Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.050719745 = product of:
  0.15215923 = sum of:
    0.15215923 = weight(_text_:systematic in 589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15215923 = score(doc=589,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5358256 = fieldWeight in 589, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=589)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Plurality of beliefs and theories in different knowledge domains calls for modelling multi-viewpoint ontologies and knowledge organization systems (KOS). A generic theoretical approach recently proposed for heterogeneity representation in KOS was linking each ontological statement to a specific validity scope to determine a set of conditions under which the statement is valid. However, the practical applicability of this approach has yet to be empirically assessed. In addition, there is still a need to investigate the types of inconsistencies that might arise in multi-viewpoint ontologies as well as their possible causes. This study proposes a new framework for systematic analysis and classification of inconsistencies in multi-viewpoint ontologies. The framework is based on eight generic logical structures of ontological statements. To test the validity of the proposed framework, two ontologies from different knowledge domains were examined. We found that only three of the eight structures led to inconsistencies in both ontologies, while the other two structures were always present in logically consistent statements. The study has practical implications for building diversified and personalized knowledge systems.

0.042266455 = product of:
  0.12679936 = sum of:
    0.12679936 = weight(_text_:systematic in 5758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12679936 = score(doc=5758,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44652134 = fieldWeight in 5758, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5758)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The article identifies the core literature available on flood ontologies and presents a review on these ontologies from various perspectives like its purpose, type, design methodologies, ontologies (re)used, and also their focus on specific flood disaster phases. The study was conducted in two stages: i) literature identification, where the systematic literature review methodology was employed; and, ii) ontological review, where the parametric approach was applied. The study resulted in a set of fourteen papers discussing the flood ontology (FO). The ontological review revealed that most of the flood ontologies were task ontologies, formal, modular, and used web ontology language (OWL) for their representation. The most (re)used ontologies were SWEET, SSN, Time, and Space. METHONTOLOGY was the preferred design methodology, and for evaluation, application-based or data-based approaches were preferred. The majority of the ontologies were built around the response phase of the disaster. The unavailability of the full ontologies somewhat restricted the current study as the structural ontology metrics are missing. But the scientific community, the developers, of flood disaster management systems can refer to this work for their research to see what is available in the literature on flood ontology and the other major domains essential in building the FO.

0.008975455 = product of:
  0.026926363 = sum of:
    0.026926363 = product of:
      0.053852726 = sum of:
        0.053852726 = weight(_text_:22 in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053852726 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 318, 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=318)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.005609659 = product of:
  0.016828977 = sum of:
    0.016828977 = product of:
      0.033657953 = sum of:
        0.033657953 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033657953 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 1.2021 14:24:32

0.0044877273 = product of:
  0.013463181 = sum of:
    0.013463181 = product of:
      0.026926363 = sum of:
        0.026926363 = weight(_text_:22 in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026926363 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 179, 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=179)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22