Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Theorie verbaler Dokumentationssprachen"
  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Broughton, V.: Language related problems in the construction of faceted terminologies and their automatic management (2008) 0.01
    0.0059471927 = product of:
      0.029735964 = sum of:
        0.029735964 = product of:
          0.059471928 = sum of:
            0.059471928 = weight(_text_:problems in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.059471928 = score(doc=2497,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.036484417 = queryNorm
                0.39493 = fieldWeight in 2497, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2497)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Content
    The paper describes current work on the generation of a thesaurus format from the schedules of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition (BC2). The practical problems that occur in moving from a concept based approach to a terminological approach cluster around issues of vocabulary control that are not fully addressed in a systematic structure. These difficulties can be exacerbated within domains in the humanities because large numbers of culture specific terms may need to be accommodated in any thesaurus. The ways in which these problems can be resolved within the context of a semi-automated approach to the thesaurus generation have consequences for the management of classification data in the source vocabulary. The way in which the vocabulary is marked up for the purpose of machine manipulation is described, and some of the implications for editorial policy are discussed and examples given. The value of the classification notation as a language independent representation and mapping tool should not be sacrificed in such an exercise.
  2. Wu, Y.; Yang, L.: Construction and evaluation of an oil spill semantic relation taxonomy for supporting knowledge discovery (2015) 0.01
    0.0058270353 = product of:
      0.029135175 = sum of:
        0.029135175 = product of:
          0.05827035 = sum of:
            0.05827035 = weight(_text_:problems in 2202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05827035 = score(doc=2202,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.036484417 = queryNorm
                0.3869508 = fieldWeight in 2202, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2202)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    The paper presents the rationale, significance, method and procedure of building a taxonomy of semantic relations in the oil spill domain for supporting knowledge discovery through inference. Difficult problems during the development of the taxonomy are discussed and partial solutions are proposed. A preliminary functional evaluation of the taxonomy for supporting knowledge discovery was performed. Durability an expansibility of the taxonomy were evaluated by using the taxonomy to classifying the terms in a biomedical relation ontology. The taxonomy was found to have full expansibility and high degree of durability. The study proposes more research problems than solutions.
  3. Schmitz-Esser, W.: Language of general communication and concept compatibility (1996) 0.00
    0.004943135 = product of:
      0.024715675 = sum of:
        0.024715675 = product of:
          0.04943135 = sum of:
            0.04943135 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04943135 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.036484417 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Pages
    S.11-22
  4. Hjoerland, B.: Semantics and knowledge organization (2007) 0.00
    0.004855863 = product of:
      0.024279313 = sum of:
        0.024279313 = product of:
          0.048558626 = sum of:
            0.048558626 = weight(_text_:problems in 1980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048558626 = score(doc=1980,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.036484417 = queryNorm
                0.322459 = fieldWeight in 1980, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1980)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate that semantic issues underlie all research questions within Library and Information Science (LIS, or, as hereafter, IS) and, in particular, the subfield known as Knowledge Organization (KO). Further, it seeks to show that semantics is a field influenced by conflicting views and discusses why it is important to argue for the most fruitful one of these. Moreover, the chapter demonstrates that IS has not yet addressed semantic problems in systematic fashion and examines why the field is very fragmented and without a proper theoretical basis. The focus here is on broad interdisciplinary issues and the long-term perspective. The theoretical problems involving semantics and concepts are very complicated. Therefore, this chapter starts by considering tools developed in KO for information retrieval (IR) as basically semantic tools. In this way, it establishes a specific IS focus on the relation between KO and semantics. It is well known that thesauri consist of a selection of concepts supplemented with information about their semantic relations (such as generic relations or "associative relations"). Some words in thesauri are "preferred terms" (descriptors), whereas others are "lead-in terms." The descriptors represent concepts. The difference between "a word" and "a concept" is that different words may have the same meaning and similar words may have different meanings, whereas one concept expresses one meaning.
  5. Boteram, F.: Semantische Relationen in Dokumentationssprachen : vom Thesaurus zum semantischen Netz (2010) 0.00
    0.0034601947 = product of:
      0.017300973 = sum of:
        0.017300973 = product of:
          0.034601945 = sum of:
            0.034601945 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034601945 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.036484417 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    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
  6. Jia, J.: From data to knowledge : the relationships between vocabularies, linked data and knowledge graphs (2021) 0.00
    0.0024715676 = product of:
      0.0123578375 = sum of:
        0.0123578375 = product of:
          0.024715675 = sum of:
            0.024715675 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024715675 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.036484417 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Date
    22. 1.2021 14:24:32