The Comparison of Thesaurus and Ontology Efficiency in Knowledge Representation

پژوهشنامه کتابداری و اطلاع رسانی

Article 6, Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2011, Pages 219-240   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/riis.v1i1.8658

Authors

Azam sanatjoo^{* 1}; Akram Fathian²

¹Assistant Professor of Library and Information Department, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

²Master's student in the field of librarianship and information, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

Abstract

This research aims to compare the capabilities of a thesaurus and an ontology for representation of domain knowledge. This is the first to focus on the construction of an ontology in Library and Information Science (LIS), in the domain of Indexing and in Persian language. The research also develops the methodology of ontology construction by implementing domain analysis methodology.
The present work by applying the domain analysis approach developed a prototype ontology named ASFAOnt in the domain of Indexing by reengineering a current thesaurus in Persian language named ASFA.
The ontology was evaluated by a retrieval test in which the usability and the performance of the ontology were investigated. Usability and performance were compared with a baseline, a classic-type thesaurus with the conventional thesaurus structure, ASFA thesaurus. The evaluation was carried out as a controlled experiment in which a group of information searchers, LIS master students, used the thesaurus and ontology to extract three keywords according to their in mind search queries. The evaluative study was followed by a qualitative analysis of the nature of concepts, individual relationships and the textual and visual display so as to provide an understanding of and insight into the quality of the ontology as well as to gather ideas for further development. In order to gather more validated data on users’ performance and satisfaction, thinking aloud technique was used. Also the experimental retrieval test in the usability test was followed by a questionnaire survey, constructed on the basis of ONTOMETRIC approach.
The result of the study indicates that ontology structure is useful and provides valuable inspiration for the user. Fundamental differences of domain knowledge representation between them were then identified: formality of language in the ASFAOnt ontology, logical consistency of concepts and relationships in the ASFAOnt ontology, and ambiguity of relationships among terms in the ASFA. Relationships such as broader term (BT) and narrower term (NT) in the ASFA could support a capacity for reasoning based on generation and specification, assuming the relationships themselves are valid. However, ASFAOnt ontology supports the deduction of conclusion based on domain knowledge described in the ontology, the search for information resulting from logical inference, and the automated validation consistency. We conclude that an ontology can provide a better representation of the domain knowledge and more advanced power of reasoning based on the underlying knowledge representation.

Keywords

ASFA Thesaurus; Ontology; Knowledge Representation; Concepts Retrieval; ASFAOnt

References

Albrechtsen, H., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2003). Cognitive work analysis and work centered design of classification schemes. Knowledge Organization, 30 (3-4), 213-227.

Brank, Janez, Grobelnic, M., & Mladenic, D. (2005). A survey of Ontology evaluation techniques. In Proceedings of the Conference on Data Mining and Data Warehouses (SiKDD 2005). 17 October, 2005. Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Chun, C., & Wenlin, L. (2004). From agricultural thesaurus to ontology. In 5th AOS Workshop. 27-29 April, 2004. Beijing, China. Retrieved October 10, 2009, from http://www.fao.org/agris/aos/ConferencesW/FifthAOS_China04/AOS_Proceedings/docs/1-3.pdf.

Goldbeck, J., Fragoso, G., Hartel, F., Hendler, J., Parsia, B. & Oberthaler, J. (2003). The National Cancer Institute’s Thesaurus and Ontology. Journal of Web Semantics, 1(1), 75-80.

Hjørland B., & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a new horizon in information science: domain-analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(6), 400-425.

Kawtrakul, A. et al. (2005). Automatic term relationship cleaning and  refinement for AGROVOC. In Workshop on The Sixth Agricultural Ontology Service, Workshop "Ontologies: the more practical issues and experiences". 25-28 July, 2005. Vila Real, Portugal. Retrieved 2009, from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/af240e/af240e00.pdf.

Khosravi, F., & Vazifedoost, A. (2007). Creating a Persian Ontology through Thesaurus: Reengineering for Organizing the Digital Library of the National Library of Iran. In Building An Information Society For All: Proceedings of the International Conference on Libraries, Information and Society, ICOLIS 2007 (p. 41-53). 26-27 June 2007. Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Retrieved 2009, from http://dspace.fsktm.um.edu.my/xmlui/ handle/1812/285  

Lozano-Tello, A., & Gomez-Perez, A. (2004). ONTOMETRIC: a method to choose the appropriate ontology. Journal of database management, 15(2), 1- 18.

Lyyke Nielsen, M. (2001). A framework for work task  based  thesaurus  design.  Journal of Documentation, 57(6), 774- 797.

Nielsen, M. L. (2000). Domain analysis, an important part of thesaurus construction. Methodologies and approaches. In D. Soergel, P. Srinivasan, & B. Kwasnik (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th  ASIS&T SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop (p. 9- 50). 12 November 2000^.

Nielsen, M. L. (2001). A framework for work task  based  thesaurus  design.  Journal of Documentation, 57(6), 774- 797.

Sanatjoo, Azam (2007). improvement of thesaurus design- through a work-task oriented methodology. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Royal School of Library and Information Science, Denmark, 2007).