Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0071202423 = product of:
  0.049841695 = sum of:
    0.042707227 = weight(_text_:web in 4293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042707227 = score(doc=4293,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 4293, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4293)
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 4293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=4293,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4293, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4293)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.001676621 = product of:
  0.011736346 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 5011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=5011,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5011, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5011)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 5011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=5011,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Date

7. 3.2019 16:32:22

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.4, S.402-411

0.0012230515 = product of:
  0.01712272 = sum of:
    0.01712272 = weight(_text_:information in 277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01712272 = score(doc=277,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 277, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=277)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

In philosophy, Ontology is the basic description of things in the world. In information science, an ontology refers to an engineering artifact, constituted by a specific vocabulary used to describe a certain reality. Ontologies have been proposed for validating both conceptual models and conceptual schemas; however, these roles are quite dissimilar. In this article, we show that ontologies can be better understood if we classify the different uses of the term as it appears in the literature. First, we explain Ontology (upper case O) as used in Philosophy. Then, we propose a differentiation between ontologies of information systems and ontologies for information systems. All three concepts have an important role in information science. We clarify the different meanings and uses of Ontology and ontologies through a comparison of research by Wand and Weber and by Guarino in ontology-driven information systems. The contributions of this article are twofold: (a) It provides a better understanding of what ontologies are, and (b) it explains the double role of ontologies in information science research.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.6, S.786-793

0.001195129 = product of:
  0.016731806 = sum of:
    0.016731806 = weight(_text_:information in 3405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016731806 = score(doc=3405,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.32163754 = fieldWeight in 3405, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3405)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

Source

Philosophy, computing and information science. Eds.: R. Hagengruber u. U.V. Riss

7.48963E-4 = product of:
  0.0104854815 = sum of:
    0.0104854815 = weight(_text_:information in 90) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0104854815 = score(doc=90,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 90, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=90)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Many authors propose that open source software (OSS) is a good strategy to bring information and communication technologies to developing countries. Nevertheless, the use of OSS needs to be more than just adopting Linux as the standard for operating systems. Adoption of OSS is not only a choice of software, but also a means of acquiring knowledge. Developing countries have to use OSS as a way to gain knowledge about the technology itself and as a way of creating technology products that fit their specific needs. In this article, the authors introduce a model of OSS based on its essential characteristics to understand how developing countries may use OSS to achieve their development goals. The authors argue that there are two defining properties of any open source software. The first property is the potential for shared conceptualization and the second is the potential for modularity. By assessing how each OSS project satisfies these two conditions, a taxonomy is built for open source projects. This taxonomy will help the development of more sensible policies to promote the use of open source in developing countries.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.1, S.121-132

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=2924,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2924, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2924)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.6, S.1279-1288

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.12, S.1593-1604