Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.020074995 = product of:
  0.04014999 = sum of:
    0.04014999 = sum of:
      0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 5011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00894975 = score(doc=5011,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 5011, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5011)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 5011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=5011,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5011, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5011)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The present challenge faced by scientists working with Big Data comes in the overwhelming volume and level of detail provided by current data sets. Exceeding traditional empirical approaches, Big Data opens a new perspective on scientific work in which data comes to play a role in the development of the scientific problematic to be developed. Addressing this reconfiguration of our relationship with data through readings of Wittgenstein, Macherey, and Popper, we propose a picture of science that encourages scientists to engage with the data in a direct way, using the data itself as an instrument for scientific investigation. Using GIS as a theme, we develop the concept of cyber-human systems of thought and understanding to bridge the divide between representative (theoretical) thinking and (non-theoretical) data-driven science. At the foundation of these systems, we invoke the concept of the "semantic pixel" to establish a logical and virtual space linking data and the work of scientists. It is with this discussion of the relationship between analysts in their pursuit of knowledge and the rise of Big Data that this present discussion of the philosophical foundations of Big Data addresses the central questions raised by social informatics research.

Date

7. 3.2019 16:32:22

Type

a

0.0025370158 = product of:
  0.0050740317 = sum of:
    0.0050740317 = product of:
      0.010148063 = sum of:
        0.010148063 = weight(_text_:a in 3405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010148063 = score(doc=3405,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 3405, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3405)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The explosion of the infosphere has led to a proliferation of metadata and formal ontology artefacts for information systems. Information scientists are creating ontologies and metadata in order to facilitate the sharing of meaningful information rather than similarly structured information. Formal ontologies are a complex form of metadata that specify the underlying concepts and their relationships that comprise the information of and for an information system. The most common understanding of ontology in computer and information sciences is Gruber's specification of a conceptualization. However, formal ontologies are problematic in that they simultaneously crystallize and decontextualize information, which in order to be meaningful must be adaptive in context. In trying to construct a correct taxonomical system, formal ontologies are focused on syntactic precision rather than meaningful exchange of information. Smith describes accurately the motivation and practice of ontology creation: It becomes a theory of the ontological content of certain representations . The elicited principles may or may not be true, but this, to the practitioner . is of no concern, since the significance of these principles lies elsewhere - for instance in yielding a correct account of the taxonomical system used by speakers of a given language or by scientists working in a given discipline. It is not fair to claim that syntax is irrelevant, but the meaning we make of information is dependent upon more than its syntactic structure.

Type

a

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 4293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=4293,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 4293, 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=4293)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In recent years, the term "semantics" has been widely used in various fields of research and particularly in areas related to information technology. One of the motivators of such an appropriation is the vision of the Semantic Web, a set of developments underway, which might allow one to obtain better results when querying on the web. However, it is worth asking what kind of semantics we can find in the Semantic Web, considering that studying the subject is a complex and controversial endeavor. Working within this context, we present an account of semantics, relying on the main linguist approaches, in order to then analyze what semantics is within the scope of information technology. We critically evaluate a spectrum, which proposes the ordination of instruments (models, languages, taxonomic structures, to mention but a few) according to a semantic scale. In addition to proposing a new extended spectrum, we suggest alternative interpretations with the aim of clarifying the use of the term "semantics" in different contexts. Finally, we offer our conclusions regarding the semantic in the Semantic Web and mention future directions and complementary works.

Type

a

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=2924,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2924, 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=2924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An influx of mechanisms for the collection of large sets of data has prompted widespread consideration of the impact that data analytic methods can have on a number of disciplines. Having an established record of the use of a unique mixture of empirical methods, the work of understanding and designing for user behavior is well situated to take advantage of the advances claimed by "big data" methods. Beyond any straightforward benefit of the use of large sets of data, such an increase in the scale of empirical evidence has far-reaching implications for the work of empirically guided design. We develop the concept of "peak empiricism" to explain the new role that large-scale data comes to play in design, one in which data become more than a simple empirical tool. In providing such an expansive empirical setting for design, big data weakens the subjective conditions necessary for empirical insight, pointing to a more performative approach to the relationship between a designer and his or her work. In this, the work of design is characterized as "thinking with" the data in a partnership that weakens not only any sense of empiricism but also the agentive foundations of a classical view of design work.

Type

a