Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Guarino, N."
  1. Guarino, N.: Understanding, building and using ontologies (1997) 0.00
    0.0024128247 = product of:
      0.0048256493 = sum of:
        0.0048256493 = product of:
          0.009651299 = sum of:
            0.009651299 = weight(_text_:a in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009651299 = score(doc=3262,freq=14.0), product of:
                0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041389145 = queryNorm
                0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
                  3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                    14.0 = termFreq=14.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Defends the thesis of the independence between domain knowledge and problem-solving knowledge, against the dominance of the so-called interaction problem, to dispute the feasibility of a single domain ontology shared by a number of different applications. Reusability across multiple tasks or methods can and should be systematically pursued even when modelling knowledge related to a single task or method. Discusses how the principles of formal ontology and ontological engineering can be used in the practice of knowledge engineering, focusing on the interplay between general ontologies, method ontologies and application ontologies, and on the role of ontologies in the knowledge engineering process. Stresses the role of domain analysis
    Content
    "Ontology is a representation vocabulary that characterizes the knowledge of a domain."
    Footnote
    Contribution to a special issue on using explicit ontologies in knowledge-based system development.
    Type
    a
  2. Guarino, N.; Masolo, C.; Vetere, G.: OntoSeek : content-based access to the Web (1999) 0.00
    0.0021279112 = product of:
      0.0042558224 = sum of:
        0.0042558224 = product of:
          0.008511645 = sum of:
            0.008511645 = weight(_text_:a in 6538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008511645 = score(doc=6538,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041389145 = queryNorm
                0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6538, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6538)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  3. Guarino, N.; Welty, C.: Identity and subsumption (2002) 0.00
    0.0021279112 = product of:
      0.0042558224 = sum of:
        0.0042558224 = product of:
          0.008511645 = sum of:
            0.008511645 = weight(_text_:a in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008511645 = score(doc=1195,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041389145 = queryNorm
                0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The intuitive simplicity of the so-called is-a (or subsumption) relationship has led to widespread ontological misuse. Where previous work has focused largely an the semantics of the relationship itself, we concentrate here an the ontological nature of its arguments, in Order to tell whether a single is-a link is ontologically well-founded. For this purpose, we introduce some techniques based an the philosophical notions of identity, unity, and essence, which have been adapted to the needs of taxonomy design. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these techniques by taking real examples of poorly structured taxonomies and revealing cases of invalid generalization.
    Type
    a
  4. Guarino, N.: Formal ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation (1995) 0.00
    0.0021060861 = product of:
      0.0042121722 = sum of:
        0.0042121722 = product of:
          0.0084243445 = sum of:
            0.0084243445 = weight(_text_:a in 4745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0084243445 = score(doc=4745,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041389145 = queryNorm
                0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 4745, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4745)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Defends the systematic introduction of formal ontological principles in the current practice of knowledge engineering, and explores the various relationships between ontology and knowledge representatiom. Presents recent trends in this research area. Compares the dichotomy between reasoning and representation to the philosophical distinction between epistemology and ontology. Introduces the notion of the ontological level, intermediate between the epistemological and conceptual levels as a way to characterize a knowledge representation formalism taking into account the intended meaning of its primitives
    Type
    a
  5. Guizzardi, G.; Guarino, N.: Semantics, ontology and explanation (2023) 0.00
    0.0015795645 = product of:
      0.003159129 = sum of:
        0.003159129 = product of:
          0.006318258 = sum of:
            0.006318258 = weight(_text_:a in 976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.006318258 = score(doc=976,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041389145 = queryNorm
                0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 976, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=976)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The terms 'semantics' and 'ontology' are increasingly appearing together with 'explanation', not only in the scientific literature, but also in organizational communication. However, all of these terms are also being significantly overloaded. In this paper, we discuss their strong relation under particular interpretations. Specifically, we discuss a notion of explanation termed ontological unpacking, which aims at explaining symbolic domain descriptions (conceptual models, knowledge graphs, logical specifications) by revealing their ontological commitment in terms of their assumed truthmakers, i.e., the entities in one's ontology that make the propositions in those descriptions true. To illustrate this idea, we employ an ontological theory of relations to explain (by revealing the hidden semantics of) a very simple symbolic model encoded in the standard modeling language UML. We also discuss the essential role played by ontology-driven conceptual models (resulting from this form of explanation processes) in properly supporting semantic interoperability tasks. Finally, we discuss the relation between ontological unpacking and other forms of explanation in philosophy and science, as well as in the area of Artificial Intelligence.
    Type
    a