrieved from
45. Szostak, R., (2011c). Classifying relationships. Manuscript submitted for publication.
46. Vickery, B., (2008). Faceted classification for the web. Axiomathes, 18, 145-60.
47. Wittgenstein, L., (1958). Philosophical investigations (3rd ed.). New York: MacMillan.