Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012585778 = product of:
  0.10068622 = sum of:
    0.10068622 = weight(_text_:ontologies in 1092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10068622 = score(doc=1092,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18703508 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6261497 = idf(docFreq=432, maxDocs=44218)
          0.033243887 = queryNorm
        0.538328 = fieldWeight in 1092, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.6261497 = idf(docFreq=432, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1092)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Bericht über: Levels of Reality, Seminar, Bolzano (Bozen) Italy, 26-28 September 2007: Ontologies, the knowledge organization systems now widely used in knowledge management applications, take their name from a branch of philosophy. Philosophical ontology deals with the kinds and the properties of what exists, and with how they can be described by categories like entity, attribute, or process. Readers familiar with facet analysis will notice some analogy with the "fundamental categories" of faceted classifications, and this resemblance is not accidental. Indeed, knowledge organization systems use conceptual structures that can be variously reconnected with the categories of ontology. Though having more practical purposes, the ontologies and classifications of information science can benefit of those of philosophy.
Darin: "However, John Sowa (Vivomind, USA) argued in his speech that the formalized approach, already undertaken by the pioneering project Cyc now having run for 23 years, is not the best way to analyze complex systems. People don't really use axioms in their cognitive processes (even mathematicians first get an idea intuitively, then work on axioms and proofs only at the moment of writing papers). To map between different ontologies, the Vivomind Analogy Engine throws axioms out, and searches instead for analogies in their structures. Analogy is a pragmatic human faculty using a combination of the three logical procedures of deduction, induction, and abduction. Guarino comments that people can communicate without need of axioms as they share a common context, but in order to teach computers how to operate, the requirements are different: he would not trust an airport control system working by analogy."

0.010276244 = product of:
  0.08220995 = sum of:
    0.08220995 = weight(_text_:ontologies in 1095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08220995 = score(doc=1095,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18703508 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6261497 = idf(docFreq=432, maxDocs=44218)
          0.033243887 = queryNorm
        0.43954295 = fieldWeight in 1095, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6261497 = idf(docFreq=432, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1095)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Most existing knowledge organization systems (KOS) are based on disciplines. However, as research is increasingly multidisciplinary, scholars need tools allowing them to explore relations between phenomena throughout the whole spectrum of knowledge. We focus on the dependence relationship, holding between one phenomenon and those at lower integrative levels on which it depends for its existence, like alpinism on mountains, and mountains on rocks. This relationship was first described by D.J. Foskett in the context of CRG's work towards a non-disciplinary scheme. We discuss its possible status and representation in three kinds of KOS: thesauri, classification schemes, and ontologies. In thesaural structures, dependence could be one of the subtypes of associative relationships (RT) which have been wished to enrich their semantic functions. In classification, it could act together with hierarchy as a structuring principle, providing a way of connecting and sorting main classes based on integrative levels. In ontologies, it could be defined as a dependsOn direct slot, expressing the fact that through it a class does not inherit all properties of the other class on which it depends. We argue that providing search interfaces with cross-disciplinary links of this kind can give users more adequate tools to examine the recorded knowledge through creative paths overcoming some limitations of its canonical segmentation into disciplines.

0.0011362432 = product of:
  0.009089946 = sum of:
    0.009089946 = product of:
      0.027269837 = sum of:
        0.027269837 = weight(_text_:29 in 2663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027269837 = score(doc=2663,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1169416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.033243887 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2663, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2663)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

29. 8.2004 17:33:13

0.0011362432 = product of:
  0.009089946 = sum of:
    0.009089946 = product of:
      0.027269837 = sum of:
        0.027269837 = weight(_text_:29 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027269837 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1169416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.033243887 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

11. 3.2007 14:19:29

9.468694E-4 = product of:
  0.007574955 = sum of:
    0.007574955 = product of:
      0.022724865 = sum of:
        0.022724865 = weight(_text_:29 in 2527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022724865 = score(doc=2527,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1169416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.033243887 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2527, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2527)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Extensions and corrections to the UDC. 29(2007), S.167-182