Search (335 results, page 1 of 17)

  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Kleineberg, M.: Context analysis and context indexing : formal pragmatics in knowledge organization (2014) 0.17 
    0.1662188 = product of:
  0.415547 = sum of:
    0.10388675 = product of:
      0.31166026 = sum of:
        0.31166026 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.31166026 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3327227 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.31166026 = weight(_text_:2f in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31166026 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3327227 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja
  2. Popper, K.R.: Three worlds : the Tanner lecture on human values. Deliverd at the University of Michigan, April 7, 1978 (1978) 0.13 
    0.13297506 = product of:
  0.33243763 = sum of:
    0.08310941 = product of:
      0.24932821 = sum of:
        0.24932821 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24932821 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3327227 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.24932821 = weight(_text_:2f in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24932821 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3327227 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H
  3. Shala, E.: ¬Die Autonomie des Menschen und der Maschine : gegenwärtige Definitionen von Autonomie zwischen philosophischem Hintergrund und technologischer Umsetzbarkeit (2014) 0.08 
    0.0831094 = product of:
  0.2077735 = sum of:
    0.051943377 = product of:
      0.15583013 = sum of:
        0.15583013 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15583013 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3327227 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.15583013 = weight(_text_:2f in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15583013 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3327227 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Footnote
    Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.
  4. Priss, U.: Faceted knowledge representation (1999) 0.04 
    0.038200855 = product of:
  0.09550214 = sum of:
    0.08309533 = weight(_text_:relation in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08309533 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.40466496 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
    0.012406815 = product of:
      0.037220445 = sum of:
        0.037220445 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037220445 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13743061 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2654, 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=2654)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Faceted Knowledge Representation provides a formalism for implementing knowledge systems. The basic notions of faceted knowledge representation are "unit", "relation", "facet" and "interpretation". Units are atomic elements and can be abstract elements or refer to external objects in an application. Relations are sequences or matrices of 0 and 1's (binary matrices). Facets are relational structures that combine units and relations. Each facet represents an aspect or viewpoint of a knowledge system. Interpretations are mappings that can be used to translate between different representations. This paper introduces the basic notions of faceted knowledge representation. The formalism is applied here to an abstract modeling of a faceted thesaurus as used in information retrieval.
    Date
    22. 1.2016 17:30:31
  5. Bibliotheken und die Vernetzung des Wissens (2002) 0.03 
    0.029865189 = product of:
  0.14932594 = sum of:
    0.14932594 = weight(_text_:aufsatzsammlung in 1741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14932594 = score(doc=1741,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.25749236 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.57992375 = fieldWeight in 1741, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1741)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    RSWK
    Bibliothek / Kooperation / Weiterbildungseinrichtung / Aufsatzsammlung
    Bibliothek / Kooperation / Kulturelle Einrichtung / Aufsatzsammlung
    Subject
    Bibliothek / Kooperation / Weiterbildungseinrichtung / Aufsatzsammlung
    Bibliothek / Kooperation / Kulturelle Einrichtung / Aufsatzsammlung
  6. Blanco, E.; Moldovan, D.: ¬A model for composing semantic relations (2011) 0.02 
    0.024672914 = product of:
  0.12336457 = sum of:
    0.12336457 = weight(_text_:relation in 4762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12336457 = score(doc=4762,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.60077167 = fieldWeight in 4762, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4762)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This paper presents a model to compose semantic relations. The model is independent of any particular set of relations and uses an extended definition for semantic relations. This extended definition includes restrictions on the domain and range of relations and utilizes semantic primitives to characterize them. Primitives capture elementary properties between the arguments of a relation. An algebra for composing semantic primitives is used to automatically identify the resulting relation of composing a pair of compatible relations. Inference axioms are obtained. Axioms take as input a pair of semantic relations and output a new, previously ignored relation. The usefulness of this proposed model is shown using PropBank relations. Eight inference axioms are obtained and their accuracy and productivity are evaluated. The model offers an unsupervised way of accurately extracting additional semantics from text.
  7. Dietz, K.: en.wikipedia.org > 6 Mio. Artikel (2020) 0.02 
    0.024354333 = product of:
  0.06088583 = sum of:
    0.051943377 = product of:
      0.15583013 = sum of:
        0.15583013 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15583013 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3327227 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.008942453 = product of:
      0.02682736 = sum of:
        0.02682736 = weight(_text_:29 in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02682736 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13805294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    "Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."
  8. Bartol, W.; Pióro, K.; Rosselló, F.: On the coverings by tolerance classes (2003) 0.02 
    0.023502907 = product of:
  0.117514536 = sum of:
    0.117514536 = weight(_text_:relation in 4842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.117514536 = score(doc=4842,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.5722827 = fieldWeight in 4842, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4842)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    A tolerance is a reflexive and symmetric, but not necessarily transitive, binary relation. Contrary what happens with equivalence relations, when dealing with tolerances one must distinguish between blocks (maximal subsets where the tolerance is a total relation) and classes (the class of an element is the set of those elements tolerable with it). Both blocks and classes of a tolerance on a set define coverings of this set, but not every covering of a set is defined in this way. The characterization of those coverings that are families of blocks of some tolerance has been known for more than a decade now. In this paper we give a characterization of those coverings of a finite set that are families of classes of some tolerance.
  9. Hayman, S.; Lothian, N.: Taxonomy directed folksonomies : integrating user tagging and controlled vocabularies for Australian education networks (2007) 0.02 
    0.021854803 = product of:
  0.054637007 = sum of:
    0.047483046 = weight(_text_:relation in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047483046 = score(doc=705,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.23123713 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
    0.0071539627 = product of:
      0.021461887 = sum of:
        0.021461887 = weight(_text_:29 in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021461887 = score(doc=705,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13805294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    What is the role of controlled vocabulary in a Web 2.0 world? Can we have the best of both worlds: balancing folksonomies and controlled vocabularies to help communities of users find and share information and resources most relevant to them? education.au develops and manages Australian online services for education and training. Its goal is to bring people, learning and technology together. education.au projects are increasingly involved in exploring the use of Web 2.0 developments building on user ideas, knowledge and experience, and how these might be integrated with existing information management systems. This paper presents work being undertaken in this area, particularly in relation to controlled vocabularies, and discusses the challenges faced. Education Network Australia (edna) is a leading online resource collection and collaborative network for education, with an extensive repository of selected educational resources with metadata created by educators and information specialists. It uses controlled vocabularies for metadata creation and searching, where users receive suggested related terms from an education thesaurus, with their results. We recognise that no formal thesaurus can keep pace with user needs so are interested in exploiting the power of folksonomies. We describe a proof of concept project to develop community contributions to managing information and resources, using Taxonomy-Directed Folksonomy. An established taxonomy from the Australian education sector suggests terms for tagging and users can suggest terms. Importantly, the folksonomy will feed back into the taxonomy showing gaps in coverage and helping us to monitor new terms and usage to improve and develop our formal taxonomies. This model would initially sit alongside the current edna repositories, tools and services but will give us valuable user contributed resources as well as information about how users manage resources. Observing terms suggested, chosen and used in folksonomies is a rich source of information for developing our formal systems so that we can indeed get the best of both worlds.
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:29:46
  10. Guizzardi, G.; Guarino, N.: Semantics, ontology and explanation (2023) 0.02 
    0.02014535 = product of:
  0.100726746 = sum of:
    0.100726746 = weight(_text_:relation in 976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100726746 = score(doc=976,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.49052802 = fieldWeight in 976, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=976)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
  11. Bagrow, J.P.; Rozenfeld, H.D.; Bollt, E.M.; Ben-Avraham, D.: How famous is a scientist? : famous to those who know us (2004) 0.02 
    0.016619066 = product of:
  0.08309533 = sum of:
    0.08309533 = weight(_text_:relation in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08309533 = score(doc=2497,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.40466496 = fieldWeight in 2497, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2497)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Following a recent idea, to measure fame by the number of \Google hits found in a search on the WWW, we study the relation between fame (\Google hits) and merit (number of papers posted on an electronic archive) for a random group of scientists in condensed matter and statistical physics. Our findings show that fame and merit in science are linearly related, and that the probability distribution for a certain level of fame falls off exponentially. This is in sharp contrast with the original findings about WW II ace pilots, for which fame is exponentially related to merit (number of downed planes), and the probability of fame decays in power-law fashion. Other groups in our study show similar patterns of fame as for ace pilots.
  12. Tramullas, J.: Temas y métodos de investigación en Ciencia de la Información, 2000-2019 : Revisión bibliográfica (2020) 0.02 
    0.016619066 = product of:
  0.08309533 = sum of:
    0.08309533 = weight(_text_:relation in 5929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08309533 = score(doc=5929,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.40466496 = fieldWeight in 5929, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5929)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    A systematic literature review is carried out, detailing the research topics and the methods and techniques used in information science in studies published between 2000 and 2019. The results obtained allow us to affirm that there is no consensus on the core topics of information science, as these evolve and change dynamically in relation to other disciplines, and with the dominant social and cultural contexts. With regard to the research methods and techniques, it can be stated that they have mostly been adopted from social sciences, with the addition of numerical methods, especially in the fields of bibliometric and scientometric research.
  13. Swartout, B.; Patil, R.; Knight, K.; Russ, T.: Toward Distributed Use of Large-Scale Ontologies (1996) 0.01 
    0.014244914 = product of:
  0.07122457 = sum of:
    0.07122457 = weight(_text_:relation in 4961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07122457 = score(doc=4961,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.3468557 = fieldWeight in 4961, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4961)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Large scale knowledge bases systems are difficult and expensive to construct. If we could share knowledge across systems, costs would be reduced. However, because knowledge bases are typically constructed from scratch, each with their own idiosyncratic structure, sharing is difficult. Recent research has focused on the use of ontologies to promote sharing. An ontology is a hierarchically structured set of terms for describing a domain that can be used as a skeletal foundation for a knowledge base. If two knowledge bases are built on a common ontology, knowledge can be more readily shared, since they share a common underlying structure. This paper outlines a set of desiderata for ontologies, and then describes how we have used a large-scale (50,000+ concept) ontology to develop a specialized, domain-specific ontology semi-automatically. We then discuss the relation between ontologies and the process of developing a system, arguing that to be useful, an ontology needs to be created as a "living document", whose development is tightly integrated with the system's. We conclude with a discussion of Web-based ontology tools we are developing to support this approach
  14. Slavic, A.: Interface to classification : some objectives and options (2006) 0.01 
    0.014244914 = product of:
  0.07122457 = sum of:
    0.07122457 = weight(_text_:relation in 2131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07122457 = score(doc=2131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.3468557 = fieldWeight in 2131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2131)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This is a preprint to be published in the Extensions & Corrections to the UDC. The paper explains the basic functions of browsing and searching that need to be supported in relation to analytico-synthetic classifications such as Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), irrespective of any specific, real-life implementation. UDC is an example of a semi-faceted system that can be used, for instance, for both post-coordinate searching and hierarchical/facet browsing. The advantages of using a classification for IR, however, depend on the strength of the GUI, which should provide a user-friendly interface to classification browsing and searching. The power of this interface is in supporting visualisation that will 'convert' what is potentially a user-unfriendly indexing language based on symbols, to a subject presentation that is easy to understand, search and navigate. A summary of the basic functions of searching and browsing a classification that may be provided on a user-friendly interface is given and examples of classification browsing interfaces are provided.
  15. Roes, H.: Digital libraries and education : trends and opportunities (2001) 0.01 
    0.014244914 = product of:
  0.07122457 = sum of:
    0.07122457 = weight(_text_:relation in 1158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07122457 = score(doc=1158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.3468557 = fieldWeight in 1158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1158)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This article builds on work in the past few years, triggered by Ticer course and consulting activities, notably for the Dutch Open University and the Amsterdam University for Professional Education. It attempts to identify strategic issues for libraries wishing to pursue a more active policy with regard to the changes affecting higher education due to the increased use of information and communication technologies (ICT). The article starts out by sketching the changes currently occurring in education. A study of the literature, carried out while preparing a new strategic plan for the libraries of Amsterdam University for Professional Education, identified five major areas in which libraries can develop strategies to enhance services for their patrons. The following domains are discussed: digital libraries and digital learning environments; digital portfolios; information literacy; collaborative course design; and the relation between physical and virtual learning environments. Next, possible implications for library staff regarding the changes are discussed. The article concludes with thoughts on alignment between library strategy and the strategy of the library's parent institution.
  16. Menzel, C.: Knowledge representation, the World Wide Web, and the evolution of logic (2011) 0.01 
    0.014244914 = product of:
  0.07122457 = sum of:
    0.07122457 = weight(_text_:relation in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07122457 = score(doc=761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.3468557 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
  17. Tzitzikas, Y.; Spyratos, N.; Constantopoulos, P.; Analyti, A.: Extended faceted ontologies (2002) 0.01 
    0.014244914 = product of:
  0.07122457 = sum of:
    0.07122457 = weight(_text_:relation in 2280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07122457 = score(doc=2280,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.3468557 = fieldWeight in 2280, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2280)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    A faceted ontology consists of a set of facets, where each facet consists of a predefined set of terms structured by a subsumption relation. We propose two extensions of faceted ontologies, which allow inferring conjunctions of terms that are valid in the underlying domain. We give a model-theoretic interpretation to these extended faceted ontologies and we provide mechanisms for inferring the valid conjunctions of terms. This inference service can be exploited for preventing errors during the indexing process and for deriving navigation trees that are suitable for browsing. The proposed scheme has several advantages by comparison to the hierarchical classification schemes that are currently used, namely: conceptual clarity: it is easier to understand, compactness: it takes less space, and scalability: the update operations can be formulated easier and be performed more efficiently.
  18. Wu, Y.; Bai, R.: ¬An event relationship model for knowledge organization and visualization (2017) 0.01 
    0.014244914 = product of:
  0.07122457 = sum of:
    0.07122457 = weight(_text_:relation in 3867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07122457 = score(doc=3867,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.3468557 = fieldWeight in 3867, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3867)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    An event is a specific occurrence involving participants, which is a typed, n-ary association of entities or other events, each identified as a participant in a specific semantic role in the event (Pyysalo et al. 2012; Linguistic Data Consortium 2005). Event types may vary across domains. Representing relationships between events can facilitate the understanding of knowledge in complex systems (such as economic systems, human body, social systems). In the simplest form, an event can be represented as Entity A <Relation> Entity B. This paper evaluates several knowledge organization and visualization models and tools, such as concept maps (Cmap), topic maps (Ontopia), network analysis models (Gephi), and ontology (Protégé), then proposes an event relationship model that aims to integrate the strengths of these models, and can represent complex knowledge expressed in events and their relationships.
  19. Hjoerland, B.: Information retrieval and knowledge organization : a perspective from the philosophy of science 0.01 
    0.014244914 = product of:
  0.07122457 = sum of:
    0.07122457 = weight(_text_:relation in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07122457 = score(doc=206,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.3468557 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Information retrieval (IR) is about making systems for finding documents or information. Knowledge organization (KO) is the field concerned with indexing, classification, and representing documents for IR, browsing, and related processes, whether performed by humans or computers. The field of IR is today dominated by search engines like Google. An important difference between KO and IR as research fields is that KO attempts to reflect knowledge as depicted by contemporary scholarship, in contrast to IR, which is based on, for example, "match" techniques, popularity measures or personalization principles. The classification of documents in KO mostly aims at reflecting the classification of knowledge in the sciences. Books about birds, for example, mostly reflect (or aim at reflecting) how birds are classified in ornithology. KO therefore requires access to the adequate subject knowledge; however, this is often characterized by disagreements. At the deepest layer, such disagreements are based on philosophical issues best characterized as "paradigms". No IR technology and no system of knowledge organization can ever be neutral in relation to paradigmatic conflicts, and therefore such philosophical problems represent the basis for the study of IR and KO.
  20. Müller, H.F.J.: Concept-dynamics and the mind-brain question (2001) 0.01 
    0.011870761 = product of:
  0.059353806 = sum of:
    0.059353806 = weight(_text_:relation in 6766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059353806 = score(doc=6766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.2890464 = fieldWeight in 6766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6766)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Some difficulties of the relation between thinking and brain function can become more easily comprehensible through an examination of the relevant concept-dynamics. This concerns mainly the transcendence of experience by concepts, and following from here the subject/object split (of ontological or functional type), development and functions of static metaphysics ("realism"), and further the concept- surpassing (encompassing) property of experience. Momentary ongoing experience is the nucleus of thinking ("consciousness") and must not be neglected in the study of this question. It is "given" (ie, not invented by us) but it is structured by us in its entirety. Whatever can be said about the brain and its functions uses concept-structures which are made by us within given experience. But it is not possible inversely to derive ongoing mind-and-nature experience from objective knowledge, nor can experience be reduced to it. Thinking does not come from the brain, the brain comes from thinking. Experience is neither identical with objective brain functions, nor with a publicly accessible "self"; both suppositions imply an erroneous assumption of a primary (ontological) subject/ object split. The correlation of public subjective and public objective data can be examined (eg, in time), but ongoing experience encompasses all data. A belief in mind-independently structured reality blocks the access to the question about this process. On the other hand, metaphysics can become functional in the form of working metaphysics, and in this way the encompassing aspect of experience remains evident.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 165
  • d 160
  • el 2
  • i 2
  • a 1
  • nl 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 160
  • i 20
  • m 7
  • p 5
  • r 5
  • s 4
  • b 3
  • x 2
  • n 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications