The Current State of SKOS Vocabularies on the Web

  • Nor Azlinayati Abdul Manaf
  • Sean Bechhofer
  • Robert Stevens
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7295)

Abstract

We present a survey of the current state of Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) vocabularies on the Web. Candidate vocabularies were gathered through collections and web crawling, with 478 identified as complying to a given definition of a SKOS vocabulary. Analyses were then conducted that included investigation of the use of SKOS constructs; the use of SKOS semantic relations and lexical labels; and the structure of vocabularies in terms of the hierarchical and associative relations, branching factors and the depth of the vocabularies. Even though SKOS concepts are considered to be the core of SKOS vocabularies, our findings were that not all SKOS vocabularies published explicitly declared SKOS concepts in the vocabularies. Almost one-third of the SKOS vocabularies collected fall into the category of term lists, with no use of any SKOS semantic relations. As concept labelling is core to SKOS vocabularies, a surprising find is that not all SKOS vocabularies use SKOS lexical labels, whether skos:prefLabel or skos:altLabel, for their concepts. The branching factors and maximum depth of the vocabularies have no direct relationship to the size of the vocabularies. We also observed some common modelling slips found in SKOS vocabularies. The survey is useful when considering, for example, converting artefacts such as OWL ontologies into SKOS, where a definition of typicality of SKOS vocabularies could be used to guide the conversion. Moreover, the survey results can serve to provide a better understanding of the modelling styles of the SKOS vocabularies published on the Web, especially when considering the creation of applications that utilize these vocabularies.

References

  1. 1.
    Miles, A., Bechhofer, S.: SKOS simple knowledge organization system reference. W3C recommendation, W3C (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zeng, M.L., Chan, L.M.: Trends and issues in establishing interoperability among knowledge organization systems. JASIST 55(5), 377–395 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hodge, G.: Systems of Knowledge Organization for Digital Libraries: Beyond Traditional Authority Files. Council on Library and Information Resources (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang, T.D., Parsia, B., Hendler, J.: A Survey of the Web Ontology Landscape. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 682–694. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ding, L., Finin, T.W.: Characterizing the Semantic Web on the Web. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 242–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tempich, C., Volz, R.: Towards a benchmark for semantic web reasoners - an analysis of the DAML ontology library. In: EON (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Poole, D.L., Mackworth, A.K.: Artificial Intelligence: Foundations of Computational Agents. Cambridge University Press, New York (2010)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Assem, M., Malaisé, V., Miles, A., Schreiber, G.: A Method to Convert Thesauri to SKOS. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 95–109. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Panzer, M., Zeng, M.L.: Modeling classification systems in SKOS: some challenges and best-practice recommendations. In: Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, pp. 3–14 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Summers, E., Isaac, A., Redding, C., Krech, D.: LCSH, SKOS and linked data. In: Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications (DC 2008), Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, pp. 25–33 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Binding, C.: Implementing Archaeological Time Periods Using CIDOC CRM and SKOS. In: Aroyo, L., Antoniou, G., Hyvönen, E., ten Teije, A., Stuckenschmidt, H., Cabral, L., Tudorache, T. (eds.) ESWC 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6088, pp. 273–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roszkowski, M.: Using taxonomies for knowledge exploration in subject gateways. In: Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Professional Information Resources, IN-FORUM 2011 (2011) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nor Azlinayati Abdul Manaf
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sean Bechhofer
    • 1
  • Robert Stevens
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceThe University of ManchesterUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.MIMOS Berhad, Technology Park MalaysiaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations