Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Begriffstheorie"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Rahmstorf, G.: Wege zur Ontologie (2006) 0.05 
    0.049596176 = product of:
  0.09919235 = sum of:
    0.02615415 = weight(_text_:von in 5868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02615415 = score(doc=5868,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.20422229 = fieldWeight in 5868, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5868)
    0.0730382 = product of:
      0.10955729 = sum of:
        0.004885169 = weight(_text_:a in 5868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004885169 = score(doc=5868,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.088261776 = fieldWeight in 5868, 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=5868)
        0.10467213 = weight(_text_:z in 5868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10467213 = score(doc=5868,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2562021 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.40855294 = fieldWeight in 5868, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5868)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Ontologie ist in der Philosophie die Auseinandersetzung mit der Frage, welche Arten von Gegenständen existieren und in welcher Weise sie existieren. Ein zentrales Thema ist z. B., ob es geistige Gegenstände, z. B. Gedanken, Ideen, Begriffe, Vorstellungen u. a. gibt und wie ihre Existenz begründet wird. Neuerdings wird mit dem Wort "Ontologie" eine andere, etwas konkretere Bedeutung verbunden. Unter einer Ontologie werden die allgemeinsten Begriffe eines Fachgebiets verstanden. So gehören zur Ontologie des Organischen u. a. "Pflanze", "Tier" und "Mensch". Wenn der Begriff "Tier" schon gegeben ist, lassen sich daraus andere Begriffe, z. B. "Wirbeltier", "Reptil", "Säugetier" usw. spezifizierend durch Angabe weiterer Merkmale bilden. Außerdem können Begriffsbeziehungen und andere formale Mittel zu Ontologien gehören. Ontologie ist danach die Methode, durch die die Begriffswelt eines Sachgebiets bestimmt wird, und insbesondere das Ergebnis dieser Methode: die Struktur aus Begriffen höchster Allgemeinheit, die mit dieser Methode erstellt wird. Das Wort "Ontologie" kann jedoch unterschiedlich verstanden wird. Es bezeichnet auch die Gesamtheit aller Begriffe, die zum Untersuchungsgegenstand gehören. Die Ontologie umfasst dann alles, was an Begriffen aus einer bestimmten Aufgabenstellung betrachtet bzw. erarbeitet wird. Zu einer Ontologie der Elektronik würden alle Begriffe dieses Gebietes gehören. Mit einem so weit gefassten Verständnis des Wortes "Ontologie" wird die Fokussierung auf die Kategorien größter Allgemeinheit der hierarchisch gegliederten Begriffswelt aufgegeben. Außerdem würde eine so verstandene Ontologie mit der Tatsache der Unabgrenzbarkeit des Wortschatzes belastet werden. Komposita können im Deutschen quasi unbegrenzt erweitert werden. Es gibt nicht nur den Kamin und den Kaminfeger, sondern auch die Kaminfegerarbeitskleidungsreinigungsfirma und dergleichen mehr. Komposita sind unverzichtbar. Ihre maximale Länge ist nicht festgelegt. Die Benennungen für Stoffe in der Chemie zeigen, dass man in dieser Fachsprache durchaus problemlos mit sehr langen Zusammensetzungen kommuniziert. Aber die Ontologen werden nicht daran interessiert sein, ihre Untersuchungen bis in die Tiefen aller Fachgebiete auszudehnen. Kurzum "Ontologie" sollte sich auf Begriffe höchster Allgemeinheit beziehen. Das entspricht der engeren Bedeutung des Wortes "Ontologie". Die Unterbegriffe dieser Top-Level-Begriffe können natürlich ebenfalls für Ontologen von Interesse sein, weil sie zeigen, welches Begriffsbildungspotenzial die verschiedenen Top-Level-Begriffe haben. Der Schwerpunkt des Interesses der Ontologen sollte aber auf den Begriffen liegen, die nicht weiter zurückführbar sind.
    Source
    Wissensorganisation und Verantwortung: Gesellschaftliche, ökonomische und technische Aspekte. Proceedings der 9. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Duisburg, 5.-7. November 2004. Hrsg. von H.P. Ohly u.a
    Type
    a
  2. Bauer, G.: ¬Die vielseitigen Anwendungsmöglichkeiten des Kategorienprinzips bei der Wissensorganisation (2006) 0.04 
    0.0355058 = product of:
  0.0710116 = sum of:
    0.03737085 = weight(_text_:von in 5710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03737085 = score(doc=5710,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.29180688 = fieldWeight in 5710, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5710)
    0.03364075 = product of:
      0.05046112 = sum of:
        0.004935794 = weight(_text_:a in 5710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004935794 = score(doc=5710,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 5710, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5710)
        0.045525327 = weight(_text_:22 in 5710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045525327 = score(doc=5710,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16809508 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Fast alle berühmten Philosophen der letzten Jahrhunderte haben sich mit den allgemeinen Begriffen befasst und sie sehr unterschiedlich formuliert und interpretiert. Eine Auswahl philosophischer Kategorien: - Platon (427-347): Sein, Identität, Verschiedenheit, Veränderung, Beharrung - Aristoteles (384-322): Substanz, Qualität, Quantität, Relation, Ort. Haben, Tun, Leiden - Kant (1724-1804): Qualität, Quantität, Relation, Modalität - Lotze (1891): Ding, Eigenschaft, Tätigkeit, Relation Unter Kategorien versteht man die allgemeinsten Stammbegriffe des Verstandes, unter welchen alle Gegenstände der Erfahrung fallen und von denen die übrigen Begriffe abgeleitet werden können. Für die Informationspraxis sind die ursprünglichen philosophischen Kategorien modifiziert worden.
    Pages
    S.22-33
    Source
    Wissensorganisation und Verantwortung: Gesellschaftliche, ökonomische und technische Aspekte. Proceedings der 9. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Duisburg, 5.-7. November 2004. Hrsg. von H.P. Ohly u.a
    Type
    a
  3. Fugmann, R.: ¬Die Nützlichkeit von semantischen Kategorien auf dem Gebiet der Informationsbereitstellung (2006) 0.03 
    0.027692176 = product of:
  0.055384353 = sum of:
    0.0544442 = weight(_text_:von in 5867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0544442 = score(doc=5867,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.4251226 = fieldWeight in 5867, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5867)
    9.401512E-4 = product of:
      0.0028204536 = sum of:
        0.0028204536 = weight(_text_:a in 5867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0028204536 = score(doc=5867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 5867, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5867)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Unter den verschiedenen Möglichkeiten, das Wissen der Menschen zu ordnen, um sich den Überblick darüber zu erhalten, haben die Kategorien schon seit dem Altertum eine wichtige Rolle gespielt. Speziell auf dem Gebiet des Bibliothekswesens und der Informationsbereitstellung hat Ranganathan (1967) mit der Einführung von "Fundamental Categories" (Personality, Matter, Energy, Space, Time) schon in den 30-er Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts neue Wege beschritten, ohne damit allerdings große Resonanz in der Fachwelt auszulösen zu können. Im traditionellen Bibliothekswesen hätte der Übergang auf ein kategoriengestütztes Informationssystem dieser Art wohl eine allzu große Umstellung bewirkt. Bei einem Neubeginn, wie er in der jüngeren Vergangenheit zu vielen Malen stattgefunden hat, hat man sich in Unkenntnis oder Abneigung dem Einsatz dieses ordnungschaffenden Werkzeuge verschlossen. Dabei lassen sich gerade bei der Verfügbarkeit von Computertechnologie große Fortschritte erzielen, wenn sich die Indexsprachen auf eine Gruppe von semantischen Kategorien stützen. Die Gestaltung und Fortentwicklung solcher Sprachen zu hoher Effizienz ist sogar ohne ein Fundament von semantischen Kategorien noch nicht gelungen und auch nicht denkbar. Bei den semantischen Kategorien handelt es sich um Begriffstypen, welche auf dem betreffenden Gebiet in den dortigen Publikationen und Fragestellungen eine besonders große Rolle spielen und deswegen besondere Aufmerksamkeit erfordern. In Ergänzung der Ausführungen von Bauer (2004) zu den Einsatzmöglichkeiten von Kategorien in der Wissensorganisation allgemein werden nachfolgend sieben Anwendungen eines Konzepts von semantischen Kategorien kurz erörtert. Sie haben in einem Großsystem zum Patentwesen in der Chemie zu einem Informationssystem von bisher noch immer unübertroffen großer Leistungsfähigkeit geführt. Das ursprüngliche ranganathansche Kategorienkonzept für das Bibliothekswesen ist dort dem Bedarf auf dem Gebiet der reinen und angewandten Chemie angepasst worden (vgl. Fugmann 1999, S. 23, 49-64). Es umfasst: STOFF, LEBEWESEN, Vorrichtung, VORGANG, ATTRIBUT von den vorgenannten kategorialen Gegenständen, d.h. Eigenschaft und Verwendung von Stoff, Lebewesen, Vorrichtung, Vorgang. Nachfolgend werden sieben solcher Einsatzmöglichkeiten in einem System zur gezielten Informationsbereitstellung aufgezählt: 1. Die Definition von schlagwörtern oder Deskriptoren 2. Der Inhalt der Indexsprache 3. Das Ordnen des Wortschatzes der Indexsprache 4. Der Unterteilungsgesichtspunkt 5. Die Begriffsanalyse 6. Die Begriffssynthese 7. Die Vermeidung unerfüllbarer Suchbedingungen
    Source
    Wissensorganisation und Verantwortung: Gesellschaftliche, ökonomische und technische Aspekte. Proceedings der 9. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Duisburg, 5.-7. November 2004. Hrsg. von H.P. Ohly u.a
    Type
    a
  4. Stock, W.: Begriffe und semantische Relationen in der Wissensrepräsentation (2009) 0.03 
    0.026028758 = product of:
  0.052057516 = sum of:
    0.05064729 = weight(_text_:von in 3218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05064729 = score(doc=3218,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.39547473 = fieldWeight in 3218, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3218)
    0.001410227 = product of:
      0.004230681 = sum of:
        0.004230681 = weight(_text_:a in 3218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004230681 = score(doc=3218,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3218, 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=3218)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Begriffsorientiertes Information Retrieval bedarf einer informationswissenschaftlichen Theorie der Begriffe sowie der semantischen Relationen. Ein Begriff wird durch seine Intension und Extension sowie durch Definitionen bestimmt. Dem Problem der Vagheit begegnen wir durch die Einführung von Prototypen. Wichtige Definitionsarten sind die Begriffserklärung (nach Aristoteles) und die Definition über Familienähnlichkeiten (im Sinne Wittgensteins). Wir modellieren Begriffe als Frames (in der Version von Barsalou). Die zentrale paradigmatische Relation in Wissensordnungen ist die Hierarchie, die in verschiedene Arten zu gliedern ist: Hyponymie zerfällt in die Taxonomie und die einfache Hyponymie, Meronymie in eine ganze Reihe unterschiedlicher Teil-Ganzes-Beziehungen. Wichtig für praktische Anwendungen ist die Transitivität der jeweiligen Relation. Eine unspezifische Assoziationsrelation ist bei den angepeilten Anwendungen wenig hilfreich und wird durch ein Bündel von generalisierbaren und fachspezifischen Relationen ersetzt. Unser Ansatz fundiert neue Optionen der Anwendung von Wissensordnungen in der Informationspraxis neben ihrem "klassischen" Einsatz beim Information Retrieval: Erweiterung von Suchanfragen (Anwendung der semantischen Nähe), automatisches Schlussfolgern (Anwendung der terminologischen Logik in Vorbereitung eines semantischen Web) und automatische Berechnungen (bei Funktionalbegriffen mit numerischen Wertangaben).
    Type
    a
  5. Gerstenkorn, A.: Informationsbezug zwischen Gemein- und Fachsprache : Zum gemein- und fachsprachlichen Wort "Tal" (2006) 0.02 
    0.016429678 = product of:
  0.032859355 = sum of:
    0.030200208 = weight(_text_:von in 6013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030200208 = score(doc=6013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.23581557 = fieldWeight in 6013, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6013)
    0.0026591495 = product of:
      0.007977448 = sum of:
        0.007977448 = weight(_text_:a in 6013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007977448 = score(doc=6013,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 6013, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6013)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Dokumentationssprachen setzen Terminologien und Ontologien ein. Terminologien enthalten viele Ausdrücke, die auch in der Alltagssprache (Gemeinsprache) benutzt werden. Handelt es sich hier um unterschiedlich exakt erklärte Ausdrücke oder um Polyseme? Das Wort "Tal" soll als Beispiel für diese Frage dienen und auch ein Beispiel für den Aufbau von Ontologien zum Zwecke der Dokumentation abgeben.
    Type
    a
  6. Dahlberg, I.: Zur Begriffskultur in den Sozialwissenschaften : Evaluation einer Herausforderung (2006) 0.02 
    0.01557018 = product of:
  0.03114036 = sum of:
    0.030200208 = weight(_text_:von in 3128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030200208 = score(doc=3128,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.23581557 = fieldWeight in 3128, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3128)
    9.401512E-4 = product of:
      0.0028204536 = sum of:
        0.0028204536 = weight(_text_:a in 3128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0028204536 = score(doc=3128,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 3128, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3128)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Aufgrund eines Vortrags über Begriffs- und Definitionstheorie, den ich bei der Tagung über Begriffsanalyse in Darmstadt 1986 gehalten hatte (Dahlberg 1987), wandte sich der damalige Mitherausgeber der Zeitschrift Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften, Dr. Rainer Greshoff, 1990 an mich mit der Bitte, einen ähnlichen Beitrag als Hauptartikel für seine Zeitschrift zu schreiben. Ich sagte zu mit der Absicht im Hinterkopf, dabei auch meine Erfahrungen mit der sozial-wissenschaftlichen Terminologie, die ich bei COCTA, dem Committee for Conceptual and Terminological Analysis (Vorsitz Prof. Dr. Fred Riggs, Hawaii) (Riggs 1982) gemacht hatte, einzubringen. Hinzu kam, dass mir gerade zu diesem Zeitpunkt das Werk von Stefan Andreski in die Hände gefallen war, betitelt: "Die Hexenmeister der Sozialwissenschaften. Missbrauch, Mode und Manipulation einer Wissenschaft", (Andreski 1974) der sozusagen "kein Blatt vor den Mund nimmt" und überaus mutig und an vielen Beispielen die Misere der sozialwissenschaftlichen Terminologie offenbar macht. Ich hoffte daher, in einem entsprechenden Beitrag mehr Bewusstsein für eine begriffsorientierte, systematische Terminologie der Sozialwissenschaften zu wecken. In gewisser Weise war für mich dabei die Lösung von Prof. Riggs mit seiner "Onomantik" (Riggs 1985) vorbildlich. Er ging nämlich davon aus, dass der sog. semasiologische Ansatz, bei dem nach der Bedeutung eines Wortes gefragt wird, unbrauchbar für sein Verständnis sei (und das nicht nur in den Sozialwissenschaften), man müsse vielmehr umgekehrt onomasiologisch vorgehen und sich zunächst über einen Begriff klar werden, der mit einem Wort (oder einem Wort in einem Kontext) verbunden ist und seine mögliche Definition finden und dann erst dafür eine Benennung suchen. Aus Zeitmangel entstand mein Beitrag erst 1995. Herr Dr. Greshoff konnte - entsprechend der Methode seiner Zeitschrift - zu meinem Beitrag eine größere Anzahl von Kritikern finden und diese dann auch noch durch eine Replik der Autorin erwidern lassen und mit einer Metakritik eines Nichtinvolvierten das Ganze beenden. In meinem Fall waren es 27 Persönlichkeiten aus 10 verschiedenen Disziplinen und Herr Prof. Dr. Endruweit als Metakritiker. Der Beitrag umfasste die Seiten 3-91 (DIN A4 Format) in Heft 1-1996 unter dem Titel "Zur Begriffskultur in den Sozialwissenschaften. Lassen sich ihre Probleme lösen?" (Dahlberg 1996). Ich war überzeugt, dass sich ihre Probleme mit meiner vorgeschlagenen Methode lösen lassen. Doch meine Kritiker waren es leider nicht. Und über das Warum - davon wird mein Vortrag heute handeln.
    Source
    Wissensorganisation und Verantwortung: Gesellschaftliche, ökonomische und technische Aspekte. Proceedings der 9. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Duisburg, 5.-7. November 2004. Hrsg. von H.P. Ohly u.a
    Type
    a
  7. Hetzler, B.: Visual analysis and exploration of relationships (2002) 0.01 
    0.014637431 = product of:
  0.029274862 = sum of:
    0.026425181 = weight(_text_:von in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026425181 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.20633863 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
    0.0028496822 = product of:
      0.008549047 = sum of:
        0.008549047 = weight(_text_:a in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008549047 = score(doc=1189,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1189, 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=1189)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Relationships can provide a rich and powerful set of information and can be used to accomplish application goals, such as information retrieval and natural language processing. A growing trend in the information science community is the use of information visualization-taking advantage of people's natural visual capabilities to perceive and understand complex information. This chapter explores how visualization and visual exploration can help users gain insight from known relationships and discover evidence of new relationships not previously anticipated.
    Footnote
    Mit Abbildungen zur Visualisierung von Begriffsnetzen
    Type
    a
  8. Budin, G.: Begriffliche Wissensorganisation in den Sozialwissenschaften : Theorien- und Methodenvielfalt (2006) 0.01 
    0.014035223 = product of:
  0.028070446 = sum of:
    0.026425181 = weight(_text_:von in 5704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026425181 = score(doc=5704,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.20633863 = fieldWeight in 5704, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5704)
    0.0016452647 = product of:
      0.004935794 = sum of:
        0.004935794 = weight(_text_:a in 5704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004935794 = score(doc=5704,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 5704, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5704)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    Wissensorganisation und Verantwortung: Gesellschaftliche, ökonomische und technische Aspekte. Proceedings der 9. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Duisburg, 5.-7. November 2004. Hrsg. von H.P. Ohly u.a
    Type
    a
  9. Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory (2009) 0.01 
    0.0104553085 = product of:
  0.020910617 = sum of:
    0.01887513 = weight(_text_:von in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01887513 = score(doc=3461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.14738473 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
    0.0020354874 = product of:
      0.006106462 = sum of:
        0.006106462 = weight(_text_:a in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006106462 = score(doc=3461,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
    Footnote
    Vgl.: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S. 1076-1077 und die Erwiderung darauf von B. Hjoerland (S.1078-1080)
    Type
    a
  10. Jouis, C.: Logic of relationships (2002) 0.01 
    0.0076954262 = product of:
  0.030781705 = sum of:
    0.030781705 = product of:
      0.046172556 = sum of:
        0.013654463 = weight(_text_:a in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013654463 = score(doc=1204,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.24669915 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
        0.032518093 = weight(_text_:22 in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032518093 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16809508 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
    Type
    a
  11. Olson, H.A.: How we construct subjects : a feminist analysis (2007) 0.01 
    0.006974311 = product of:
  0.027897244 = sum of:
    0.027897244 = product of:
      0.041845866 = sum of:
        0.009327774 = weight(_text_:a in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009327774 = score(doc=5588,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
        0.032518093 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032518093 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16809508 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    To organize information, librarians create structures. These structures grow from a logic that goes back at least as far as Aristotle. It is the basis of classification as we practice it, and thesauri and subject headings have developed from it. Feminist critiques of logic suggest that logic is gendered in nature. This article will explore how these critiques play out in contemporary standards for the organization of information. Our widely used classification schemes embody principles such as hierarchical force that conform to traditional/Aristotelian logic. Our subject heading strings follow a linear path of subdivision. Our thesauri break down subjects into discrete concepts. In thesauri and subject heading lists we privilege hierarchical relationships, reflected in the syndetic structure of broader and narrower terms, over all other relationships. Are our classificatory and syndetic structures gendered? Are there other options? Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice (1982), Women's Ways of Knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986), and more recent related research suggest a different type of structure for women's knowledge grounded in "connected knowing." This article explores current and potential elements of connected knowing in subject access with a focus on the relationships, both paradigmatic and syntagmatic, between concepts.
    Date
    11.12.2019 19:00:22
    Type
    a
  12. Cruse, D.A.: Hyponymy and its varieties (2002) 0.00 
    9.401512E-4 = product of:
  0.003760605 = sum of:
    0.003760605 = product of:
      0.011281814 = sum of:
        0.011281814 = weight(_text_:a in 1186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011281814 = score(doc=1186,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1186, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1186)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This chapter deals with the paradigmatic sense relation of hyponymy as manifested in nouns. A number of approaches to the definition of the relation are discussed, with particular attention being given to the problems of framing a prototype-theoretical characterization. An account is offered of a number of sub-varieties of hyponymy.
    Type
    a
  13. Fellbaum, C.: On the semantics of troponymy (2002) 0.00 
    9.19731E-4 = product of:
  0.003678924 = sum of:
    0.003678924 = product of:
      0.011036771 = sum of:
        0.011036771 = weight(_text_:a in 1191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011036771 = score(doc=1191,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 1191, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1191)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The principal relation linking verbs in a semantic network is the manner relation (or "troponymy"). We examine the nature of troponymy across different semantic domains and verb classes in an attempt to arrive at a more subtle understanding of this intuitive relation. Troponymy is not a semantically homogeneous relation; rather, it is polysemous and encompasses distinct sub-relations. We identify and discuss Manner, Function, and Result. Furthermore, different kinds of troponyms differ from their semantically less elaborated superordinates in their syntactic behavior. In some cases, troponyms exhibit a wider range of syntactic altemations; in other cases, the troponyms are more restricted in their argument-projecting properties.
    Type
    a
  14. McCray, A.T.; Bodenreider, O.: ¬A conceptual framework for the biomedical domain (2002) 0.00 
    8.63584E-4 = product of:
  0.003454336 = sum of:
    0.003454336 = product of:
      0.010363008 = sum of:
        0.010363008 = weight(_text_:a in 1207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010363008 = score(doc=1207,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 1207, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1207)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
    Type
    a
  15. Hovy, E.: Comparing sets of semantic relations in ontologies (2002) 0.00 
    8.63584E-4 = product of:
  0.003454336 = sum of:
    0.003454336 = product of:
      0.010363008 = sum of:
        0.010363008 = weight(_text_:a in 2178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010363008 = score(doc=2178,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2178, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2178)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    A set of semantic relations is created every time a domain modeler wants to solve some complex problem computationally. These relations are usually organized into ontologies. But three is little standardization of ontologies today, and almost no discussion an ways of comparing relations, of determining a general approach to creating relations, or of modeling in general. This chapter outlines an approach to establishing a general methodology for comparing and justifying sets of relations (and ontologies in general). It first provides several dozen characteristics of ontologies, organized into three taxonomies of increasingly detailed features, by which many essential characteristics of ontologies can be described. These features enable one to compare ontologies at a general level, without studying every concept they contain. But sometimes it is necessary to make detailed comparisons of content. The chapter then illustrates one method for determining salient points for comparison, using algorithms that semi-automatically identify similarities and differences between ontologies.
    Type
    a
  16. Barite, M.G.: ¬The notion of "category" : its implications in subject analysis and in the construction and evaluation of indexing languages (2000) 0.00 
    8.2263234E-4 = product of:
  0.0032905294 = sum of:
    0.0032905294 = product of:
      0.009871588 = sum of:
        0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 6036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009871588 = score(doc=6036,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6036, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6036)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The notion of category, from Aristotle and Kant to the present time, has been used as a basic intellectual tool for the analysis of the existence and changeableness of things. Ranganathan was the first to extrapolate the concept into the Theory of Classification, placing it as an essential axis for the logical organization of knowledge and the construction of indexing languages. This paper proposes a conceptual and methodological reexamination of the notion of category from a functional and instrumental perspective, and tries to clarify the essential characters of categories in that context, and their present implications regarding the construction and evaluation of indexing languages
    Type
    a
  17. Pathak, L.P.: Concept-term relationship and a classified schedule of isolates for the term 'concept' (2000) 0.00 
    8.2263234E-4 = product of:
  0.0032905294 = sum of:
    0.0032905294 = product of:
      0.009871588 = sum of:
        0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 6046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009871588 = score(doc=6046,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6046, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6046)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Draws attention to the efforts to define the terms 'concept' and 'term' and suggests a schedule of isolates for the term 'concept' under eight headings: 0. Concept; 1. Theoretical aspects; 2. Learning theory and Psychological aspects; 3. Origin, evolution, formation, construction; 4. Semantic aspects; 5.Terms and Terminology; 6. Usage and discipline-specific applications; and 7. Concepts and ISAR systems. The schedule also includes about 150 aspects/isolate terms related to 'concept' along with the name of the authors who have used them. The schedule is intended to help in identifying the various aspects of a concept with the help of the terms used for them. These aspects may guide to some extent, in dissecting and seeing the social science concepts from various point of views
    Type
    a
  18. Guarino, N.; Welty, C.: Identity and subsumption (2002) 0.00 
    8.2263234E-4 = product of:
  0.0032905294 = sum of:
    0.0032905294 = product of:
      0.009871588 = sum of:
        0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009871588 = score(doc=1195,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
    Type
    a
  19. Thellefsen, M.: ¬The dynamics of information representation and knowledge mediation (2006) 0.00 
    8.141949E-4 = product of:
  0.0032567796 = sum of:
    0.0032567796 = product of:
      0.009770338 = sum of:
        0.009770338 = weight(_text_:a in 170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009770338 = score(doc=170,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 170, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=170)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
    Type
    a
  20. Gerbé, O.; Mineau, G.W.; Keller, R.K.: Conceptual graphs, metamodelling, and notation of concepts : fundamental issues (2000) 0.00 
    7.883408E-4 = product of:
  0.0031533632 = sum of:
    0.0031533632 = product of:
      0.00946009 = sum of:
        0.00946009 = weight(_text_:a in 5078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00946009 = score(doc=5078,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 5078, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5078)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Knowledge management, in particular corporate knowledge management, is a challenge companies and researchers have to meet. The conceptual graph formalism is a good candidate for the representation of corporate knowledge, and for the development of knowledge management systems. But many of the issues concerning the use of conceptual graphs as a metalanguage have not been worked out in detail. By introducing a function that maps higher level to lower level, this paper clarifies the metalevel semantics, notation and manipulation of concepts in the conceptual graph formalism. In addition, this function allows metamodeling activities to take place using the CG notation
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 23
  • d 8

Themes