Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019647349 = product of:
  0.029471021 = sum of:
    0.008046483 = weight(_text_:a in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008046483 = score(doc=152,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 152, 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=152)
    0.02142454 = product of:
      0.04284908 = sum of:
        0.04284908 = weight(_text_:22 in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04284908 = score(doc=152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 152, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

An ontology for application in non-domain specific, plurilingual, multimedia environments is outlined. A Basic Semantic Reference Structure (BSRS) allows a combination of semantic and instance-related descriptions of knowledge under the conditions of both paradigm and real-world change. Guidelines for the application of the model are given. Ontologies are conceived as reflections of what humans think is the World and how the World proceeds. Various kinds of ontologies exist. So, when we are going to speak of dynamism in ontologies, we have to make it clear what sort of ontologies we have in mind

Date

3. 1.2002 13:22:08

Type

a

0.0022989952 = product of:
  0.006896985 = sum of:
    0.006896985 = weight(_text_:a in 1680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006896985 = score(doc=1680,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1680, 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=1680)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Last word ontological thought and practice is exemplified on an axiomatic framework [a model for an Integrative Cross-Language Ontology (ICLO), cf. Poli, R., Schmitz-Esser, W., forthcoming 2007] that is highly general, based on natural language, multilingual, can be implemented as topic maps and may be openly enhanced by software available for particular languages. Basics of ontological modelling, conditions for construction and maintenance, and the most salient points in application are addressed, such as cross-language text mining and knowledge generation. The rationale is to open the eyes for the tremendous potential of terminology-based ontologies for principled Knowledge Organization and the interchange and reuse of formalized knowledge.

Type

a

0.00197866 = product of:
  0.00593598 = sum of:
    0.00593598 = weight(_text_:a in 1693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00593598 = score(doc=1693,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 1693, 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=1693)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

How can public media utterances of societal rank ("knowledge") be organized, not just by search words of a specific language as is practice of the day, but by their meaning and environmental intentions, expressed in some language, yes, but irrespective of a specific language, so as to enable to formalize this knowledge mediating cross-language ontologies that in turn support the action of knowledge machines? In such machines, knowledge could be "tamed" and put to use in a consistent, widely linguistically and logic-controlled way. Knowledge, once formalized, would be apt to be merged with (or segmented for) other ontologies, with a chance to make world-wide sharing of reliable knowledge come true. Moreover, formalization of knowledge in ontologies would produce new knowledge which in turn could be used to detect knowledge hidden in hitherto unknown texts and in heterogeneous texts to come in the future. Formalization of knowledge would enable, require, even cry for, responsible, knowledgeable human, and social, control. Educational curricula as known from library science and archival disciplines remain of importance, but will prove largely insufficient in the face of such challenges. Actually, in present new and upcoming ontology-based knowledge machines, the human resource is found addressed by labels such as peers, curators, knowledge and linguistic engineers and the like, names that all are falling short of expressing the most important three elements that have to come together in individuals and teams bound for constructing, maintaining and running cross-language ontologies for knowledge machines: Intimate domain/task expertise, full command of the source and target languages and their respective linguistics, and author-like, editorial responsibility that is up to the challenges of the new media world.

Type

a

0.001564268 = product of:
  0.004692804 = sum of:
    0.004692804 = weight(_text_:a in 6645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004692804 = score(doc=6645,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 6645, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6645)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Globalisierung und Wissensorganisation: Neue Aspekte für Wissen, Wissenschaft und Informationssysteme: Proceedings der 6. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Hamburg, 23.-25.9.1999. Hrsg.: H.P. Ohly, G. Rahmstorf u. A. Sigel

Type

a

0.0015326635 = product of:
  0.0045979903 = sum of:
    0.0045979903 = weight(_text_:a in 1684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0045979903 = score(doc=1684,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.088261776 = fieldWeight in 1684, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1684)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Modern ontologies, what are they good for? How did they take us in KO theory and application, and what can we expect from them in the future? These were the focal questions in an afternoon workshop initiated and run by three passionate knowledge organizers from the front of ontology research, Alexander Sigel (Cologne), Winfried Schmitz-Esser (Hamburg), and Roberto Poli (Trento), at the International ISKO 06 Congress in Vienna. Those who in the knowledge organization business till the classic grounds of library and archival sciences will more and more frequently find themselves stumbling over the classic, philösophical notion of ontolögy which now comes in a modern context where nothing can be achieved any longer without the assistance of the computer. They will be asking: Ontology, what is it, a prestige-fishing, fashionable, neo-term? Old wine in new skins? Or, rather, new wine in old skins? It was clear from the beginning that in Vienna, where KO theoreticians and practitioners from all over the world were to convene, some basic explanations and clarifications, and an overview on where we stand and where we go with modern ontolögies would be most welcome, and suitable. The workshop entitled "Introducing Terminology-based Ontologies" aimed straight at the heart of the ontology approach in Knowledge Organization: This is an urgently needed, better command of the deep-structured conceptual matter, - beyond of the potentials and constraints of linguistics and the languages. With this, one was right in the middle of the problem that has been haunting knowledge organizers ever since up to the present day.

Type

a

0.0013273255 = product of:
  0.0039819763 = sum of:
    0.0039819763 = weight(_text_:a in 1285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039819763 = score(doc=1285,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 1285, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1285)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)