Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01347281 = product of:
  0.047154833 = sum of:
    0.033925693 = weight(_text_:based in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033925693 = score(doc=1204,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.28829288 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
    0.013229139 = product of:
      0.026458278 = sum of:
        0.026458278 = weight(_text_:22 in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026458278 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

A main goal of recent studies in semantics is to integrate into conceptual structures the models of representation used in linguistics, logic, and/or artificial intelligence. A fundamental problem resides in the need to structure knowledge and then to check the validity of constructed representations. We propose associating logical properties with relationships by introducing the relationships into a typed and functional system of specifcations. This makes it possible to compare conceptual representations against the relationships established between the concepts. The mandatory condition to validate such a conceptual representation is consistency. The semantic system proposed is based an a structured set of semantic primitives-types, relations, and properties-based an a global model of language processing, Applicative and Cognitive Grammar (ACG) (Desc16s, 1990), and an extension of this model to terminology (Jouis & Mustafa 1995, 1996, 1997). The ACG postulates three levels of representation of languages, including a cognitive level. At this level, the meanings of lexical predicates are represented by semantic cognitive schemes. From this perspective, we propose a set of semantic concepts, which defines an organized system of meanings. Relations are part of a specification network based an a general terminological scheure (i.e., a coherent system of meanings of relations). In such a system, a specific relation may be characterized as to its: (1) functional type (the semantic type of arguments of the relation); (2) algebraic properties (reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, etc.); and (3) combinatorial relations with other entities in the same context (for instance, the part of the text where a concept is defined).

Date

1.12.2002 11:12:22

0.00447703 = product of:
  0.03133921 = sum of:
    0.03133921 = weight(_text_:based in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03133921 = score(doc=1193,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The basic conceptual units of cognitive semantics-image schemata, basic level concepts, and frames-are intemally structured, with meaningful relationships existing between components of those units. In metonymy, metaphor, and blended spaces, such intemal conceptual structure is complemented by extemal referential structure, based an mappings between elements of underlying conceptualspaces.

0.00447703 = product of:
  0.03133921 = sum of:
    0.03133921 = weight(_text_:based in 170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03133921 = score(doc=170,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 170, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=170)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper present an alternative approach to knowledge organization based on semiotic reasoning. The semantic distance between domain specific terminology and KOS is analyzed by means of their different sign systems. It is argued that a faceted approach may provide the means needed to minimize the gap between knowledge domains and KOS.

0.0039174017 = product of:
  0.02742181 = sum of:
    0.02742181 = weight(_text_:based in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02742181 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The intuitive simplicity of the so-called is-a (or subsumption) relationship has led to widespread ontological misuse. Where previous work has focused largely an the semantics of the relationship itself, we concentrate here an the ontological nature of its arguments, in Order to tell whether a single is-a link is ontologically well-founded. For this purpose, we introduce some techniques based an the philosophical notions of identity, unity, and essence, which have been adapted to the needs of taxonomy design. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these techniques by taking real examples of poorly structured taxonomies and revealing cases of invalid generalization.

0.0033577727 = product of:
  0.023504408 = sum of:
    0.023504408 = weight(_text_:based in 1207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023504408 = score(doc=1207,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 1207, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1207)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Specialized domains often come with an extensive terminology, suitable for storing and exchanging information, but not necessarily for knowledge processing. Knowledge structures such as semantic networks, or ontologies, are required to explore the semantics of a domain. The UMLS project at the National Library of Medicine is a research effort to develop knowledge-based resources for the biomedical domain. The Metathesaurus is a large body of knowledge that defines and inter-relates 730,000 biomedical concepts, and the Semantic Network defines the semantic principles that apply to this domain. This chapter presents these two knowledge sources and illustrates through a research study how they can collaborate to further structure the domain. The limits of the approach are discussed.

0.002798144 = product of:
  0.019587006 = sum of:
    0.019587006 = weight(_text_:based in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019587006 = score(doc=3461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Concept theory is an extremely broad, interdisciplinary and complex field of research related to many deep fields with very long historical traditions without much consensus. However, information science and knowledge organization cannot avoid relating to theories of concepts. Knowledge organizing systems (e.g., classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies) should be understood as systems basically organizing concepts and their semantic relations. The same is the case with information retrieval systems. Different theories of concepts have different implications for how to construe, evaluate, and use such systems. Based on a post-Kuhnian view of paradigms, this article put forward arguments that the best understanding and classification of theories of concepts is to view and classify them in accordance with epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism). It is also argued that the historicist and pragmatist understandings of concepts are the most fruitful views and that this understanding may be part of a broader paradigm shift that is also beginning to take place in information science. The importance of historicist and pragmatic theories of concepts for information science is outlined.

0.002645828 = product of:
  0.018520795 = sum of:
    0.018520795 = product of:
      0.03704159 = sum of:
        0.03704159 = weight(_text_:22 in 5710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03704159 = score(doc=5710,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5710, 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=5710)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Pages

S.22-33

0.0018898771 = product of:
  0.013229139 = sum of:
    0.013229139 = product of:
      0.026458278 = sum of:
        0.026458278 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026458278 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

11.12.2019 19:00:22