Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Begriffstheorie"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Marradi, A.: ¬The concept of concept : concepts and terms (2012) 0.03 
    0.026587836 = product of:
  0.053175673 = sum of:
    0.053175673 = sum of:
      0.017662432 = weight(_text_:2 in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017662432 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05242341 = queryNorm
          0.13642694 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
      0.03551324 = weight(_text_:22 in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03551324 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05242341 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 33, 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=33)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The concept of concept has seldom been examined in its entirety, and the term very seldom defined. The rigidity, or lack thereof, and the homogeneity, or lack thereof, of concepts, are only two of their characteristics that have been debated. These issues are reviewed in this paper, namely: 1) does a concept represent its referent(s), or is it a free creation of the mind?; 2) can a concept be analyzed in parts or elements?; 3) must a concept be general, i.e., refer to a category or a type, or can it refer to a single object, physical or mental?; 4) are concepts as clearly delimited as terms are? Are concepts voiceless terms?; and, 5) what do terms contribute to an individual's and a community's conceptual richness? As regards the relationship of concepts with their referents in the stage of formation, it seems reasonable to conclude that said relationship may be close in some concepts, less close in others, and lacking altogether in some cases. The set of elements of a concept, which varies from individual to individual and across time inside the same individual, is called the intension of a concept. The set of referents of a concept is called the extension of that concept. Most concepts don't have a clearly delimited extension: their referents form a fuzzy set. The aspects of a concept's intension form a scale of generality. A concept is not equal to the term that describes it; rather, many terms are joined to concepts. Language, therefore, renders a gamut of services to the development, consolidation, and communication of conceptual richness.
    Date
    22. 1.2012 13:11:25
  2. Besler, G.; Szulc, J.: Gottlob Frege's theory of definition as useful tool for knowledge organization : definition of 'context' - case study (2014) 0.03 
    0.026587836 = product of:
  0.053175673 = sum of:
    0.053175673 = sum of:
      0.017662432 = weight(_text_:2 in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017662432 = score(doc=1440,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05242341 = queryNorm
          0.13642694 = fieldWeight in 1440, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1440)
      0.03551324 = weight(_text_:22 in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03551324 = score(doc=1440,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05242341 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1440, 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=1440)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The aim of this paper is to analyze the Gottlob Frege's (1848-1925) theory of definition as a tool for knowledge organization. The objective was achieved by discussing the theory of definition including: the aims of definition, kinds of definition, condition of correct definition, what is undefinable. Frege indicated the following aims of a defining: (1) to introduce a new word, which has had no precise meaning until then (2) to explain the meaning of a word; (3) to catch a thought. We would like to present three kinds of definitions used by Frege: a contextual definition, a stipulative definition and a piecemeal definition. In the history of theory of definition Frege was the first to have formulated the condition of a correct definition. According to Frege not everything can be defined, what is logically simple cannot have a proper definition Usability of Frege's theory of definition is referred in the case study. Definitions that serve as an example are definitions of 'context'. The term 'context' is used in different situations and meanings in the field of knowledge organization. The paper is rounded by a discussion of how Frege's theory of definition can be useful for knowledge organization. To present G. Frege's theory of definition in view of the need for knowledge organization we shall start with different ranges of knowledge organization.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  3. Dahlberg, I.: Begriffsarbeit in der Wissensorganisation (2010) 0.01 
    0.0142052965 = product of:
  0.028410593 = sum of:
    0.028410593 = product of:
      0.056821186 = sum of:
        0.056821186 = weight(_text_:22 in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056821186 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3726, 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=3726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  4. Gemberling, T.: FRSAD, Semiotics, and FRBR-LRM (2016) 0.01 
    0.0061818515 = product of:
  0.012363703 = sum of:
    0.012363703 = product of:
      0.024727406 = sum of:
        0.024727406 = weight(_text_:2 in 5118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024727406 = score(doc=5118,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.19099772 = fieldWeight in 5118, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5118)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 54(2016) no.2, S.136-144
  5. Tognoli, N.B.; Rodrigues, A.C.; Chaves Guimarães, J.A.: Archival knowledge : conceptual frameworks for recent terminology in the KO domain (2019) 0.01 
    0.0052987295 = product of:
  0.010597459 = sum of:
    0.010597459 = product of:
      0.021194918 = sum of:
        0.021194918 = weight(_text_:2 in 5637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021194918 = score(doc=5637,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.16371232 = fieldWeight in 5637, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5637)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    2. 9.2014 19:19:40
  6. Thellefsen, M.M.; Thellefsen, T.; Sørensen, B.: Information as signs : a semiotic analysis of the information concept, determining its ontological and epistemological foundations (2018) 0.00 
    0.004415608 = product of:
  0.008831216 = sum of:
    0.008831216 = product of:
      0.017662432 = sum of:
        0.017662432 = weight(_text_:2 in 4241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017662432 = score(doc=4241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.13642694 = fieldWeight in 4241, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4241)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 74(2018) no.2, S.372-382

Authors

Languages