Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Guizzardi, G.; Guarino, N.: Semantics, ontology and explanation (2023) 0.02
    0.015688682 = product of:
      0.047066044 = sum of:
        0.047066044 = product of:
          0.09413209 = sum of:
            0.09413209 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09413209 = score(doc=976,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.25729153 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046619706 = queryNorm
                0.36585772 = fieldWeight in 976, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=976)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    The terms 'semantics' and 'ontology' are increasingly appearing together with 'explanation', not only in the scientific literature, but also in organizational communication. However, all of these terms are also being significantly overloaded. In this paper, we discuss their strong relation under particular interpretations. Specifically, we discuss a notion of explanation termed ontological unpacking, which aims at explaining symbolic domain descriptions (conceptual models, knowledge graphs, logical specifications) by revealing their ontological commitment in terms of their assumed truthmakers, i.e., the entities in one's ontology that make the propositions in those descriptions true. To illustrate this idea, we employ an ontological theory of relations to explain (by revealing the hidden semantics of) a very simple symbolic model encoded in the standard modeling language UML. We also discuss the essential role played by ontology-driven conceptual models (resulting from this form of explanation processes) in properly supporting semantic interoperability tasks. Finally, we discuss the relation between ontological unpacking and other forms of explanation in philosophy and science, as well as in the area of Artificial Intelligence.
  2. Oliveira Machado, L.M.; Almeida, M.B.; Souza, R.R.: What researchers are currently saying about ontologies : a review of recent Web of Science articles (2020) 0.01
    0.013073902 = product of:
      0.039221704 = sum of:
        0.039221704 = product of:
          0.07844341 = sum of:
            0.07844341 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 5881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07844341 = score(doc=5881,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.25729153 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046619706 = queryNorm
                0.30488142 = fieldWeight in 5881, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5881)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Traditionally connected to philosophy, the term ontology is increasingly related to information systems areas. Some researchers consider the approaches of the two disciplinary contexts to be completely different. Others consider that, although different, they should talk to each other, as both seek to answer similar questions. With the extensive literature on this topic, we intend to contribute to the understanding of the use of the term ontology in current research and which references support this use. An exploratory study was developed with a mixed methodology and a sample collected from the Web of Science of articles publishe in 2018. The results show the current prevalence of computer science in studies related to ontology and also of Gruber's view suggesting ontology as kind of conceptualization, a dominant view in that field. Some researchers, particularly in the field of biomedicine, do not adhere to this dominant view but to another one that seems closer to ontological study in the philosophical context. The term ontology, in the context of information systems, appears to be consolidating with a meaning different from the original, presenting traces of the process of "metaphorization" in the transfer of the term between the two fields of study.
  3. Hauff-Hartig, S.: Wissensrepräsentation durch RDF: Drei angewandte Forschungsbeispiele : Bitte recht vielfältig: Wie Wissensgraphen, Disco und FaBiO Struktur in Mangas und die Humanities bringen (2021) 0.01
    0.008421769 = product of:
      0.025265306 = sum of:
        0.025265306 = product of:
          0.050530612 = sum of:
            0.050530612 = weight(_text_:22 in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050530612 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16325426 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046619706 = 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
  4. Jia, J.: From data to knowledge : the relationships between vocabularies, linked data and knowledge graphs (2021) 0.01
    0.0052636056 = product of:
      0.015790816 = sum of:
        0.015790816 = product of:
          0.031581633 = sum of:
            0.031581633 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.031581633 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16325426 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046619706 = 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
  5. Hocker, J.; Schindler, C.; Rittberger, M.: Participatory design for ontologies : a case study of an open science ontology for qualitative coding schemas (2020) 0.00
    0.0042108847 = product of:
      0.012632653 = sum of:
        0.012632653 = product of:
          0.025265306 = sum of:
            0.025265306 = weight(_text_:22 in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.025265306 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16325426 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046619706 = 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