Search (211 results, page 1 of 11)

  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Zeng, Q.; Yu, M.; Yu, W.; Xiong, J.; Shi, Y.; Jiang, M.: Faceted hierarchy : a new graph type to organize scientific concepts and a construction method (2019) 0.12 
    0.11561403 = sum of:
  0.08288895 = product of:
    0.24866685 = sum of:
      0.24866685 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.24866685 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.4424535 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.020722598 = weight(_text_:of in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
    0.020722598 = score(doc=400,freq=12.0), product of:
      0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
        1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
        0.05218836 = queryNorm
      0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
        3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
          12.0 = termFreq=12.0
        1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
        0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
  0.012002475 = product of:
    0.02400495 = sum of:
      0.02400495 = weight(_text_:science in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02400495 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    On a scientific concept hierarchy, a parent concept may have a few attributes, each of which has multiple values being a group of child concepts. We call these attributes facets: classification has a few facets such as application (e.g., face recognition), model (e.g., svm, knn), and metric (e.g., precision). In this work, we aim at building faceted concept hierarchies from scientific literature. Hierarchy construction methods heavily rely on hypernym detection, however, the faceted relations are parent-to-child links but the hypernym relation is a multi-hop, i.e., ancestor-to-descendent link with a specific facet "type-of". We use information extraction techniques to find synonyms, sibling concepts, and ancestor-descendent relations from a data science corpus. And we propose a hierarchy growth algorithm to infer the parent-child links from the three types of relationships. It resolves conflicts by maintaining the acyclic structure of a hierarchy.
    Content
    Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.
    Source
    Graph-Based Methods for Natural Language Processing - proceedings of the Thirteenth Workshop (TextGraphs-13): November 4, 2019, Hong Kong : EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019. Ed.: Dmitry Ustalov
  2. Börner, K.: Atlas of knowledge : anyone can map (2015) 0.10 
    0.099288344 = product of:
  0.14893252 = sum of:
    0.016919931 = weight(_text_:of in 3355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016919931 = score(doc=3355,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 3355, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3355)
    0.13201259 = sum of:
      0.072014846 = weight(_text_:science in 3355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.072014846 = score(doc=3355,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.52385724 = fieldWeight in 3355, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3355)
      0.05999775 = weight(_text_:22 in 3355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05999775 = score(doc=3355,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 3355, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3355)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Content
    One of a series of three publications influenced by the travelling exhibit Places & Spaces: Mapping Science, curated by the Cyberinfrastructure for Network Science Center at Indiana University. - Additional materials can be found at http://http://scimaps.org/atlas2. Erweitert durch: Börner, Katy. Atlas of Science: Visualizing What We Know.
    Date
    22. 1.2017 16:54:03
    22. 1.2017 17:10:56
    LCSH
    Science / Atlases
    Science / Study and teaching / Graphic methods
    Communication in science / Data processing
    Subject
    Science / Atlases
    Science / Study and teaching / Graphic methods
    Communication in science / Data processing
  3. Xiong, C.: Knowledge based text representations for information retrieval (2016) 0.09 
    0.08510449 = sum of:
  0.055259302 = product of:
    0.1657779 = sum of:
      0.1657779 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1657779 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.4424535 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.02184354 = weight(_text_:of in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
    0.02184354 = score(doc=5820,freq=30.0), product of:
      0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
        1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
        0.05218836 = queryNorm
      0.26765788 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
        5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
          30.0 = termFreq=30.0
        1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
        0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
  0.00800165 = product of:
    0.0160033 = sum of:
      0.0160033 = weight(_text_:science in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0160033 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The successes of information retrieval (IR) in recent decades were built upon bag-of-words representations. Effective as it is, bag-of-words is only a shallow text understanding; there is a limited amount of information for document ranking in the word space. This dissertation goes beyond words and builds knowledge based text representations, which embed the external and carefully curated information from knowledge bases, and provide richer and structured evidence for more advanced information retrieval systems. This thesis research first builds query representations with entities associated with the query. Entities' descriptions are used by query expansion techniques that enrich the query with explanation terms. Then we present a general framework that represents a query with entities that appear in the query, are retrieved by the query, or frequently show up in the top retrieved documents. A latent space model is developed to jointly learn the connections from query to entities and the ranking of documents, modeling the external evidence from knowledge bases and internal ranking features cooperatively. To further improve the quality of relevant entities, a defining factor of our query representations, we introduce learning to rank to entity search and retrieve better entities from knowledge bases. In the document representation part, this thesis research also moves one step forward with a bag-of-entities model, in which documents are represented by their automatic entity annotations, and the ranking is performed in the entity space.
    This proposal includes plans to improve the quality of relevant entities with a co-learning framework that learns from both entity labels and document labels. We also plan to develop a hybrid ranking system that combines word based and entity based representations together with their uncertainties considered. At last, we plan to enrich the text representations with connections between entities. We propose several ways to infer entity graph representations for texts, and to rank documents using their structure representations. This dissertation overcomes the limitation of word based representations with external and carefully curated information from knowledge bases. We believe this thesis research is a solid start towards the new generation of intelligent, semantic, and structured information retrieval.
    Content
    Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Information Technologies. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.cmu.edu%2F~cx%2Fpapers%2Fknowledge_based_text_representation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0SaTSvhWLTh__Uz_HtOtl3.
    Imprint
    Pittsburgh, PA : Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Language Technologies Institute
  4. Baião Salgado Silva, G.; Lima, G.Â. Borém de Oliveira: Using topic maps in establishing compatibility of semantically structured hypertext contents (2012) 0.06 
    0.057392165 = product of:
  0.08608825 = sum of:
    0.030730115 = weight(_text_:of in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030730115 = score(doc=633,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.37654874 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
    0.055358134 = sum of:
      0.020004123 = weight(_text_:science in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020004123 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
      0.03535401 = weight(_text_:22 in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03535401 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 633, 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=633)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Considering the characteristics of hypertext systems and problems such as cognitive overload and the disorientation of users, this project studies subject hypertext documents that have undergone conceptual structuring using facets for content representation and improvement of information retrieval during navigation. The main objective was to assess the possibility of the application of topic map technology for automating the compatibilization process of these structures. For this purpose, two dissertations from the UFMG Information Science Post-Graduation Program were adopted as samples. Both dissertations had been duly analyzed and structured on the MHTX (Hypertextual Map) prototype database. The faceted structures of both dissertations, which had been represented in conceptual maps, were then converted into topic maps. It was then possible to use the merge property of the topic maps to promote the semantic interrelationship between the maps and, consequently, between the hypertextual information resources proper. The merge results were then analyzed in the light of theories dealing with the compatibilization of languages developed within the realm of information technology and librarianship from the 1960s on. The main goals accomplished were: (a) the detailed conceptualization of the merge process of the topic maps, considering the possible compatibilization levels and the applicability of this technology in the integration of faceted structures; and (b) the production of a detailed sequence of steps that may be used in the implementation of topic maps based on faceted structures.
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:39:23
  5. Das, S.; Roy, S.: Faceted ontological model for brain tumour study (2016) 0.06 
    0.05652935 = product of:
  0.08479402 = sum of:
    0.021149913 = weight(_text_:of in 2831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021149913 = score(doc=2831,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 2831, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2831)
    0.06364411 = sum of:
      0.028290104 = weight(_text_:science in 2831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028290104 = score(doc=2831,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 2831, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2831)
      0.03535401 = weight(_text_:22 in 2831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03535401 = score(doc=2831,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2831, 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=2831)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this work is to develop an ontology-based framework for developing an information retrieval system to cater to specific queries of users. For creating such an ontology, information was obtained from a wide range of information sources involved with brain tumour study and research. The information thus obtained was compiled and analysed to provide a standard, reliable and relevant information base to aid our proposed system. Facet-based methodology has been used for ontology formalization for quite some time. Ontology formalization involves different steps such as identification of the terminology, analysis, synthesis, standardization and ordering. A vast majority of the ontologies being developed nowadays lack flexibility. This becomes a formidable constraint when it comes to interoperability. We found that a facet-based method provides a distinct guideline for the development of a robust and flexible model concerning the domain of brain tumours. Our attempt has been to bridge library and information science and computer science, which itself involved an experimental approach. It was discovered that a faceted approach is really enduring, as it helps in the achievement of properties like navigation, exploration and faceted browsing. Computer-based brain tumour ontology supports the work of researchers towards gathering information on brain tumour research and allows users across the world to intelligently access new scientific information quickly and efficiently.
    Date
    12. 3.2016 13:21:22
  6. Prud'hommeaux, E.; Gayo, E.: RDF ventures to boldly meet your most pedestrian needs (2015) 0.06 
    0.055566467 = product of:
  0.0833497 = sum of:
    0.016919931 = weight(_text_:of in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016919931 = score(doc=2024,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2024, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2024)
    0.066429764 = sum of:
      0.02400495 = weight(_text_:science in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02400495 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2024, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2024)
      0.042424813 = weight(_text_:22 in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042424813 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2024, 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=2024)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Defined in 1999 and paired with XML, the Resource Description Framework (RDF) has been cast as an RDF Schema, producing data that is well-structured but not validated, permitting certain illogical relationships. When stakeholders convened in 2014 to consider solutions to the data validation challenge, a W3C working group proposed Resource Shapes and Shape Expressions to describe the properties expected for an RDF node. Resistance rose from concerns about data and schema reuse, key principles in RDF. Ideally data types and properties are designed for broad use, but they are increasingly adopted with local restrictions for specific purposes. Resource Shapes are commonly treated as record classes, standing in for data structures but losing flexibility for later reuse. Of various solutions to the resulting tensions, the concept of record classes may be the most reasonable basis for agreement, satisfying stakeholders' objectives while allowing for variations with constraints.
    Footnote
    Contribution to a special section "Linked data and the charm of weak semantics".
    Source
    Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 41(2015) no.4, S.18-22
  7. Kiren, T.: ¬A clustering based indexing technique of modularized ontologies for information retrieval (2017) 0.05 
    0.054149657 = product of:
  0.081224486 = sum of:
    0.025222747 = weight(_text_:of in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025222747 = score(doc=4399,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 4399, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4399)
    0.056001738 = sum of:
      0.027718531 = weight(_text_:science in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027718531 = score(doc=4399,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.20163277 = fieldWeight in 4399, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4399)
      0.028283209 = weight(_text_:22 in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028283209 = score(doc=4399,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4399, 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=4399)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Indexing plays a vital role in Information Retrieval. With the availability of huge volume of information, it has become necessary to index the information in such a way to make easier for the end users to find the information they want efficiently and accurately. Keyword-based indexing uses words as indexing terms. It is not capable of capturing the implicit relation among terms or the semantics of the words in the document. To eliminate this limitation, ontology-based indexing came into existence, which allows semantic based indexing to solve complex and indirect user queries. Ontologies are used for document indexing which allows semantic based information retrieval. Existing ontologies or the ones constructed from scratch are used presently for indexing. Constructing ontologies from scratch is a labor-intensive task and requires extensive domain knowledge whereas use of an existing ontology may leave some important concepts in documents un-annotated. Using multiple ontologies can overcome the problem of missing out concepts to a great extent, but it is difficult to manage (changes in ontologies over time by their developers) multiple ontologies and ontology heterogeneity also arises due to ontologies constructed by different ontology developers. One possible solution to managing multiple ontologies and build from scratch is to use modular ontologies for indexing.
    Modular ontologies are built in modular manner by combining modules from multiple relevant ontologies. Ontology heterogeneity also arises during modular ontology construction because multiple ontologies are being dealt with, during this process. Ontologies need to be aligned before using them for modular ontology construction. The existing approaches for ontology alignment compare all the concepts of each ontology to be aligned, hence not optimized in terms of time and search space utilization. A new indexing technique is proposed based on modular ontology. An efficient ontology alignment technique is proposed to solve the heterogeneity problem during the construction of modular ontology. Results are satisfactory as Precision and Recall are improved by (8%) and (10%) respectively. The value of Pearsons Correlation Coefficient for degree of similarity, time, search space requirement, precision and recall are close to 1 which shows that the results are significant. Further research can be carried out for using modular ontology based indexing technique for Multimedia Information Retrieval and Bio-Medical information retrieval.
    Content
    Submitted to the Faculty of the Computer Science and Engineering Department of the University of Engineering and Technology Lahore in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science (2009 - 009-PhD-CS-04). Vgl.: http://prr.hec.gov.pk/jspui/bitstream/123456789/8375/1/Taybah_Kiren_Computer_Science_HSR_2017_UET_Lahore_14.12.2017.pdf.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Imprint
    Lahore : University of Engineering and Technology / Department of Computer Science and Engineering
  8. Bringsjord, S.; Clark, M.; Taylor, J.: Sophisticated knowledge representation and reasoning requires philosophy (2014) 0.05 
    0.052938886 = product of:
  0.079408325 = sum of:
    0.015764216 = weight(_text_:of in 3403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015764216 = score(doc=3403,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 3403, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3403)
    0.06364411 = sum of:
      0.028290104 = weight(_text_:science in 3403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028290104 = score(doc=3403,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 3403, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3403)
      0.03535401 = weight(_text_:22 in 3403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03535401 = score(doc=3403,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3403, 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=3403)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    What is knowledge representation and reasoning (KR&R)? Alas, a thorough account would require a book, or at least a dedicated, full-length paper, but here we shall have to make do with something simpler. Since most readers are likely to have an intuitive grasp of the essence of KR&R, our simple account should suffice. The interesting thing is that this simple account itself makes reference to some of the foundational distinctions in the field of philosophy. These distinctions also play a central role in artificial intelligence (AI) and computer science. To begin with, the first distinction in KR&R is that we identify knowledge with knowledge that such-and-such holds (possibly to a degree), rather than knowing how. If you ask an expert tennis player how he manages to serve a ball at 130 miles per hour on his first serve, and then serve a safer, topspin serve on his second should the first be out, you may well receive a confession that, if truth be told, this athlete can't really tell you. He just does it; he does something he has been doing since his youth. Yet, there is no denying that he knows how to serve. In contrast, the knowledge in KR&R must be expressible in declarative statements. For example, our tennis player knows that if his first serve lands outside the service box, it's not in play. He thus knows a proposition, conditional in form.
    Date
    9. 2.2017 19:22:14
    Series
    History and philosophy of technoscience; 3
    Source
    Philosophy, computing and information science. Eds.: R. Hagengruber u. U.V. Riss
  9. Cui, H.: Competency evaluation of plant character ontologies against domain literature (2010) 0.05 
    0.052493498 = product of:
  0.07874025 = sum of:
    0.02338211 = weight(_text_:of in 3466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02338211 = score(doc=3466,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 3466, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3466)
    0.055358134 = sum of:
      0.020004123 = weight(_text_:science in 3466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020004123 = score(doc=3466,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 3466, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3466)
      0.03535401 = weight(_text_:22 in 3466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03535401 = score(doc=3466,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3466, 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=3466)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Specimen identification keys are still the most commonly created tools used by systematic biologists to access biodiversity information. Creating identification keys requires analyzing and synthesizing large amounts of information from specimens and their descriptions and is a very labor-intensive and time-consuming activity. Automating the generation of identification keys from text descriptions becomes a highly attractive text mining application in the biodiversity domain. Fine-grained semantic annotation of morphological descriptions of organisms is a necessary first step in generating keys from text. Machine-readable ontologies are needed in this process because most biological characters are only implied (i.e., not stated) in descriptions. The immediate question to ask is How well do existing ontologies support semantic annotation and automated key generation? With the intention to either select an existing ontology or develop a unified ontology based on existing ones, this paper evaluates the coverage, semantic consistency, and inter-ontology agreement of a biodiversity character ontology and three plant glossaries that may be turned into ontologies. The coverage and semantic consistency of the ontology/glossaries are checked against the authoritative domain literature, namely, Flora of North America and Flora of China. The evaluation results suggest that more work is needed to improve the coverage and interoperability of the ontology/glossaries. More concepts need to be added to the ontology/glossaries and careful work is needed to improve the semantic consistency. The method used in this paper to evaluate the ontology/glossaries can be used to propose new candidate concepts from the domain literature and suggest appropriate definitions.
    Date
    1. 6.2010 9:55:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.6, S.1144-1165
  10. Conde, A.; Larrañaga, M.; Arruarte, A.; Elorriaga, J.A.; Roth, D.: litewi: a combined term extraction and entity linking method for eliciting educational ontologies from textbooks (2016) 0.05 
    0.05019898 = product of:
  0.075298466 = sum of:
    0.019940332 = weight(_text_:of in 2645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019940332 = score(doc=2645,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 2645, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2645)
    0.055358134 = sum of:
      0.020004123 = weight(_text_:science in 2645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020004123 = score(doc=2645,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 2645, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2645)
      0.03535401 = weight(_text_:22 in 2645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03535401 = score(doc=2645,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2645, 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=2645)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Major efforts have been conducted on ontology learning, that is, semiautomatic processes for the construction of domain ontologies from diverse sources of information. In the past few years, a research trend has focused on the construction of educational ontologies, that is, ontologies to be used for educational purposes. The identification of the terminology is crucial to build ontologies. Term extraction techniques allow the identification of the domain-related terms from electronic resources. This paper presents LiTeWi, a novel method that combines current unsupervised term extraction approaches for creating educational ontologies for technology supported learning systems from electronic textbooks. LiTeWi uses Wikipedia as an additional information source. Wikipedia contains more than 30 million articles covering the terminology of nearly every domain in 288 languages, which makes it an appropriate generic corpus for term extraction. Furthermore, given that its content is available in several languages, it promotes both domain and language independence. LiTeWi is aimed at being used by teachers, who usually develop their didactic material from textbooks. To evaluate its performance, LiTeWi was tuned up using a textbook on object oriented programming and then tested with two textbooks of different domains-astronomy and molecular biology.
    Date
    22. 1.2016 12:38:14
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.380-399
  11. Wen, B.; Horlings, E.; Zouwen, M. van der; Besselaar, P. van den: Mapping science through bibliometric triangulation : an experimental approach applied to water research (2017) 0.03 
    0.033279322 = product of:
  0.049918983 = sum of:
    0.025419034 = weight(_text_:of in 3437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025419034 = score(doc=3437,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 3437, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3437)
    0.024499949 = product of:
      0.048999898 = sum of:
        0.048999898 = weight(_text_:science in 3437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048999898 = score(doc=3437,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.3564397 = fieldWeight in 3437, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3437)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The idea of constructing science maps based on bibliographic data has intrigued researchers for decades, and various techniques have been developed to map the structure of research disciplines. Most science mapping studies use a single method. However, as research fields have various properties, a valid map of a field should actually be composed of a set of maps derived from a series of investigations using different methods. That leads to the question of what can be learned from a combination-triangulation-of these different science maps. In this paper we propose a method for triangulation, using the example of water science. We combine three different mapping approaches: journal-journal citation relations (JJCR), shared author keywords (SAK), and title word-cited reference co-occurrence (TWRC). Our results demonstrate that triangulation of JJCR, SAK, and TWRC produces a more comprehensive picture than each method applied individually. The outcomes from the three different approaches can be associated with each other and systematically interpreted to provide insights into the complex multidisciplinary structure of the field of water research.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.3, S.724-738
  12. Hollink, L.; Assem, M. van: Estimating the relevance of search results in the Culture-Web : a study of semantic distance measures (2010) 0.03 
    0.032847296 = product of:
  0.049270943 = sum of:
    0.028058534 = weight(_text_:of in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028058534 = score(doc=4649,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
    0.021212406 = product of:
      0.042424813 = sum of:
        0.042424813 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042424813 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    More and more cultural heritage institutions publish their collections, vocabularies and metadata on the Web. The resulting Web of linked cultural data opens up exciting new possibilities for searching and browsing through these cultural heritage collections. We report on ongoing work in which we investigate the estimation of relevance in this Web of Culture. We study existing measures of semantic distance and how they apply to two use cases. The use cases relate to the structured, multilingual and multimodal nature of the Culture Web. We distinguish between measures using the Web, such as Google distance and PMI, and measures using the Linked Data Web, i.e. the semantic structure of metadata vocabularies. We perform a small study in which we compare these semantic distance measures to human judgements of relevance. Although it is too early to draw any definitive conclusions, the study provides new insights into the applicability of semantic distance measures to the Web of Culture, and clear starting points for further research.
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:40:22
  13. Andreas, H.: On frames and theory-elements of structuralism (2014) 0.03 
    0.032495916 = product of:
  0.048743874 = sum of:
    0.02637858 = weight(_text_:of in 3402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02637858 = score(doc=3402,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 3402, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3402)
    0.022365293 = product of:
      0.044730585 = sum of:
        0.044730585 = weight(_text_:science in 3402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044730585 = score(doc=3402,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 3402, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3402)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    There are quite a few success stories illustrating philosophy's relevance to information science. One can cite, for example, Leibniz's work on a characteristica universalis and a corresponding calculus ratiocinator through which he aspired to reduce reasoning to calculating. It goes without saying that formal logic initiated research on decidability and computational complexity. But even beyond the realm of formal logic, philosophy has served as a source of inspiration for developments in information and computer science. At the end of the twentieth century, formal ontology emerged from a quest for a semantic foundation of information systems having a higher reusability than systems being available at the time. A success story that is less well documented is the advent of frame systems in computer science. Minsky is credited with having laid out the foundational ideas of such systems. There, the logic programming approach to knowledge representation is criticized by arguing that one should be more careful about the way human beings recognize objects and situations. Notably, the paper draws heavily on the writings of Kuhn and the Gestalt-theorists. It is not our intent, however, to document the traces of the frame idea in the works of philosophers. What follows is, rather, an exposition of a methodology for representing scientific knowledge that is essentially frame-like. This methodology is labelled as structuralist theory of science or, in short, as structuralism. The frame-like character of its basic meta-theoretical concepts makes structuralism likely to be useful in knowledge representation.
    Series
    History and philosophy of technoscience; 3
    Source
    Philosophy, computing and information science. Eds.: R. Hagengruber u. U.V. Riss
  14. Smith, B.: ¬The relevance of philosophical ontology to information and computer science (2014) 0.03 
    0.032036133 = product of:
  0.048054196 = sum of:
    0.030730115 = weight(_text_:of in 3400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030730115 = score(doc=3400,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.37654874 = fieldWeight in 3400, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3400)
    0.01732408 = product of:
      0.03464816 = sum of:
        0.03464816 = weight(_text_:science in 3400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03464816 = score(doc=3400,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 3400, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3400)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Ontology as a branch of philosophy is the science of what is, of the kinds and structures of objects, properties, events, processes and relations in every area of reality. The earliest use of the term 'ontology' (or 'ontologia') seems to have been in 1606 in the book Ogdoas Scholastica by the German Protestant scholastic Jacob Lorhard. For Lorhard, as for many subsequent philosophers, 'ontology' is a synonym of 'metaphysics' (a label meaning literally: 'what comes after the Physics'), a term used by early students of Aristotle to refer to what Aristotle himself called 'first philosophy'. Some philosophers use 'ontology' and 'metaphysics' to refer to two distinct, though interrelated, disciplines, the former to refer to the study of what might exist; the latter to the study of which of the various alternative possible ontologies is in fact true of reality. The term - and the philosophical discipline of ontology - has enjoyed a chequered history since 1606, with a significant expansion, and consolidation, in recent decades. We shall not discuss here the successive rises and falls in philosophical acceptance of the term, but rather focus on certain phases in the history of recent philosophy which are most relevant to the consideration of its recent advance, and increased acceptance, also outside the discipline of philosophy.
    Series
    History and philosophy of technoscience; 3
    Source
    Philosophy, computing and information science. Eds.: R. Hagengruber u. U.V. Riss
  15. Curras, E.: Ontologies, taxonomy and thesauri in information organisation and retrieval (2010) 0.03 
    0.03185622 = product of:
  0.04778433 = sum of:
    0.025419034 = weight(_text_:of in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025419034 = score(doc=3276,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
    0.022365293 = product of:
      0.044730585 = sum of:
        0.044730585 = weight(_text_:science in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044730585 = score(doc=3276,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The originality of this book, which deals with such a new subject matter, lies in the application of methods and concepts never used before - such as Ontologies and Taxonomies, as well as Thesauri - to the ordering of knowledge based on primary information. Chapters in the book also examine the study of Ontologies, Taxonomies and Thesauri from the perspective of Systematics and General Systems Theory. "Ontologies, Taxonomy and Thesauri in Information Organisation and Retrieval" will be extremely useful to those operating within the network of related fields, which includes Documentation and Information Science.
    Content
    Inhalt: 1. From classifications to ontologies Knowledge - A new concept of knowledge - Knowledge and information - Knowledge organisation - Knowledge organisation and representation - Cognitive sciences - Talent management - Learning systematisation - Historical evolution - From classification to knowledge organisation - Why ontologies exist - Ontologies - The structure of ontologies 2. Taxonomies and thesauri From ordering to taxonomy - The origins of taxonomy - Hierarchical and horizontal order - Correlation with classifications - Taxonomy in computer science - Computing taxonomy - Definitions - Virtual taxonomy, cybernetic taxonomy - Taxonomy in Information Science - Similarities between taxonomies and thesauri - ifferences between taxonomies and thesauri 3. Thesauri Terminology in classification systems - Terminological languages - Thesauri - Thesauri definitions - Conditions that a thesaurus must fulfil - Historical evolution - Classes of thesauri 4. Thesauri in (cladist) systematics Systematics - Systematics as a noun - Definitions and historic evolution over time - Differences between taxonomy and systematics - Systematics in thesaurus construction theory - Classic, numerical and cladist systematics - Classic systematics in information science - Numerical systematics in information science - Thesauri in cladist systematics - Systematics in information technology - Some examples 5. Thesauri in systems theory Historical evolution - Approach to systems - Systems theory applied to the construction of thesauri - Components - Classes of system - Peculiarities of these systems - Working methods - Systems theory applied to ontologies and taxonomies
  16. Almeida, M.B.: Revisiting ontologies : a necessary clarification (2013) 0.03 
    0.0317073 = product of:
  0.04756095 = sum of:
    0.020722598 = weight(_text_:of in 1010) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020722598 = score(doc=1010,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 1010, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1010)
    0.026838351 = product of:
      0.053676702 = sum of:
        0.053676702 = weight(_text_:science in 1010) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053676702 = score(doc=1010,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 1010, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1010)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Looking for ontology in a search engine, one can find so many different approaches that it can be difficult to understand which field of research the subject belongs to and how it can be useful. The term ontology is employed within philosophy, computer science, and information science with different meanings. To take advantage of what ontology theories have to offer, one should understand what they address and where they come from. In information science, except for a few papers, there is no initiative toward clarifying what ontology really is and the connections that it fosters among different research fields. This article provides such a clarification. We begin by revisiting the meaning of the term in its original field, philosophy, to reach its current use in other research fields. We advocate that ontology is a genuine and relevant subject of research in information science. Finally, we conclude by offering our view of the opportunities for interdisciplinary research.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.8, S.1682-1693
  17. Sugimoto, C.R.; Weingart, S.: ¬The kaleidoscope of disciplinarity (2015) 0.03 
    0.030561559 = product of:
  0.04584234 = sum of:
    0.033839863 = weight(_text_:of in 2141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033839863 = score(doc=2141,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.41465378 = fieldWeight in 2141, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2141)
    0.012002475 = product of:
      0.02400495 = sum of:
        0.02400495 = weight(_text_:science in 2141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02400495 = score(doc=2141,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2141, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2141)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify criteria for and definitions of disciplinarity, and how they differ between different types of literature. Design/methodology/approach This synthesis is achieved through a purposive review of three types of literature: explicit conceptualizations of disciplinarity; narrative histories of disciplines; and operationalizations of disciplinarity. Findings Each angle of discussing disciplinarity presents distinct criteria. However, there are a few common axes upon which conceptualizations, disciplinary narratives, and measurements revolve: communication, social features, topical coherence, and institutions. Originality/value There is considerable ambiguity in the concept of a discipline. This is of particular concern in a heightened assessment culture, where decisions about funding and resource allocation are often discipline-dependent (or focussed exclusively on interdisciplinary endeavors). This work explores the varied nature of disciplinarity and, through synthesis of the literature, presents a framework of criteria that can be used to guide science policy makers, scientometricians, administrators, and others interested in defining, constructing, and evaluating disciplines.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 71(2015) no.4, S.775-794
  18. Stock, W.G.: Concepts and semantic relations in information science (2010) 0.03 
    0.030448988 = product of:
  0.045673482 = sum of:
    0.031528432 = weight(_text_:of in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031528432 = score(doc=4008,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.38633084 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
    0.014145052 = product of:
      0.028290104 = sum of:
        0.028290104 = weight(_text_:science in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028290104 = score(doc=4008,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Concept-based information retrieval and knowledge representation are in need of a theory of concepts and semantic relations. Guidelines for the construction and maintenance of knowledge organization systems (KOS) (such as ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 in the U.S.A. or DIN 2331:1980 in Germany) do not consider results of concept theory and theory of relations to the full extent. They are not able to unify the currently different worlds of traditional controlled vocabularies, of the social web (tagging and folksonomies) and of the semantic web (ontologies). Concept definitions as well as semantic relations are based on epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, hermeneutics, pragmatism, and critical theory). A concept is determined via its intension and extension as well as by definition. We will meet the problem of vagueness by introducing prototypes. Some important definitions are concept explanations (after Aristotle) and the definition of family resemblances (in the sense of Wittgenstein). We will model concepts as frames (according to Barsalou). The most important paradigmatic relation in KOS is hierarchy, which must be arranged into different classes: Hyponymy consists of taxonomy and simple hyponymy, meronymy consists of many different part-whole-relations. For practical application purposes, the transitivity of the given relation is very important. Unspecific associative relations are of little help to our focused applications and should be replaced by generalizable and domain-specific relations. We will discuss the reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity of paradigmatic relations as well as the appearance of specific semantic relations in the different kinds of KOS (folksonomies, nomenclatures, classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies). Finally, we will pick out KOS as a central theme of the Semantic Web.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.10, S.1951-1969
  19. Kohne, J.: Ontology, its origins and its meaning in information icience (2014) 0.03 
    0.030349312 = product of:
  0.045523968 = sum of:
    0.028199887 = weight(_text_:of in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028199887 = score(doc=3401,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
    0.01732408 = product of:
      0.03464816 = sum of:
        0.03464816 = weight(_text_:science in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03464816 = score(doc=3401,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Ontology - in Aristotelian terms the science of being qua being - as a classical branch of philosophy describes the foundations of being in general. In this context, ontology is general metaphysics: the science of everything. Pursuing ontology means establishing some systematic order among the being, i.e. dividing things into categories or conceptual frameworks. Explaining the reasons why there are things or even anything, however, is part of what is called special metaphysics (theology, cosmology and psychology). If putting things into categories is the key issue of ontology, then general structures are its main level of analysis. To categorize things is to put them into a structural order. Such categorization of things enables one to understand what reality is about. If this is true, and characterizing the general structures of being is a reasonable access for us to reality, then two kinds of analysis of those structures are available: (i) realism and (ii) nominalism. In a realist (Aristotelian) ontology the general structures of being are understood as a kind of mirror reflecting things in their natural order. Those categories, as they are called in realism, then represent or show the structure of being. Ontological realism understands the relation between categories and being as a kind of correspondence or mapping which gives access to reality itself.
    Series
    History and philosophy of technoscience; 3
    Source
    Philosophy, computing and information science. Eds.: R. Hagengruber u. U.V. Riss
  20. Madalli, D.P.; Balaji, B.P.; Sarangi, A.K.: Music domain analysis for building faceted ontological representation (2014) 0.03 
    0.029658487 = product of:
  0.04448773 = sum of:
    0.01973992 = weight(_text_:of in 1437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01973992 = score(doc=1437,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 1437, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1437)
    0.024747808 = product of:
      0.049495615 = sum of:
        0.049495615 = weight(_text_:22 in 1437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049495615 = score(doc=1437,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1437, 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=1437)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This paper describes to construct faceted ontologies for domain modeling. Building upon the faceted theory of S.R. Ranganathan (1967), the paper intends to address the faceted classification approach applied to build domain ontologies. As classificatory ontologies are employed to represent the relationships of entities and objects on the web, the faceted approach helps to analyze domain representation in an effective way for modeling. Based on this perspective, an ontology of the music domain has been analyzed that would serve as a case study.
    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

Authors

Languages

  • e 195
  • d 11
  • f 1
  • pt 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 173
  • el 44
  • m 15
  • x 12
  • s 6
  • r 2
  • n 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications