Truth in the Digital Library: From Ontological to Hermeneutical Systems

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2163)


This paper deals with the conceptual structures which describe document contents in a digital library. Indeed, the underlying question is about the truth of a description: obvious (ontological), by convention (normative) or based on interpretation (hermeneutical). In the first part, we examine the differences between these three points of view and choose the hermeneutical one. Then in the second and third part, we present two “assisted interpretation systems”. (AIS) for digital libraries (audiovisual documents and scholarly publications). Both provide a dynamic annotation framework for readers’ augmentations and social interactions. In the fourth part, a few synthetic guidelines are given to design such “assisted interpretation systems” in other digital libraries.


Interpretation collaboration annotation ontology graphs interactive information retrieval assisted interpretation systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    AAMODT A. & PLAZA E. (1994). Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. In Artificial Intelligence Communications. Volume 7, Issue 1. IOS Press. pp.39–59.Google Scholar
  2. [2] ARISTOTLE (4th century BC). Organon: Categories and Interpretation.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    BENEL A., CALABRETTO S., PINON J.-M. & IACOVELLA A. (2000a). Vers un outil documentaire unifié pour les chercheurs en archéologie. InProceedings of the 17 th Congress on Informatics and Organizations (INFORSID). In French. INFORSID Editions, Toulouse (France). pp.133–145. ISBN 2-906855-16-2.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    BENEL A., CALABRETTO S., PINON J.-M. & IACOVELLA A. (2000b). Consultation de documents et sémantique: Application à des publications savantes. In Proceedings of the 2 nd International French Speaking Colloquium on Writing and Document (CIFED). In French. PPUR Editions, Lausanne (Switzerland). pp.271–280. ISBN 2-88074-460-1.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    BUSH V. (1945) As we may think. In: The Atlantic Monthly. July 1945.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    BOUAUD J., BACHIMONT B., CHARLET J. & ZWEIGENBAUM P. (1994). Acquisition and structuring of an ontology within conceptual graphs. In Proceedings of ICCS’94 Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition using Conceptual Graph Theory. pp.1–25.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    COX D. & GREENBERG S. (2000). Supporting collaborative interpretation in distributed groupware. In Proceedings on the ACM CSCW’2000 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. pp.289–298.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    DENOUE L. & VIGNOLLET L. (2000). An annotation tool for web browsers and its applications to information retrieval. In RIAO’2000 Conference Proceedings. “Content-based multimedia information access” CID-CASIS. pp.180-195.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    ECO U. (1962). The Open Work. 4th revised edition and English translation. Harvard University Publishing, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    EGYED-ZS. E., PRIE Y., MILLE A. & PINON J.-M. (2000). A graph based audio-visual document annotation and browsing system. In RIAO’2000 Conference Proceedings. “Content-based multimedia information access”. CID-CASIS. pp.1381–1389. ISBN 2-905450-07-X.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    GUARINO N. (1997). Some organizing principles for a unified top-level ontology. In Proceedings of AAAI 1997 Spring Symposium on Ontological Engineering. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    GOH D. & LEGGETT J. (2000). Patron-augmented digital libraries. In Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Conference on Digital Libraries. pp.153–163.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    GRUBER T.R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. In Knowledge Acquisition. Volume 5, Issue 2. pp.199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    KOHONEN T. & KASKI S. (2000). Self Organization of a Massive Document Collection. In IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, Volume 11, Issue 3. pp.574–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    KÜHN T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    LEHMANN P. (1994). CCAT: The current status of the conceptual catalogue (Ontology) group with proposals. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Peirce, “A conceptual Graph Workbench”.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    MENZIES T. (1999). Cost benefits of ontologies. In ACM Magazine on Intelligence: New Visions of AI in Practice. Volume 10, Issue 3. pp.26–32.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    MITRA P. & WIEDERHOLD G. (2000). A Graph-Oriented Model for Articulation of Ontology Interdependencies. Proceedings of the EDBT’2000 Conference on Extending Database Technology. Springer. 15p.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    O’HARA K., SMITH F., NEWMAN W. & SELLEN A. (1998). Student readers’ use of library documents: implications for library technologies. In ACM CHI’98 Conference Proceedings on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp.233–240.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    PAEPCKE A. (1996). Digital libraries: Searching is not Enough. What we learned on-site. In D-Lib Magazine. May 1996.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    POPPER K.R. (1972). Objective Knowledge: an Evolutionary Approach. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    PRIE Y., MILLE A. & PINON J.-M. (1999). A Context-Based Audiovisual Representation Model for Audiovisual Information Systems. In Context’99, Second International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and using Context, Trento (Italy). pp.296–309.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    RASTIER F. (1995). Le terme: entre ontologie et linguistique. In La banque des mots, n o7.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    TOCHTERMANN K. (1994). A first step toward communication in virtual libraries. In First Annual Conference on the Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries. College Station (Texas). June 19–21 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LISI - INSA LyonBâtiment Blaise PascalVilleurbanne CEDEXFrance
  2. 2.French School of Archaeology (EFA)AthensGreece
  3. 3.LISI - Université Lyon 1Villeurbanne CEDEXFrance

Personalised recommendations