Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 3526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=3526,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 3526, 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=3526)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Identifying existing domains of reality is a basic task for knowledge organization. Intuitively, phenomena occurring in each class are more causally homogeneous than those in other classes. Domain theory can be built on both the theory of levels of reality and the theory of wholes. As a discussion example, the domain of biology is analyzed, and core entities and facets of it are identified.

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 20) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=20,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 20, 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=20)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The first main thesis of the paper is that an ontology is not a catalogue of the world, a taxonomy, or a terminology. If anything, an ontology is the general framework within which catalogues, taxonomies, and terminologies may be given suitable organization. The second main thesis is that reality is organized into diverse levels and the are sophisticated dependencies among these levels and within them. An acceptable ontology should be able to model all these relations of dependence

Type

a

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 3533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=3533,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 3533, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3533)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ontology, in its philosophical meaning, is the discipline investigating the structure of reality. Its findings can be relevant to knowledge organization, and models of knowledge can, in turn, offer relevant ontological suggestions. Several philosophers in time have pointed out that reality is structured into a series of integrative levels, like the physical, the biological, the mental, and the cultural, and that each level plays as a base for the emergence of more complex levels. More detailed theories of levels have been developed by Nicolai Hartmann and James K. Feibleman, and these have been considered as a source for structuring principles in bibliographic classification by both the Classification Research Group (CRG) and Ingetraut Dahlberg. CRG's analysis of levels and of their possible application to a new general classification scheme based an phenomena instead of disciplines, as it was formulated by Derek Austin in 1969, is examined in detail. Both benefits and open problems in applying integrative levels to bibliographic classification are pointed out.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 4819) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=4819,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 4819, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4819)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ontological categories are organized along a number of different dimensions. The simplest is the distinction between categories that apply to all entities, both real and ideal, and categories that apply only to some families of entities. More complicated is the analysis of the relations that connect categories one to another. Two different exemplifications of the latter case are provided, i.e., the form of duality linking some paired categories and the relations of superformation and superconstruction that connect levels of reality. Furthermore, an in-depth analysis of the category of temporality is presented. Ideas previously advanced by Nicolai Hartmann are exploited throughout the paper.

Source

Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 2711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=2711,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2711, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2711)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The distinction between semiotic, semantic and ontological classifications is introduced. A few examples of semantic and ontological categories are then provided and discussed. The thesis is defended that semantic categories depend an ontological categories.

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 1685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=1685,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1685, 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=1685)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

After presenting some of the basic features of upper ontologies, the thesis is defended that all the relations needed by any concrete application can be generated by a small set of general relations, by adding proper ontological constraints to the general relations' arguments. This procedure provides an explicit and verifiable grounding to all forms of knowledge managements, including acquisition, interchange, integration, reuse, merging, aligning and updating knowledge. Upper ontologies therefore provide cues for developing both unification and decomposition methods. Finally, upper ontologies pave the ground for enhancing automatic reasoning and other machine-oriented procedures. I conclude by mentioning a difficulty in the theory of semantic fields.

Type

a

0.0015127839 = product of:
  0.0030255679 = sum of:
    0.0030255679 = product of:
      0.0060511357 = sum of:
        0.0060511357 = weight(_text_:a in 1094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060511357 = score(doc=1094,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 1094, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1094)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Three of the principal theories which can be used to understand, categorize and organize the many aspects of reality prima facie have unexpected interdependencies. The theories to which I refer are those concerned with the causal connections among the items that make up the real world, the space and the time in which they grow, and the levels of reality. What matters most is the discovery that the difficulties internal to theories of causation and to theories of space and time can be understood better, and perhaps dealt with, in the categorial context furnished by the theory of the levels of reality. The structural condition for this development to be possible is that the first two theories be opportunely generalized. In other words, the thesis outlined in this position paper has two aspects. The first is the hypothesis that the theory of levels can function as a general categorial framework within which to recast our understanding of causal and spatio-temporal phenomena. The second aspect is that the best-known and most usual categorizations of causal, spatial and temporal dependencies are not sufficiently generic and are structurally constrained to express only some of the relevant phenomena. Explicit consideration of the theory of the levels of reality furnishes the keystone for generalization of both the theory of causes and the theory of times and spaces. To assert that a theory is not sufficiently generic is to say that the manner in which it is configured may hamper rather than help full understanding of the relevant phenomena. From this assertion follow two of the three obstructions mentioned in the title to this paper. The third obstruction is easier to specify. Whilst the theories of causality and space-time are robust and well-structured - whatever criticisms one might wish to make of them - the situation of the theory of the levels of reality is entirely different, in that it is not at all widely endorsed or thoroughly developed. On the contrary, it is a decidedly minority proposal, and it still has many obscure, or simply under-developed, aspects. The theory of levels is the third obstruction cited in the title. Nonetheless, the approach outlined in what follows seems to be the most promising route to follow.

Content

This paper was prepared for "Continuity + Change: Perspectives on Science and Religion", June 3-7, 2006, in Philadelphia, PA, USA, a program of the Metanexus Institute (www.metanexus.net).