Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Almeida, M.B."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Souza, R.R.; Tudhope, D.; Almeida, M.B.: Towards a taxonomy of KOS (2012) 0.00 
    0.0031324127 = product of:
  0.0062648254 = sum of:
    0.0062648254 = product of:
      0.012529651 = sum of:
        0.012529651 = weight(_text_:a in 139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012529651 = score(doc=139,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 139, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=139)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Type
    a
  2. Souza, R.R.; Tudhope, D.; Almeida, M.B.: ¬The KOS spectra : a tentative typology of knowledge organization systems (2010) 0.00 
    0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=3523,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Type
    a
  3. Almeida, M.B.: Revisiting ontologies : a necessary clarification (2013) 0.00 
    0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 1010) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=1010,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 1010, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1010)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Looking for ontology in a search engine, one can find so many different approaches that it can be difficult to understand which field of research the subject belongs to and how it can be useful. The term ontology is employed within philosophy, computer science, and information science with different meanings. To take advantage of what ontology theories have to offer, one should understand what they address and where they come from. In information science, except for a few papers, there is no initiative toward clarifying what ontology really is and the connections that it fosters among different research fields. This article provides such a clarification. We begin by revisiting the meaning of the term in its original field, philosophy, to reach its current use in other research fields. We advocate that ontology is a genuine and relevant subject of research in information science. Finally, we conclude by offering our view of the opportunities for interdisciplinary research.
    Type
    a
  4. Almeida, M.B.; Farinelli, F.: Ontologies for the representation of electronic medical records : the obstetric and neonatal ontology (2017) 0.00 
    0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 3918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=3918,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3918, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3918)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Ontology is an interdisciplinary field that involves both the use of philosophical principles and the development of computational artifacts. As artifacts, ontologies can have diverse applications in knowledge management, information retrieval, and information systems, to mention a few. They have been largely applied to organize information in complex fields like Biomedicine. In this article, we present the OntoNeo Ontology, an initiative to build a formal ontology in the obstetrics and neonatal domain. OntoNeo is a resource that has been designed to serve as a comprehensive infrastructure providing scientific research and healthcare professionals with access to relevant information. The goal of OntoNeo is twofold: (a) to organize specialized medical knowledge, and (b) to provide a potential consensual representation of the medical information found in electronic health records and medical information systems. To describe our initiative, we first provide background information about distinct theories underlying ontology, top-level computational ontologies and their applications in Biomedicine. Then, we present the methodology employed in the development of OntoNeo and the results obtained to date. Finally, we discuss the applicability of OntoNeo by presenting a proof of concept that illustrates its potential usefulness in the realm of healthcare information systems.
    Type
    a
  5. Simões, M. da Graça; Machado, L.M.; Souza, R.R.; Almeida, M.B.; Tavares Lopes, A.: Automatic indexing and ontologies : the consistency of research chronology and authoring in the context of Information Science (2018) 0.00 
    0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 5909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=5909,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 5909, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5909)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  6. Almeida, M.B.; Souza, R.R.; Porto, R.B.: Looking for the identity of information science in the age of big data, computing clouds and social networks (2015) 0.00 
    0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 3453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=3453,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3453, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this paper we discuss, under a critical point of view, the current Information Science landscape and some future prospects regarding contemporary information phenomena. We present thoughts about the process of thematic deflation of Information Science, through the analysis of the research objects currently under development in this field. In addition to this, we look at the process of absorption of these and other relevant objects in distinguished knowledge fields. We seek to challenge the emphasis and the volume of interdisciplinary research within the field, and present some comments about what might be the results of such processes for the future of Information Science. Subsequently, we analyze the impact in the Information Science field due to phenomena like information boom, the consolidation of the social networks as interactive spaces, cloud computing, as well as other key elements.
    Type
    a

Authors

Themes