Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015208802 = product of:
  0.030417604 = sum of:
    0.030417604 = product of:
      0.06083521 = sum of:
        0.06083521 = weight(_text_:i in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06083521 = score(doc=761,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17204544 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.35359967 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper, I have traced a series of evolutionary adaptations of FOL motivated entirely by its use by knowledge engineers to represent and share information on the Web culminating in the development of Common Logic. While the primary goal in this paper has been to document this evolution, it is arguable, I think that CL's syntactic and semantic egalitarianism better realizes the goal "topic neutrality" that a logic should ideally exemplify - understood, at least in part, as the idea that logic should as far as possible not itself embody any metaphysical presuppositions. Instead of retaining the traditional metaphysical divisions of FOL that reflect its Fregean origins, CL begins as it were with a single, metaphysically homogeneous domain in which, potentially, anything can play the traditional roles of object, property, relation, and function. Note that the effect of this is not to destroy traditional metaphysical divisions. Rather, it simply to refrain from building those divisions explicitly into one's logic; instead, such divisions are left to the user to introduce and enforce axiomatically in an explicit metaphysical theory.

0.012360261 = product of:
  0.024720522 = sum of:
    0.024720522 = product of:
      0.049441043 = sum of:
        0.049441043 = weight(_text_:22 in 4331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049441043 = score(doc=4331,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4331, 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=4331)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

15. 3.2011 19:21:22

0.009270195 = product of:
  0.01854039 = sum of:
    0.01854039 = product of:
      0.03708078 = sum of:
        0.03708078 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03708078 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4649, 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=4649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26.12.2011 13:40:22

0.009270195 = product of:
  0.01854039 = sum of:
    0.01854039 = product of:
      0.03708078 = sum of:
        0.03708078 = weight(_text_:22 in 2118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03708078 = score(doc=2118,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2118, 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=2118)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

5. 7.2015 22:02:31

0.007725163 = product of:
  0.015450326 = sum of:
    0.015450326 = product of:
      0.030900652 = sum of:
        0.030900652 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030900652 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4553, 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=4553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16.11.2018 14:22:01

0.0052369856 = product of:
  0.010473971 = sum of:
    0.010473971 = product of:
      0.052369855 = sum of:
        0.052369855 = weight(_text_:authors in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052369855 = score(doc=3297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20794787 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 3297, 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=3297)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ontologies have proven to be an essential element in many applications. They are used in agent systems, knowledge management systems, and e-commerce platforms. They can also generate natural language, integrate intelligent information, provide semantic-based access to the Internet, and extract information from texts in addition to being used in many other applications to explicitly declare the knowledge embedded in them. However, not only are ontologies useful for applications in which knowledge plays a key role, but they can also trigger a major change in current Web contents. This change is leading to the third generation of the Web-known as the Semantic Web-which has been defined as "the conceptual structuring of the Web in an explicit machine-readable way."1 This definition does not differ too much from the one used for defining an ontology: "An ontology is an explicit, machinereadable specification of a shared conceptualization."2 In fact, new ontology-based applications and knowledge architectures are developing for this new Web. A common claim for all of these approaches is the need for languages to represent the semantic information that this Web requires-solving the heterogeneous data exchange in this heterogeneous environment. Here, we don't decide which language is best of the Semantic Web. Rather, our goal is to help developers find the most suitable language for their representation needs. The authors analyze the most representative ontology languages created for the Web and compare them using a common framework.