|
We point, again by quoting the limited examples done by this group, at some of the possibilities for theoretical contribution.
Sigel: Federating knowledge organization
Importing the heritage and the state of the art from neighboring areas is essential for federation. A challenge is to filter out and adapt that which is essential for our purpose. Sigel took the challenge of importing a centrally important area of knowledge organization, a field that has grown out of library science and embodies centuries of development and insights.
Thomas et al: Federating ontologies
Since distinct communities use different terminologies, and sometimes the same concept in slightly or significantly different ways,
federating concepts and ontologies is one of the key tasks of knowledge federation. The article by Hendrik Thomas et al. represents a step in this direction. The article imports insights from linguistics, and introduces the notion of a 'concept cloud' as a suitable model for a federated version of 'subject' of subject-centric computing.
Tanaka: A knowledge federation taxonomy
In his article Yuzuru Tanaka developed a taxonomy of knowledge federation (here the 'knowledge federation' is used as a verb) - division into semantic
federation, service federation, and view federation. This division allows him to systematize the existing systems and approaches to federation, and then to profile his meme media approach.
Karabeg and Lachica: A federation prototype
Theorizing from the whole: envisioning the whole system for knowledge federation and refining it into building blocks. Each building block becomes a research question of its own, or several of them. New problem areas emerge around the construction and further development of those building blocks.
Back to article main page
| 