Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0025370158 = product of:
  0.0050740317 = sum of:
    0.0050740317 = product of:
      0.010148063 = sum of:
        0.010148063 = weight(_text_:a in 4825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010148063 = score(doc=4825,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 4825, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4825)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Freely faceted classifications allow for free combination of concepts across all knowledge domains, and for sorting of the resulting compound classmarks. Starting from work by the Classification Research Group, the Integrative Levels Classification (ILC) project has produced a first edition of a general freely faceted scheme. The system is managed as a MySQL database, and can be browsed through a Web interface. The ILC database structure provides a case for identifying and representing the structural elements of any freely faceted classification. These belong to both the notational and the verbal planes. Notational elements include: arrays, chains, deictics, facets, foci, place of definition of foci, examples of combinations, subclasses of a faceted class, groupings, related classes; verbal elements include: main caption, synonyms, descriptions, included terms, related terms, notes. Encoding of some of these elements in an international mark-up format like SKOS can be problematic, especially as this does not provide for faceted structures, although approximate SKOS equivalents are identified for most of them.

Source

Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=452,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 452, 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=452)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Faceted knowledge organization systems have sophisticated logical structures, making their representation as linked data a demanding task. The term facet is often used in ambiguous ways: while in thesauri facets only work as semantic categories, in classification schemes they also have syntactic functions. The need to convert the Integrative Levels Classification (ILC) into SKOS stimulated a more general analysis of the different kinds of syntactic facets, as can be represented in terms of RDF properties and their respective domain and range. A nomenclature is proposed, distinguishing between common facets, which can be appended to any class, that is, have an unrestricted domain; and special facets, which are exclusive to some class, that is, have a restricted domain. In both cases, foci can be taken from any other class (unrestricted range: free facets), or only from subclasses of an existing class (parallel facets), or be defined specifically for the present class (bound facets). Examples are given of such cases in ILC and in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC).

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 2659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=2659,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2659, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The field of knowledge organization (KO) can be described as composed of the four distinct but connected layers of theory, systems, representation, and application. This paper focuses on the relations between KO theory and KO systems. It is acknowledged how the structure of KO systems is the product of a mixture of ontological, epistemological, and pragmatical factors. However, different systems give different priorities to each factor. A more ontologically-oriented approach, though not offering quick solutions for any particular group of users, will produce systems of wide and long-lasting application as they are based on general, shareable principles. I take the case of the ontological theory of integrative levels, which has been considered as a useful source for general classifications for several decades, and is currently implemented in the Integrative Levels Classification system. The theory produces a sequence of main classes modelling a natural order between phenomena. This order has interesting effects also on other features of the system, like the citation order of concepts within compounds. As it has been shown by facet analytical theory, it is useful that citation order follow a principle of inversion, as compared to the order of the same concepts in the schedules. In the light of integrative levels theory, this principle also acquires an ontological meaning: phenomena of lower level should be cited first, as most often they act as specifications of higher-level ones. This ontological principle should be complemented by consideration of the epistemological treatment of phenomena: in case a lower-level phenomenon is the main theme, it can be promoted to the leading position in the compound subject heading. The integration of these principles is believed to produce optimal results in the ordering of knowledge contents.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 4964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=4964,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4964, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4964)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The ontological approach in the development of KOS is an attempt to overcome the limitations of the traditional epistemological approach. Questions raise about the representation and organization of ontologically-oriented KO units, such as BFO universals or ILC phenomena. The study aims to compare the ontological approaches of BFO and ILC using a hermeneutic approach. We found that the differences between the units of the two systems are primarily due to the formal level of abstraction of BFO and the different organizations, namely the grouping of phenomena into ILC classes that represent complex compounds of entities in the BFO approach. In both systems the use of concepts is considered instrumental, although in the ILC they constitute the intersubjective component of the phenomena whereas in BFO they serve to access the entities of reality but are not part of them.

Type

a