Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0045220214 = product of:
  0.018088086 = sum of:
    0.018088086 = product of:
      0.054264255 = sum of:
        0.054264255 = weight(_text_:systems in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054264255 = score(doc=3523,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.41167158 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This work tries to propose a set of evaluation dimensions for the analysis of the knowledge organization systems (KOS), building over previous research and the available literature on the subject. It presents a compiled taxonomy of KOSs, a set of tentative characteristics proposed in the literature and the authors' spectra proposal. The full details of the typology are not covered in the scope of the article, but will be available as an ontology in the near future.

Source

Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO Conference, 23-26 February 2010 Rome, Italy. Edited by Claudio Gnoli and Fulvio Mazzocchi

0.0026372964 = product of:
  0.010549186 = sum of:
    0.010549186 = product of:
      0.031647556 = sum of:
        0.031647556 = weight(_text_:systems in 5881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031647556 = score(doc=5881,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 5881, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5881)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Traditionally connected to philosophy, the term ontology is increasingly related to information systems areas. Some researchers consider the approaches of the two disciplinary contexts to be completely different. Others consider that, although different, they should talk to each other, as both seek to answer similar questions. With the extensive literature on this topic, we intend to contribute to the understanding of the use of the term ontology in current research and which references support this use. An exploratory study was developed with a mixed methodology and a sample collected from the Web of Science of articles publishe in 2018. The results show the current prevalence of computer science in studies related to ontology and also of Gruber's view suggesting ontology as kind of conceptualization, a dominant view in that field. Some researchers, particularly in the field of biomedicine, do not adhere to this dominant view but to another one that seems closer to ontological study in the philosophical context. The term ontology, in the context of information systems, appears to be consolidating with a meaning different from the original, presenting traces of the process of "metaphorization" in the transfer of the term between the two fields of study.

0.0026107903 = product of:
  0.010443161 = sum of:
    0.010443161 = product of:
      0.031329483 = sum of:
        0.031329483 = weight(_text_:systems in 139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031329483 = score(doc=139,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 139, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=139)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper analyzes previous work on the classification of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS), discusses strengths and weaknesses, and proposes a new and integrative framework. It argues that current analyses of the KOS tend to be idiosyncratic and incomplete, relying on a limited number of dimensions of analysis. The paper discusses why and how KOS should be classified on a new basis. Based on the available literature and previous work, the authors propose a wider set of dimensions for the analysis of KOS. These are represented in a taxonomy of KOS. Issues arising are discussed.