Search (34 results, page 2 of 2)

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=133,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001829468 = product of:
  0.003658936 = sum of:
    0.003658936 = product of:
      0.007317872 = sum of:
        0.007317872 = weight(_text_:a in 691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007317872 = score(doc=691,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13779864 = fieldWeight in 691, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=691)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Computer scientists create models of a perceived reality. Through AI techniques, these models aim at providing the basic support for emulating cognitive behavior such as reasoning and learning, which is one of the main goals of the Al research effort. Such computer models are formed through the interaction of various acquisition and inference mechanisms: perception, concept learning, conceptual clustering, hypothesis testing, probabilistic inference, etc., and are represented using different paradigms tightly linked to the processes that use them. Among these paradigms let us cite: biological models (neural nets, genetic programming), logic-based models (first-order logic, modal logic, rule-based systems), virtual reality models (object systems, agent systems), probabilistic models (Bayesian nets, fuzzy logic), linguistic models (conceptual dependency graphs, language-based rep resentations), etc. One of the strengths of the Conceptual Graph (CG) theory is its versatility in terms of the representation paradigms under which it falls. It can be viewed and therefore used, under different representation paradigms, which makes it a popular choice for a wealth of applications. Its full coupling with different cognitive processes lead to the opening of the field toward related research communities such as the Description Logic, Formal Concept Analysis, and Computational Linguistic communities. We now see more and more research results from one community enrich the other, laying the foundations of common philosophical grounds from which a successful synergy can emerge. ICCS 2000 embodies this spirit of research collaboration. It presents a set of papers that we believe, by their exposure, will benefit the whole community. For instance, the technical program proposes tracks on Conceptual Ontologies, Language, Formal Concept Analysis, Computational Aspects of Conceptual Structures, and Formal Semantics, with some papers on pragmatism and human related aspects of computing. Never before was the program of ICCS formed by so heterogeneously rooted theories of knowledge representation and use. We hope that this swirl of ideas will benefit you as much as it already has benefited us while putting together this program

Content

Concepts and Language: The Role of Conceptual Structure in Human Evolution (Keith Devlin) - Concepts in Linguistics - Concepts in Natural Language (Gisela Harras) - Patterns, Schemata, and Types: Author Support through Formalized Experience (Felix H. Gatzemeier) - Conventions and Notations for Knowledge Representation and Retrieval (Philippe Martin) - Conceptual Ontology: Ontology, Metadata, and Semiotics (John F. Sowa) - Pragmatically Yours (Mary Keeler) - Conceptual Modeling for Distributed Ontology Environments (Deborah L. McGuinness) - Discovery of Class Relations in Exception Structured Knowledge Bases (Hendra Suryanto, Paul Compton) - Conceptual Graphs: Perspectives: CGs Applications: Where Are We 7 Years after the First ICCS ? (Michel Chein, David Genest) - The Engineering of a CC-Based System: Fundamental Issues (Guy W. Mineau) - Conceptual Graphs, Metamodeling, and Notation of Concepts (Olivier Gerbé, Guy W. Mineau, Rudolf K. Keller) - Knowledge Representation and Reasonings: Based on Graph Homomorphism (Marie-Laure Mugnier) - User Modeling Using Conceptual Graphs for Intelligent Agents (James F. Baldwin, Trevor P. Martin, Aimilia Tzanavari) - Towards a Unified Querying System of Both Structured and Semi-structured Imprecise Data Using Fuzzy View (Patrice Buche, Ollivier Haemmerlé) - Formal Semantics of Conceptual Structures: The Extensional Semantics of the Conceptual Graph Formalism (Guy W. Mineau) - Semantics of Attribute Relations in Conceptual Graphs (Pavel Kocura) - Nested Concept Graphs and Triadic Power Context Families (Susanne Prediger) - Negations in Simple Concept Graphs (Frithjof Dau) - Extending the CG Model by Simulations (Jean-François Baget) - Contextual Logic and Formal Concept Analysis: Building and Structuring Description Logic Knowledge Bases: Using Least Common Subsumers and Concept Analysis (Franz Baader, Ralf Molitor) - On the Contextual Logic of Ordinal Data (Silke Pollandt, Rudolf Wille) - Boolean Concept Logic (Rudolf Wille) - Lattices of Triadic Concept Graphs (Bernd Groh, Rudolf Wille) - Formalizing Hypotheses with Concepts (Bernhard Ganter, Sergei 0. Kuznetsov) - Generalized Formal Concept Analysis (Laurent Chaudron, Nicolas Maille) - A Logical Generalization of Formal Concept Analysis (Sébastien Ferré, Olivier Ridoux) - On the Treatment of Incomplete Knowledge in Formal Concept Analysis (Peter Burmeister, Richard Holzer) - Conceptual Structures in Practice: Logic-Based Networks: Concept Graphs and Conceptual Structures (Peter W. Eklund) - Conceptual Knowledge Discovery and Data Analysis (Joachim Hereth, Gerd Stumme, Rudolf Wille, Uta Wille) - CEM - A Conceptual Email Manager (Richard Cole, Gerd Stumme) - A Contextual-Logic Extension of TOSCANA (Peter Eklund, Bernd Groh, Gerd Stumme, Rudolf Wille) - A Conceptual Graph Model for W3C Resource Description Framework (Olivier Corby, Rose Dieng, Cédric Hébert) - Computational Aspects of Conceptual Structures: Computing with Conceptual Structures (Bernhard Ganter) - Symmetry and the Computation of Conceptual Structures (Robert Levinson) An Introduction to SNePS 3 (Stuart C. Shapiro) - Composition Norm Dynamics Calculation with Conceptual Graphs (Aldo de Moor) - From PROLOG++ to PROLOG+CG: A CG Object-Oriented Logic Programming Language (Adil Kabbaj, Martin Janta-Polczynski) - A Cost-Bounded Algorithm to Control Events Generalization (Gaël de Chalendar, Brigitte Grau, Olivier Ferret)

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 1609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=1609,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1609, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1609)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=35,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=37,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 5068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=5068,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 5068, 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=5068)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper deals with different views of lexical semantics. The focus is on the relationship between lexical expressions and conceptual components. First the assumptions about lexicalization and decompositionality of concepts shared by the most semanticists are presented, followed by a discussion of the differences between two-level-semants and one-level-semantics. The final part is concentrated on the interpretation of conceptual components in situations of communication

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 315) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=315,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 315, 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=315)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Classification

ST 510 Informatik / Monographien / Einzelne Anwendungen der Datenverarbeitung / Wirtschaftsinformatik / Einzelne Programme (A-Z)

RVK

ST 510 Informatik / Monographien / Einzelne Anwendungen der Datenverarbeitung / Wirtschaftsinformatik / Einzelne Programme (A-Z)

0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 1661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=1661,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 1661, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1661)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Editor

Boehm, A., A. Mengel u. T. Muhr

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 22) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=22,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 22, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=22)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=984,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 984, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=984)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

7.323734E-4 = product of:
  0.0014647468 = sum of:
    0.0014647468 = product of:
      0.0029294936 = sum of:
        0.0029294936 = weight(_text_:a in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0029294936 = score(doc=4000,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.05516361 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Die Sprache ist in unserem Jahrhundert zu einem der aktuellsten Themen der Philosophie geworden. Der Anstoß zur Beschäftigung mit der Sprache hat sich von den verschiedensten philosophischen Fragestellungen her ergeben: von der Erkenntnistheorie durch eine Wendung der Vernunftkritik in eine Sprachkritik, von der Logik aufgrund ihrer Beschäftigung mit Kunstsprachen und mit der logischen Analyse der natürlichen Sprachen, von der Anthropologie durch die Hervorhebung der Sprache als wesensbestimmender Leistung des Menschen und durch die Entdeckung von Korrelationen zwischen Sprachform und Weltbild, von der Ethik durch ihre Beschäftigung mit den sprachlichen Formen ethischer Aussagen und deren Abgrenzung gegenüber deskriptiven Sätzen. Ganz allgemein läßt sich diese philosophische Hinwendung zur Sprache auch an dem Wandel in der Formulierung philosophischer Probleme ablesen. Wo man früher z.B. nach der "Natur der Kausalität" fragte, oder nach dem "Inhalt des Begriffes der Kausalität", empfindet man es heute als adäquater, das Problem als eine Frage nach dem Wortgebrauch zu formulieren und zu fragen: "Was sagt man, wenn man sagt, daß ein Ereignis A ein Ereignis B bewirkt? "' Die philosophische Aufmerksamkeit hat sich im Verlauf dieser Entwicklung teilweise so ausschließlich auf die Sprache konzentriert, daß man Philosophie überhaupt mit Sprachkritik identifiziert hat. Das gilt insbesondere für die beiden Hauptströmungen der analytischen Philosophie, für die von Bertrand Russell ausgehende und sich über Rudolf Carnap zu Nelson Goodman und Willard van Orman Quine fortsetzende Bestrebung einer logischen Analyse der Wissenschaftssprache, speziell der philosophischen Sprache, in der man versucht, den Sinn der Terme und Sätze dieser Sprache mit den Hilfsmitteln der modernen Logik zu klären und zu präzisieren, und, mehr noch, für die von George Edward Moore ausgehende, dann durch Ludwig Wittgenstein geprägte und in der Ordinary-LanguagePhilosophie der Oxforder Schule (Gilbert Ryle, John Langshaw Austin) fortentwickelte andere Hauptrichtung der analytischen Philosophie, in der man versucht, die philosophische Sprache durch die Analyse des umgangssprachlichen Gebrauchs ihrer Terme zu klären.
Schon Gottlob Frege sagt im Vorwort zu seiner "Begriffsschrift": "Wenn es eine Aufgabe der Philosophie ist, die Herrschaft des Wortes über den menschlichen Geist zu brechen, indem sie die Täuschungen aufdeckt, die durch den Sprachgebrauch über die Beziehungen der Begriffe oft fast unvermeidlich entstehen, indem sie den Gedanken von demjenigen befreit, womit ihn allein die Beschaffenheit des sprachlichen Ausdrucksmittels behaftet, so wird meine Begriffsschrift, für diese Zwecke weiter ausgebildet, den Philosophen ein brauchbares Werkzeug werden können." Aus dem "Wenn"-Satz Freges wird dann eine kategorische Behauptung und schon für Russell besteht die wichtigste Aufgabe der Philosophie "in criticizing and clarifying notions which are apt to be regarded as fundamental and accepted uncritically. As instances I might mention: mind, matter, consciousness, knowledge, experience, causality, will, time." Und Carnap schreibt im Vorwort zur 2. Auflage seines Buches "Der logische Aufbau der Welt": "Die neuen Bestimmungen [der Begriffe] sollen den alten in Klarheit und Exaktheit überlegen sein und sich vor allem besser in ein systematisches Begriffsgebäude einfügen. Eine solche Begriffserklärung, heute oft "Explikation" genannt, scheint mir immer noch eine der wichtigsten Aufgaben der Philosophie zu sein." Für Wittgenstein ist schon im "Traktat" alle Philosophie Sprachkritik und in den "Philosophischen Un-tersuchungen" ist Philosophie nichts anderes als ein ständiger Kampf gegen die "Verhexung unsres Verstandes durch die Mittel unserer Sprache"." Für viele Anhänger der Ordinary-Language-Philosophie endlich bedeutet die Hinwendung der Philosophie zur Sprache, der "linguistic turn", die große Revolution der modernen Philosophie. So sagt Austin: ". . . it cannot be doubted that they [diese Methoden der Sprachkritik] are producing a revolution in philosophy. If anyone wishes to call it the greatest and most salutary in its history, this is not, if you come to think of it, a large claim."

6.765375E-4 = product of:
  0.001353075 = sum of:
    0.001353075 = product of:
      0.00270615 = sum of:
        0.00270615 = weight(_text_:a in 1458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00270615 = score(doc=1458,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 1458, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1458)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Wörter sind der sprachliche Ausdruck unseres Denkens, von uns selbst geschaffen, und doch etwas, das wir selten einer näheren Betrachtung unterziehen. Dabei kann uns gerade diese Betrachtung einiges darüber sagen, was in unseren Gehirnen vor sich geht. Die Sprachforschung hat in den letzten Jahrzehnten durch die Ansätze der Kognitionspsychologie neuen Schwung bekommen - und Georg A. Miller hat als einer der Begründer der modernen Psycholinguistik einen nicht unwesentlichen Anteil daran gehabt. In diesem Buch erzühlt er, oft geürzt mit seinem ganz besonderen Humor, was die Linguistik im Reich der Wörter so alles entdeckt hat. Miller führt dem Leser die verschiedenen Seiten von Wörtern vor Augen; jedes einzelne davon ist das Zusammenspiel einer Äußerung - in der phonetischen Aussprache - , einer Bedeutung - in der Semantik - und einer Rolle im Satz - in der Syntax. Diese drei Seiten sieht Miller als Einheit, wobei er dem Leser die Theorien und Methoden, mit denen die Forschung den Wörtern zu Leibe rückt, anschaulich vorstellt

5.9197034E-4 = product of:
  0.0011839407 = sum of:
    0.0011839407 = product of:
      0.0023678814 = sum of:
        0.0023678814 = weight(_text_:a in 1571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0023678814 = score(doc=1571,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.044588212 = fieldWeight in 1571, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1571)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)