Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008633038 = product of:
  0.034532152 = sum of:
    0.034532152 = product of:
      0.069064304 = sum of:
        0.069064304 = weight(_text_:project in 78) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069064304 = score(doc=78,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.32644984 = fieldWeight in 78, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=78)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

At a world exhibition such as the EXP02000 in Hanover, where all the major issues discussed in the World will be part of the agenda, and tens of thousands of different topics will be on show, the need to bridge this world of real and virtual objects with the conceptual spaces encountered in the heads of some 40 million expected visitors is obvious. To construct a system to cope with this requirement represents an ambitious task in itself. This paper addresses practical details of this project along with the conceptual basis of the future Visitors Information System

0.008488459 = product of:
  0.033953834 = sum of:
    0.033953834 = product of:
      0.06790767 = sum of:
        0.06790767 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06790767 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Pages

S.11-22

0.0059419204 = product of:
  0.023767682 = sum of:
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

3. 1.2002 13:22:08

0.005093075 = product of:
  0.0203723 = sum of:
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.0038285558 = product of:
  0.015314223 = sum of:
    0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 1684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015314223 = score(doc=1684,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 1684, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1684)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0038285558 = product of:
  0.015314223 = sum of:
    0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 1693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015314223 = score(doc=1693,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 1693, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1693)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.