Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011739651 = product of:
  0.041088775 = sum of:
    0.019986123 = weight(_text_:with in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019986123 = score(doc=4476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.21299566 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
    0.021102654 = product of:
      0.042205308 = sum of:
        0.042205308 = weight(_text_:22 in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042205308 = score(doc=4476,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Describes the types of representations used in different theories of abstractions. Shows how the type of mapping between these representations has been increasingly generalised. Discusses desirable properties preserved by such mappings and identifies how these properties are influenced by the mappings and the presentations defined. Surveys programs made in understanding the complexity reduction associated with abstraction. Focuses on formal models of how abstraction reduces the search space. Presents some of the systems that implement abstraction. shows how the efforts in this area have focused on the mechanisation of languages for the declarative representation of abstraction.

Date

1.10.2018 14:13:22

0.007915906 = product of:
  0.05541134 = sum of:
    0.05541134 = product of:
      0.11082268 = sum of:
        0.11082268 = weight(_text_:humans in 3568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11082268 = score(doc=3568,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26276368 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7481275 = idf(docFreq=140, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.42175797 = fieldWeight in 3568, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7481275 = idf(docFreq=140, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3568)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

LCSH

Humans / Memory (Mental processes)

Subject

Humans / Memory (Mental processes)

0.004037807 = product of:
  0.02826465 = sum of:
    0.02826465 = weight(_text_:with in 4891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02826465 = score(doc=4891,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.30122137 = fieldWeight in 4891, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4891)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Discusses the emergence of the term 'ontology' in knowledge engineering (and now in information science) with a definition of the term as currently used. Ontology is the study of what exists and what must be assumed to exist in order to achieve a cogent description or reality. The term has seen extensive application to artificial intelligence. Describes the process of building an ontology and the uses of such tools in knowledge engineering. Concludes by comparing ontologies with similar tools used in information science

0.0037683311 = product of:
  0.026378317 = sum of:
    0.026378317 = product of:
      0.052756634 = sum of:
        0.052756634 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052756634 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Pages

S.11-22

0.003568951 = product of:
  0.024982655 = sum of:
    0.024982655 = weight(_text_:with in 1529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024982655 = score(doc=1529,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2662446 = fieldWeight in 1529, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1529)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The aim of this book is to highlight the relationship between knowledge representation and language in artificial intelligence, and in particular on the way in which the choice of representation influences the language used to discuss a problem - and vice versa. Opening with a discussion of knowledge representation methods, and following this with a look at reasoning methods, the author begins to make his case for the intimate relationship between language and representation. He shows how each representation method fits particularly well with some reasoning methods and less so with others, using specific languages as examples. The question of representation change, an important and complex issue about which very little is known, is addressed. Dr Hodgson gathers together recent work on problem solving, showing how, in some cases, it has been possible to use representation changes to recast problems into a language that makes them easier to solve. The author maintains throughout that the relationships that this book explores lie at the heart of the construction of large systems, examining a number of the current large AI systems from the viewpoint of representation and language to prove his point.

0.002637832 = product of:
  0.018464822 = sum of:
    0.018464822 = product of:
      0.036929645 = sum of:
        0.036929645 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036929645 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2654, 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=2654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31

0.0024726419 = product of:
  0.017308492 = sum of:
    0.017308492 = weight(_text_:with in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017308492 = score(doc=549,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.18445967 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

LCSH is known as such since 1975. It always has created headings to serve the LC collections instead of a theoretical basis. It started to replace cross reference codes by thesaural codes in 1986, in a mechanical fashion. It was in no way transformed into a thesaurus. Its encyclopedic coverage, its pre-coordinate concepts make it substantially distinct, considering that thesauri usually map a restricted field of knowledge and use uniterms. The questions raised are whether the new symbols comply with thesaurus standards and if they are true to one or to several models. Explanations and definitions from other lists of subject headings and thesauri, literature in the field of classification and subject indexing will provide some answers. For instance, see refers from a subject heading not used to another or others used. Exceptionally it will lead from a specific term to a more general one. Some equate a see reference with the equivalence relationship. Such relationships are pointed by USE in LCSH. See also references are made from the broader subject to narrower parts of it and also between associated subjects. They suggest lateral or vertical connexions as well as reciprocal relationships. They serve a coordination purpose for some, lay down a methodical search itinerary for others. Since their inception in the 1950's thesauri have been devised for indexing and retrieving information in the fields of science and technology. Eventually they attended to a number of social sciences and humanities. Research derived from thesauri was voluminous. Numerous guidelines are designed. They did not discriminate between the "hard" sciences and the social sciences. RT relationships are widely but diversely used in numerous controlled vocabularies. LCSH's aim is to achieve a list almost free of RT and SA references. It thus restricts relationships to BT/NT, USE and UF. This raises the question as to whether all fields of knowledge can "fit" in the Procrustean bed of RT/NT, i.e., genus/species relationships. Standard codes were devised. It was soon realized that BT/NT, well suited to the genus/species couple could not signal a whole-part relationship. In LCSH, BT and NT function as reciprocals, the whole-part relationship is taken into account by ISO. It is amply elaborated upon by authors. The part-whole connexion is sometimes studied apart. The decision to replace cross reference codes was an improvement. Relations can now be distinguished through the distinct needs of numerous fields of knowledge are not attended to. Topic inclusion, and topic-subtopic, could provide the missing link where genus/species or whole/part are inadequate. Distinct codes, BT/NT and whole/part, should be provided. Sorting relationships with mechanical means can only lead to confusion.

0.0022609986 = product of:
  0.015826989 = sum of:
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2230, 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=2230)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (ACM SIGIR '96), Zürich, Switzerland, August 18-22, 1996. Eds.: H.P. Frei et al

0.0022609986 = product of:
  0.015826989 = sum of:
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2655, 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=2655)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31

0.0017844755 = product of:
  0.012491328 = sum of:
    0.012491328 = weight(_text_:with in 3059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012491328 = score(doc=3059,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1331223 = fieldWeight in 3059, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3059)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Information Systems (IS) is among the most widespread terms in the Computer Science field but a well founded, widely accepted theory of IS is still missing. With the Internet publication of the FRISCO report, the IFIP task group "FRamework of Information System COncepts" has taken a first step towards such a theory. Among the major achievements of this report are: (1) it builds on a solid basis formed by semiotics and ontology, (2) it defines a compendium of about 100 core IS concepts in a coherent and consistent way, (3) it goes beyond the common narrow view of information systems as pure technical artefacts by adopting an interdisciplinary, socio-technical view on them. In the autumn of 1999, a first review of the report and its impact was undertaken at the ISCO-4 conference in Leiden. In a workshop specifically devoted to the subject, the original aims and goals of FRISCO were confirmed to be still valid and the overall approach and achievements of the report were acknowledged. On the other hand, the workshop revealed some misconceptions, errors and weaknesses of the report in its present form, which are to be removed through a comprehensive revision now under way. This paper reports on the results of the Leiden conference and the current revision activities. It also points out some important consequences of the FRISCO approach as a whole.

0.0017844755 = product of:
  0.012491328 = sum of:
    0.012491328 = weight(_text_:with in 3217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012491328 = score(doc=3217,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1331223 = fieldWeight in 3217, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3217)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In this chapter I propose that frames provide the fundamental representation of knowledge in human cognition. In the first section, I raise problems with the feature list representations often found in theories of knowledge, and I sketch the solutions that frames provide to them. In the second section, I examine the three fundamental concepts of frames: attribute-value sets, structural invariants, and constraints. Because frames also represents the attributes, values, structural invariants, and constraints within a frame, the mechanism that constructs frames builds them recursively. The frame theory I propose borrows heavily from previous frame theories, although its collection of representational components is somewhat unique. Furthermore, frame theorists generally assume that frames are rigid configurations of independent attributes, whereas I propose that frames are dynamic relational structures whose form is flexible and context dependent. In the third section, I illustrate how frames support a wide variety of representational tasks central to conceptual processing in natural and artificial intelligence. Frames can represent exemplars and propositions, prototypes and membership, subordinates and taxonomies. Frames can also represent conceptual combinations, event sequences, rules, and plans. In the fourth section, I show how frames define the extent of conceptual fields and how they provide a powerful productive mechanism for generating specific concepts within a field.

0.0017844755 = product of:
  0.012491328 = sum of:
    0.012491328 = weight(_text_:with in 3575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012491328 = score(doc=3575,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1331223 = fieldWeight in 3575, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3575)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Presents a proposal for the long-range development of an open, multifunctional, multilingual system for integrated access to many kinds of knowledge about concepts and terminology. The system would draw on existing knowledge bases that are accessible through the Internet or on CD-ROM and on a common integrated distributed knowledge base that would grow incrementally over time. Existing knowledge bases would be accessed througha common interface that would search several knowledge bases, collate the data into a common format, and present them to the user. The common integrated distributed knowldge base would provide an environment in which many contributors could carry out classification and terminological projects more efficiently, with the results available in a common format. Over time, data from other knowledge bases could be incorporated into the common knowledge base, either by actual transfer (provided the knowledge base producers are willing) or by reference through a link. Either way, such incorporation requires intellectual work but allows for tighter integration than common interface access to multiple knowledge bases. Each piece of information in the common knowledge base will have all its sources attached, providing an acknowledgment mechanism that gives due credit to all contributors. The whole system would be designed to be usable by many levels of users for improved information exchange.

0.0017844755 = product of:
  0.012491328 = sum of:
    0.012491328 = weight(_text_:with in 3576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012491328 = score(doc=3576,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1331223 = fieldWeight in 3576, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3576)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper presents a proposal for the long-range development of an open, multifunctional, multilingual system for integrated access to many kinds of knowledge about concepts and terminology. The system would draw on existing knowledge bases that are accessible through the Internet or on CD-ROM an on a common integrated distributed knowledge base that would grow incrementally over time. Existing knowledge bases would be accessed through a common interface that would search several knowledge bases, collate the data into a common format, and present them to the user. The common integrated distributed knowledge base would provide an environment in which many contributors could carry out classification and terminological projects more efficiently, with the results available in a common format. Over time, data from other knowledge bases could be incorporated into the common knowledge base, either by actual transfer (provided the knowledge base producers are willing) or by reference through a link. Either way, such incorporation requires intellectual work but allows for tighter integration than common interface access to multiple knowledge bases. Each piece of information in the common knowledge base will have all its sources attached, providing an acknowledgment mechanism that gives due credit to all contributors. The whole system woul be designed to be usable by many levels of users for improved information exchange.

0.0014275803 = product of:
  0.009993061 = sum of:
    0.009993061 = weight(_text_:with in 694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009993061 = score(doc=694,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.10649783 = fieldWeight in 694, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=694)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

More and more information is available on-line every day. The greater the amount of on-line information, the greater the demand for tools that process and disseminate this information. Processing electronic information in the form of text and answering users' queries about that information intelligently is one of the great challenges in natural language processing and information retrieval. The research presented in this talk is centered on the latter of these two tasks: intelligent information retrieval. In order for information to be retrieved, it first needs to be formalized in a database or knowledge base. The ontology for this formalization and assumptions it is based on are crucial to successful intelligent information retrieval. We have concentrated our effort on developing an ontology for representing knowledge in the domains of experimental sciences, molecular biology in particular. We show that existing ontological models cannot be readily applied to represent this domain adequately. For example, the fundamental notion of ontology design that every "real" object is defined as an instance of a category seems incompatible with the universe where objects can change their category as a result of experimental procedures. Another important problem is representing complex structures such as DNA, mixtures, populations of molecules, etc., that are very common in molecular biology. We present extensions that need to be made to an ontology to cover these issues: the representation of transformations that change the structure and/or category of their participants, and the component relations and spatial structures of complex objects. We demonstrate examples of how the proposed representations can be used to improve the quality and completeness of answers to user queries; discuss techniques for evaluating ontologies and show a prototype of an Information Retrieval System that we developed.