-
Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003)
0.03
0.025358398 = product of:
0.050716795 = sum of:
0.050716795 = sum of:
0.026285263 = weight(_text_:1997 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026285263 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = queryNorm
0.16052432 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.024431534 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024431534 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.
- Date
- 12. 9.2004 17:22:35
-
Lin, W.-Y.C.: ¬The concept and applications of faceted classifications (2006)
0.01
0.012215767 = product of:
0.024431534 = sum of:
0.024431534 = product of:
0.04886307 = sum of:
0.04886307 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04886307 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, 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=5083)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 27. 5.2007 22:19:35
-
Olson, H.A.: Sameness and difference : a cultural foundation of classification (2001)
0.01
0.010688796 = product of:
0.021377591 = sum of:
0.021377591 = product of:
0.042755183 = sum of:
0.042755183 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042755183 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 166, 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=166)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Slavic, A.: On the nature and typology of documentary classifications and their use in a networked environment (2007)
0.01
0.009161824 = product of:
0.018323649 = sum of:
0.018323649 = product of:
0.036647297 = sum of:
0.036647297 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036647297 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 780, 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=780)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22.12.2007 17:22:31
-
Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society (2004)
0.01
0.0076348544 = product of:
0.015269709 = sum of:
0.015269709 = product of:
0.030539418 = sum of:
0.030539418 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030539418 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, 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=3483)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Pages
- S.19-22
-
Wang, Z.; Chaudhry, A.S.; Khoo, C.S.G.: Using classification schemes and thesauri to build an organizational taxonomy for organizing content and aiding navigation (2008)
0.01
0.0061078835 = product of:
0.012215767 = sum of:
0.012215767 = product of:
0.024431534 = sum of:
0.024431534 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024431534 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04508122 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 7.11.2008 15:22:04
