Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 1010) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=1010,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 1010, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1010)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 3918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=3918,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3918, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3918)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ontology is an interdisciplinary field that involves both the use of philosophical principles and the development of computational artifacts. As artifacts, ontologies can have diverse applications in knowledge management, information retrieval, and information systems, to mention a few. They have been largely applied to organize information in complex fields like Biomedicine. In this article, we present the OntoNeo Ontology, an initiative to build a formal ontology in the obstetrics and neonatal domain. OntoNeo is a resource that has been designed to serve as a comprehensive infrastructure providing scientific research and healthcare professionals with access to relevant information. The goal of OntoNeo is twofold: (a) to organize specialized medical knowledge, and (b) to provide a potential consensual representation of the medical information found in electronic health records and medical information systems. To describe our initiative, we first provide background information about distinct theories underlying ontology, top-level computational ontologies and their applications in Biomedicine. Then, we present the methodology employed in the development of OntoNeo and the results obtained to date. Finally, we discuss the applicability of OntoNeo by presenting a proof of concept that illustrates its potential usefulness in the realm of healthcare information systems.

Type

a

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 8) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=8,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 8, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=8)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The beginning of the 21st century attested to the first movements toward information architecture (IA), originating from the field of library and information science (LIS). IA is acknowledged as an important meta-discipline concerned with the design, implementation, and maintenance of digital information spaces. Despite the relevance of IA, there is little research about the subject within LIS, and still less if one considers initiatives for creating a theory for IA. In this article, we provide a theory for IA and describe the resources needed to create it through ontological models. We also choose the "document" as the key entity for such theory, contemplating kinds of documents that not only serve to register information, but also create claims and obligations in society. To achieve our goals, we provide a background for subtheories from LIS and from Applied Ontology. As a result, we present some basic theory for IA in the form of a formal framework to represent corporations in which IA activities take place, acknowledging that our approach is de facto a subset of IA we call the enterprise information architecture (EAI) approach. By doing this, we highlight the effects that documents cause within corporations in the scope of EIA.

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 5881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=5881,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 5881, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=631,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 631, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Nos últimos 30 anos, o tema das ontologias tem sido um dos terrenos mais férteis de investigação na área da Organização do Conhecimento. É um tema complexo e revestido de polémica, pela dificuldade na definição do próprio conceito e pelas apropriações que diferentes campos científicos têm exercido sobre ele. Com origem no domínio da filosofia, a ontologia é hoje um território partilhado pelas Ciências da Computação, com destaque para a Ciência dos Dados (Data Science), e pela Ciência da Informação, particularmente pela Organização do Conhecimento. São raros os autores desta área que não escreveram sobre o tema, abordando as suas fronteiras conceptuais ou discutindo a relação das ontologias com outros sistemas de organização do conhecimento, como as taxonomias, os tesauros ou as classificações.

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 5909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=5909,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 5909, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5909)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a