Search (181 results, page 1 of 10)

0.05576258 = product of:
  0.11152516 = sum of:
    0.11152516 = sum of:
      0.0109087005 = weight(_text_:a in 880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0109087005 = score(doc=880,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 880, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=880)
      0.10061646 = weight(_text_:22 in 880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10061646 = score(doc=880,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 880, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=880)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.9-22

Type

a

0.047796495 = product of:
  0.09559299 = sum of:
    0.09559299 = sum of:
      0.009350315 = weight(_text_:a in 3904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009350315 = score(doc=3904,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3904, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3904)
      0.086242676 = weight(_text_:22 in 3904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.086242676 = score(doc=3904,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3904, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3904)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 22(1971) H.3, S.98-104 (T.1); H.4, S.143-150 (T.2)

Type

a

0.03186433 = product of:
  0.06372866 = sum of:
    0.06372866 = sum of:
      0.0062335427 = weight(_text_:a in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0062335427 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
      0.05749512 = weight(_text_:22 in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05749512 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)

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

Type

a

0.031252265 = product of:
  0.06250453 = sum of:
    0.06250453 = sum of:
      0.012196298 = weight(_text_:a in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.012196298 = score(doc=2574,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 2574, 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=2574)
      0.05030823 = weight(_text_:22 in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05030823 = score(doc=2574,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2574, 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=2574)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A method (HICLAS, DeBoeck & Rosenberg, 1988) for studying the internal structure of semantic concepts is presented. The proposed method reveals the internal structure of the extension as well as the intesion of a concept, together with a correspondence relation that shows the mutual dependence of both structures. Its use is illustrated with the analysis of simple concepts (e.g. sports) and conjunctive concepts (e.g. birds that are also pets). The underlying structure that is revealed can be interpreted as a differentiation of the simple concepts studied and for conjunctive concepts the proposed method is able to extract non-inherited and emergent features (Hampton, 1988)

Date

22. 7.2000 19:17:40

Type

a

0.02788129 = product of:
  0.05576258 = sum of:
    0.05576258 = sum of:
      0.0054543503 = weight(_text_:a in 5710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0054543503 = score(doc=5710,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
      0.05030823 = weight(_text_:22 in 5710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05030823 = score(doc=5710,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)

Pages

S.22-33

Type

a

0.026769714 = sum of:
  0.021315364 = product of:
    0.08526146 = sum of:
      0.08526146 = weight(_text_:authors in 6046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08526146 = score(doc=6046,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 6046, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6046)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0054543503 = product of:
    0.0109087005 = sum of:
      0.0109087005 = weight(_text_:a in 6046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0109087005 = score(doc=6046,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.026458282 = product of:
  0.052916564 = sum of:
    0.052916564 = sum of:
      0.016982114 = weight(_text_:a in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016982114 = score(doc=33,freq=38.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.2776507 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
            6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
              38.0 = termFreq=38.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
      0.035934452 = weight(_text_:22 in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035934452 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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

Type

a

0.025511729 = product of:
  0.051023457 = sum of:
    0.051023457 = sum of:
      0.015089006 = weight(_text_:a in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015089006 = score(doc=1204,freq=30.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
      0.035934452 = weight(_text_:22 in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035934452 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)

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

0.024715235 = product of:
  0.04943047 = sum of:
    0.04943047 = sum of:
      0.013496018 = weight(_text_:a in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013496018 = score(doc=1440,freq=24.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 1440, product of:
            4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
              24.0 = termFreq=24.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1440)
      0.035934452 = weight(_text_:22 in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035934452 = score(doc=1440,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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

Type

a

0.023898248 = product of:
  0.047796495 = sum of:
    0.047796495 = sum of:
      0.0046751574 = weight(_text_:a in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0046751574 = score(doc=3060,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3060, 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=3060)
      0.043121338 = weight(_text_:22 in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043121338 = score(doc=3060,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3060, 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=3060)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Alon Friedman und Richard P. Smiraglia kündigen in ihrem aktuellen Artikel "Nodes and arcs: concept map, semiotics, and knowledge organization" an, eine "empirical demonstration of how the domain [of knowledge organisation] itself understands the meaning of a concept" durchzuführen. Die Klärung des Konzeptbegriffs ist ein begrüßenswertes Vorhaben, das die Autoren in einer empirischen Untersuchung von concept maps (also Konzeptdiagrammen) aus dem Bereich der Wissensorganisation nachvollziehen wollen. Beschränkte sich Friedman 2011 in seinem Artikel "Concept theory and semiotics in knowledge organization" [Fn 01] noch ausschließlich auf Sprache als Medium im Zeichenprozess, bezieht er sich nun auf Visualisierungen als Repräsentationsform und scheint somit seinen Ansatz um den Aspekt der Bildlichkeit zu erweitern. Zumindest erwartet man dies nach der Lektüre der Beschreibung des aktuellen Vorhabens von Friedman und Smiraglia, das - wie die Autoren verkünden - auf einer semiotischen Grundlage durchgeführt worden sei.

Source

LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.22, 2013, S.xx-xx

0.023121104 = product of:
  0.046242207 = sum of:
    0.046242207 = sum of:
      0.010307753 = weight(_text_:a in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010307753 = score(doc=5588,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)
      0.035934452 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035934452 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = 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)

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

0.019581081 = sum of:
  0.0152252605 = product of:
    0.060901042 = sum of:
      0.060901042 = weight(_text_:authors in 5457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060901042 = score(doc=5457,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5457, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5457)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.004355821 = product of:
    0.008711642 = sum of:
      0.008711642 = weight(_text_:a in 5457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008711642 = score(doc=5457,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 5457, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5457)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the literature on concept theory in library and information science (LIS) from an epistemological perspective, ascribing each paper to an epistemological family and discussing their relevance in the context of the knowledge organization (KO) domain. Design/methodology/approach This paper adopts a hermeneutic approach for the analysis of the texts that compose the corpus of study following contingency and categorical analyses. More specifically, the paper works with Bardin's contingency analysis and follows Hjørland's families of epistemologies for the categorization. Findings The analysis corroborates the observations made for the last ten years about the scarcity of studies on concept theory in LIS and KO. However, the study also reveals an epistemological turn on concept theory since 2009 that could be considered a departure from the rationalist views that dominated the field and a continuation of a broader paradigm shift in LIS and KO. All analyzed papers except two follow pragmatist or historicist approaches. Originality/value This paper follows-up and systematizes the contributions to the LIS and KO fields on concept theory mainly during the last decade. The epistemological analysis reveals the dominant views in this paradigm shift and the main authors and trends that are present in the LIS literature on concept theory.

Type

a

0.016279897 = sum of:
  0.010657682 = product of:
    0.04263073 = sum of:
      0.04263073 = weight(_text_:authors in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04263073 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.17628889 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.005622215 = product of:
    0.01124443 = sum of:
      0.01124443 = weight(_text_:a in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01124443 = score(doc=5089,freq=34.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.1838419 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
            5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
              34.0 = termFreq=34.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures - Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues (ICCS 2000) brings together a wide range of researchers and practitioners working with conceptual structures. During the last few years, the ICCS conference series has considerably widened its scope on different kinds of conceptual structures, stimulating research across domain boundaries. We hope that this stimulation is further enhanced by ICCS 2000 joining the long tradition of conferences in Darmstadt with extensive, lively discussions. This volume consists of contributions presented at ICCS 2000, complementing the volume "Conceptual Structures: Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues" (B. Ganter, G.W. Mineau (Eds.), LNAI 1867, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg 2000). It contains submissions reviewed by the program committee, and position papers. We wish to express our appreciation to all the authors of submitted papers, to the general chair, the program chair, the editorial board, the program committee, and to the additional reviewers for making ICCS 2000 a valuable contribution in the knowledge processing research field. Special thanks go to the local organizers for making the conference an enjoyable and inspiring event. We are grateful to Darmstadt University of Technology, the Ernst Schröder Center for Conceptual Knowledge Processing, the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Technology, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Land Hessen, and NaviCon GmbH for their generous support

Content

Concepts & Language: Knowledge organization by procedures of natural language processing. A case study using the method GABEK (J. Zelger, J. Gadner) - Computer aided narrative analysis using conceptual graphs (H. Schärfe, P. 0hrstrom) - Pragmatic representation of argumentative text: a challenge for the conceptual graph approach (H. Irandoust, B. Moulin) - Conceptual graphs as a knowledge representation core in a complex language learning environment (G. Angelova, A. Nenkova, S. Boycheva, T. Nikolov) - Conceptual Modeling and Ontologies: Relationships and actions in conceptual categories (Ch. Landauer, K.L. Bellman) - Concept approximations for formal concept analysis (J. Saquer, J.S. Deogun) - Faceted information representation (U. Priß) - Simple concept graphs with universal quantifiers (J. Tappe) - A framework for comparing methods for using or reusing multiple ontologies in an application (J. van ZyI, D. Corbett) - Designing task/method knowledge-based systems with conceptual graphs (M. Leclère, F.Trichet, Ch. Choquet) - A logical ontology (J. Farkas, J. Sarbo) - Algorithms and Tools: Fast concept analysis (Ch. Lindig) - A framework for conceptual graph unification (D. Corbett) - Visual CP representation of knowledge (H.D. Pfeiffer, R.T. Hartley) - Maximal isojoin for representing software textual specifications and detecting semantic anomalies (Th. Charnois) - Troika: using grids, lattices and graphs in knowledge acquisition (H.S. Delugach, B.E. Lampkin) - Open world theorem prover for conceptual graphs (J.E. Heaton, P. Kocura) - NetCare: a practical conceptual graphs software tool (S. Polovina, D. Strang) - CGWorld - a web based workbench for conceptual graphs management and applications (P. Dobrev, K. Toutanova) - Position papers: The edition project: Peirce's existential graphs (R. Mülller) - Mining association rules using formal concept analysis (N. Pasquier) - Contextual logic summary (R Wille) - Information channels and conceptual scaling (K.E. Wolff) - Spatial concepts - a rule exploration (S. Rudolph) - The TEXT-TO-ONTO learning environment (A. Mädche, St. Staab) - Controlling the semantics of metadata on audio-visual documents using ontologies (Th. Dechilly, B. Bachimont) - Building the ontological foundations of a terminology from natural language to conceptual graphs with Ribosome, a knowledge extraction system (Ch. Jacquelinet, A. Burgun) - CharGer: some lessons learned and new directions (H.S. Delugach) - Knowledge management using conceptual graphs (W.K. Pun)

0.016279897 = sum of:
  0.010657682 = product of:
    0.04263073 = sum of:
      0.04263073 = weight(_text_:authors in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04263073 = score(doc=1077,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.17628889 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.005622215 = product of:
    0.01124443 = sum of:
      0.01124443 = weight(_text_:a in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01124443 = score(doc=1077,freq=34.0), product of:
          0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053045183 = queryNorm
          0.1838419 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
            5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
              34.0 = termFreq=34.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

My thesis discusses two related problems that have taken center stage in the recent literature on concepts: 1) What are the individuation conditions of concepts? Under what conditions is a concept Cv(1) the same concept as a concept Cv(2)? 2) What are the possession conditions of concepts? What conditions must be satisfied for a thinker to have a concept C? The thesis defends a novel account of concepts, which I call "pluralist-contextualist": 1) Pluralism: Different concepts have different kinds of individuation and possession conditions: some concepts are individuated more "coarsely", have less demanding possession conditions and are widely shared, while other concepts are individuated more "finely" and not shared. 2) Contextualism: When a speaker ascribes a propositional attitude to a subject S, or uses his ascription to explain/predict S's behavior, the speaker's intentions in the relevant context determine the correct individuation conditions for the concepts involved in his report. In chapters 1-3 I defend a contextualist, non-Millian theory of propositional attitude ascriptions. Then, I show how contextualism can be used to offer a novel perspective on the problem of concept individuation/possession. More specifically, I employ contextualism to provide a new, more effective argument for Fodor's "publicity principle": if contextualism is true, then certain specific concepts must be shared in order for interpersonally applicable psychological generalizations to be possible. In chapters 4-5 I raise a tension between publicity and another widely endorsed principle, the "Fregean constraint" (FC): subjects who are unaware of certain identity facts and find themselves in so-called "Frege cases" must have distinct concepts for the relevant object x. For instance: the ancient astronomers had distinct concepts (HESPERUS/PHOSPHORUS) for the same object (the planet Venus). First, I examine some leading theories of concepts and argue that they cannot meet both of our constraints at the same time. Then, I offer principled reasons to think that no theory can satisfy (FC) while also respecting publicity. (FC) appears to require a form of holism, on which a concept is individuated by its global inferential role in a subject S and can thus only be shared by someone who has exactly the same inferential dispositions as S. This explains the tension between publicity and (FC), since holism is clearly incompatible with concept shareability. To solve the tension, I suggest adopting my pluralist-contextualist proposal: concepts involved in Frege cases are holistically individuated and not public, while other concepts are more coarsely individuated and widely shared; given this "plurality" of concepts, we will then need contextual factors (speakers' intentions) to "select" the specific concepts to be employed in our intentional generalizations in the relevant contexts. In chapter 6 I develop the view further by contrasting it with some rival accounts. First, I examine a very different kind of pluralism about concepts, which has been recently defended by Daniel Weiskopf, and argue that it is insufficiently radical. Then, I consider the inferentialist accounts defended by authors like Peacocke, Rey and Jackson. Such views, I argue, are committed to an implausible picture of reference determination, on which our inferential dispositions fix the reference of our concepts: this leads to wrong predictions in all those cases of scientific disagreement where two parties have very different inferential dispositions and yet seem to refer to the same natural kind.

0.005509726 = product of:
  0.011019452 = sum of:
    0.011019452 = product of:
      0.022038903 = sum of:
        0.022038903 = weight(_text_:a in 2002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022038903 = score(doc=2002,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053045183 = queryNorm
            0.36032718 = fieldWeight in 2002, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=2002)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.004723606 = product of:
  0.009447212 = sum of:
    0.009447212 = product of:
      0.018894425 = sum of:
        0.018894425 = weight(_text_:a in 7579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018894425 = score(doc=7579,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053045183 = queryNorm
            0.3089162 = fieldWeight in 7579, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7579)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.004723606 = product of:
  0.009447212 = sum of:
    0.009447212 = product of:
      0.018894425 = sum of:
        0.018894425 = weight(_text_:a in 6288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018894425 = score(doc=6288,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053045183 = queryNorm
            0.3089162 = fieldWeight in 6288, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.004723606 = product of:
  0.009447212 = sum of:
    0.009447212 = product of:
      0.018894425 = sum of:
        0.018894425 = weight(_text_:a in 6290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018894425 = score(doc=6290,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053045183 = queryNorm
            0.3089162 = fieldWeight in 6290, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0044077807 = product of:
  0.008815561 = sum of:
    0.008815561 = product of:
      0.017631123 = sum of:
        0.017631123 = weight(_text_:a in 1772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017631123 = score(doc=1772,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053045183 = queryNorm
            0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 1772, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1772)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0041231015 = product of:
  0.008246203 = sum of:
    0.008246203 = product of:
      0.016492406 = sum of:
        0.016492406 = weight(_text_:a in 5193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016492406 = score(doc=5193,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053045183 = queryNorm
            0.26964417 = fieldWeight in 5193, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A model for standardizing existing definitions and/or writing new definitions for thesaurus descriptors has been developed, within the framework of a research project concerned with the usefulness of terminological definitions for indexers working with a thesaurus. The proposed model is an expansion of a model presented by Sager and L'Homme in 1994. Examples of its application in a thesaurus describing the field of Adult literacy programming and training are introduced

Type

a