Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0073914872 = product of:
  0.04434892 = sum of:
    0.04434892 = weight(_text_:web in 1285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04434892 = score(doc=1285,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 1285, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1285)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Inhalt: 1. From traditional Knowledge Organization Systems (authority files, classifications, thesauri) towards ontologies on the web (Alexander Sigel) (Tutorial. Paper with Slides interspersed) pp. 3-53 2. Introduction to Integrative Cross-Language Ontology (ICLO): Formalizing and interrelating textual knowledge to enable intelligent action and knowledge sharing (Winfried Schmitz-Esser) pp. 54-113 3. First Idea Sketch on Modelling ICLO with Topic Maps (Alexander Sigel) (Work in progress paper. Topic maps available from the author) pp. 114-130

Theme

Semantic Web

0.006422612 = product of:
  0.03853567 = sum of:
    0.03853567 = weight(_text_:wide in 1693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03853567 = score(doc=1693,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 1693, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1693)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.005461648 = product of:
  0.03276989 = sum of:
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 6645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=6645,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 6645, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6645)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Zahlreich sind die Versuche, Strukturen begrifflicher Relationen, wie sie in Thesauren niedergelegt sind, durch Visualisierung verständlicher zu machen, doch nirgends ist das bisher in überzeugender Weise gelungen. Damit blieb der Gebrauch von Thesauri durchweg auf Fachleute (Dokumentare) verwiesen und eine Anwendung in der Breite fand nicht statt. Mit den neuen Möglichkeiten visueller und auditiver Darstellung, wie sie nun die Informationstechnologie bietet, läßt sich das ändern. Berichtet wird über ein Projekt im Zusammenhang mit der EXP02000, bei dem versucht wird, bisher weitgehend ungenutzte Potentiale von Thesauri für die Interaktion am Computer zu nutzen. Akteur am Point of Information ist dabei jeder Interessierte, gleich ob Laie oder Fachmann, Gegenstand der Strukturierung die Welt im Jahre 2000, Zugangssprache die Sprache der allgemeinen Kommunikation. Einsicht in die begrifflichen Strukturen in dem Sinne, daß man sie versteht, ist nicht erforderlich, die multimediale Präsentation ermöglicht sensitives Erfassen und nähert sich gewohntem intuitiven Umgang mit Begrifflichkeiten. Jedermann kann so durch den Gedankenraum "reisen", sinnvollen Verknüpfungen und Wirkketten nachspüren, begriffliche Klärung und Einsichten gewinnen, für den Begriff das richtige Wort finden. Bei solch einer Reise wird er zugleich auch auf überraschende Zusammenhänge stoßen. Der Sprung in die Quellen wird von jedem angesteuerten Punkt aus möglich. Die Grenzen des herkömmlichen Information Retrieval zerfließen damit und öffnen sich hin zu neuen, bisher vernachlässigten Räumen: dem Erleben, der Anregung, dem sinnvollen Spiel, der Überraschung, dem unterhaltsamen Lernen

0.005014823 = product of:
  0.030088935 = sum of:
    0.030088935 = product of:
      0.06017787 = sum of:
        0.06017787 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06017787 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Pages

S.11-22

0.0043693185 = product of:
  0.02621591 = sum of:
    0.02621591 = weight(_text_:computer in 1684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02621591 = score(doc=1684,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.16150802 = fieldWeight in 1684, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1684)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.003510376 = product of:
  0.021062255 = sum of:
    0.021062255 = product of:
      0.04212451 = sum of:
        0.04212451 = weight(_text_:22 in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04212451 = score(doc=152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

3. 1.2002 13:22:08

0.0030088935 = product of:
  0.01805336 = sum of:
    0.01805336 = product of:
      0.03610672 = sum of:
        0.03610672 = weight(_text_:22 in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610672 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4116, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Knowledge organization. 26(1999) no.1, S.10-22