Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Fonseca, F."
  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  1. Fonseca, F.: ¬The double role of ontologies in information science research (2007) 0.00 
    0.0026849252 = product of:
  0.0053698504 = sum of:
    0.0053698504 = product of:
      0.010739701 = sum of:
        0.010739701 = weight(_text_:a in 277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010739701 = score(doc=277,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 277, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In philosophy, Ontology is the basic description of things in the world. In information science, an ontology refers to an engineering artifact, constituted by a specific vocabulary used to describe a certain reality. Ontologies have been proposed for validating both conceptual models and conceptual schemas; however, these roles are quite dissimilar. In this article, we show that ontologies can be better understood if we classify the different uses of the term as it appears in the literature. First, we explain Ontology (upper case O) as used in Philosophy. Then, we propose a differentiation between ontologies of information systems and ontologies for information systems. All three concepts have an important role in information science. We clarify the different meanings and uses of Ontology and ontologies through a comparison of research by Wand and Weber and by Guarino in ontology-driven information systems. The contributions of this article are twofold: (a) It provides a better understanding of what ontologies are, and (b) it explains the double role of ontologies in information science research.
    Type
    a
  2. Saab, D.J.; Fonseca, F.: Ontological complexity and human culture (2014) 0.00 
    0.0025370158 = product of:
  0.0050740317 = sum of:
    0.0050740317 = product of:
      0.010148063 = sum of:
        0.010148063 = weight(_text_:a in 3405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010148063 = score(doc=3405,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 3405, 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=3405)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The explosion of the infosphere has led to a proliferation of metadata and formal ontology artefacts for information systems. Information scientists are creating ontologies and metadata in order to facilitate the sharing of meaningful information rather than similarly structured information. Formal ontologies are a complex form of metadata that specify the underlying concepts and their relationships that comprise the information of and for an information system. The most common understanding of ontology in computer and information sciences is Gruber's specification of a conceptualization. However, formal ontologies are problematic in that they simultaneously crystallize and decontextualize information, which in order to be meaningful must be adaptive in context. In trying to construct a correct taxonomical system, formal ontologies are focused on syntactic precision rather than meaningful exchange of information. Smith describes accurately the motivation and practice of ontology creation: It becomes a theory of the ontological content of certain representations . The elicited principles may or may not be true, but this, to the practitioner . is of no concern, since the significance of these principles lies elsewhere - for instance in yielding a correct account of the taxonomical system used by speakers of a given language or by scientists working in a given discipline. It is not fair to claim that syntax is irrelevant, but the meaning we make of information is dependent upon more than its syntactic structure.
    Type
    a

Years