Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02766634 = product of:
  0.05533268 = sum of:
    0.05533268 = sum of:
      0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0054123 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
      0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04992038 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

Type

a

0.025444586 = product of:
  0.05088917 = sum of:
    0.05088917 = sum of:
      0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006765375 = score(doc=1493,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1493, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1493)
      0.0441238 = weight(_text_:22 in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0441238 = score(doc=1493,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1493, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1493)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A lot of information that is already available on the Web, or retrieved from local information systems and social networks is structured in data silos that are not semantically related. Semantic technologies make it emerge that the use of typed links that directly express their relations are an advantage for every application that can reuse the incorporated knowledge about the data. For this reason, data integration, through reengineering (e.g. triplify), or querying (e.g. D2R) is an important task in order to make information available for everyone. Thus, in order to build a semantic map of the data, we need knowledge about data items itself and the relation between heterogeneous data items. In this paper, we present our work of providing Lexical Linked Data (LLD) through a meta-model that contains all the resources and gives the possibility to retrieve and navigate them from different perspectives. We combine the existing work done on knowledge domains (based on the Information Coding Classification) within the Multilingual Lexical Linked Data Cloud (based on the RDF/OWL EurowordNet and the related integrated lexical resources (MultiWordNet, EuroWordNet, MEMODATA Lexicon, Hamburg Methaphor DB).

Date

22. 9.2014 19:01:18

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

Type

a

0.020749755 = product of:
  0.04149951 = sum of:
    0.04149951 = sum of:
      0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 1736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0040592253 = score(doc=1736,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 1736, 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=1736)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 1736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=1736,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1736, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1736)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2014 19:00:13

Type

a

0.0026742492 = product of:
  0.0053484985 = sum of:
    0.0053484985 = product of:
      0.010696997 = sum of:
        0.010696997 = weight(_text_:a in 4824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010696997 = score(doc=4824,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 4824, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4824)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

General concepts are all those form-categorial concepts which - attached to a specific concept of a classification system or thesaurus - can help to widen, sometimes even in a syntactical sense, the understanding of a case. In some existing universal classification systems such concepts have been named "auxiliaries" or "common isolates" as in the Colon Classification (CC). However, by such auxiliaries, different kinds of such concepts are listed, e.g. concepts of space and time, concepts of races and languages and concepts of kinds of documents, next to them also concepts of kinds of general activities, properties, persons, and institutions. Such latter kinds form part of the nine aspects ruling the facets in the Information Coding Classification (ICC) through the principle of using a Systematiser for the subdivision of subject groups and fields. Based on this principle and using and extending existing systems of such concepts, e.g. which A. Diemer had presented to the German Thesaurus Committee as well as those found in the UDC, in CC and attached to the Subject Heading System of the German National Library, a faceted classification is proposed for critical assessment, necessary improvement and possible later use in classification systems and thesauri.

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

0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 3614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=3614,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 3614, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3614)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Research history of the last 70 years highlights various systems for contents assessment and retrieval of scientific literature, such as universal classifications, thesauri, ontologies etc., which have followed developments of their own, notwithstanding a general trend towards interoperability, i.e. either to become instruments for cooperation or to widen their scope to encompass neighbouring fields within their framework. In the case of thesauri and ontologies, the endeavour to upgrade them into a universal system was bound to miscarry. This paper purports to indicate ways to gain from past experience and possibly rally material achievements while updating and promoting the ontologically-based faceted Information Coding Classification as a progressive universal system fit for meeting whatever requirements in the fields of information and science at large.

Type

a

0.0025370158 = product of:
  0.0050740317 = sum of:
    0.0050740317 = product of:
      0.010148063 = sum of:
        0.010148063 = weight(_text_:a in 2104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010148063 = score(doc=2104,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 2104, 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=2104)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

So far terminological work has been mainly directed towards defining very special concepts. The more general ones, e.g. those denoting subject-fields have been neglected with the result that communication on this level has been seriously hampered. There exists a great number of such terms and also a growing trend for the formation of new ones. In the FRG an R&D project was started in 1972 with the collection of names of subject fields, it is intended to assemble their definitions in a dictionary and to build a general concept system by computercomparison of their characteristics as provided by their definitions. The nature of subject-fields is explained, details on the German collection are given as well as some results from a formal analysis of their concepts. It is proposed to initiate similar projects in other linguistic regions as well; this could be done under the auspices of Infoterm. Some application-possibilities for a general concept-system (e. g. a broad system of ordering) are given. The annex displays a scheme of 9 subject areas and about 90 subareas for the sorting of names of subject fields.

Type

a

0.0017433972 = product of:
  0.0034867944 = sum of:
    0.0034867944 = product of:
      0.006973589 = sum of:
        0.006973589 = weight(_text_:a in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006973589 = score(doc=4300,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13131565 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 2009 ISKO had its 20th anniversary, a time for review and reflection on what might be envisaged to further Knowledge Organization in the forthcoming years. In addition to some proposals set forth at the end of this contribution, ten desiderata appear urgent. A preliminary condition to any other consideration is the recognition of the fundamental difference in the organization of knowledge between the concept (i.e., the unit of knowledge)-the conceptual level-and the word, term or code-the verbal level-and the need for implementing this distinction in theory and practice (Desideratum 1). On this basis, some further proposals are enunciated. The 2nd proposition concerns the surveying of extant classification systems, thesauri, and other means of organizing, ordering, and indexing knowledge; the 3rd proposition envisages the improvement of expert training in Knowledge Organization (KO), also with regard to curricula and professional acknowledgment. Nr.4) refers to the professionalization of the hitherto rather neglected national ISKO secretariats, as well as the international ISKO secretariat. Nr.5) urges a systematic survey of KO-relevant concepts to serve as a model or standard for other subject fields, Nr.6) claims the establishment of KO Institutes, Nr.7) views consultancy to the effect that anybody interested in KO may approach ISKO for help, Nr 8) urges ISKO's promotion of membership and chapters in as many countries as possible, Nr.9) presses for intensification of ISKO's publication activities, and Nr.10) pleads for KO as a scientific discipline on its own.

Content

1. Recognize the units in an order system (classification system, thesaurus, ontology, etc.) as concepts/knowledge units, analyse their essential characteristics, and use these characteristics when creating a Knowledge Order System. 2. Recognize the units in an order system (classification system, thesaurus, ontology, etc.) as concepts/knowledge units, analyse their essential characteristics, and use these characteristics when creating a Knowledge Order System. 3. An ISKO group should elaborate a curriculum for the various KO activities to be published after approval by the ISKO Executive Board (EB). Together with this, the qualifying titles of different professionals (teacher, professor, system designer etc.) should also be discussed by the ISKO EB, adopted and proposed for acknowledgement by official institutions; and, 2) It may be possible for ISKO to establish its own Academy and also take care of teaching with the elaborated curricula. 4. Every national ISKO Chapter and the General Secretariat should make efforts to employ a paid expert for the necessary secretarial work, and seek financial support therefore from national or international organizations, in order to become more professionalised. 5. The ISKO Executive Board should decide to elaborate and publish an order system of all KO-relevant concepts to serve as a model and perhaps sometimes as a standard for similar work in other scientific disciplines and knowledge fields.
6. Establishment of national Knowledge Organization Institutes should be scheduled by national chapters, planned energetically and submitted to corresponding administrative authorities for support. They could be attached to research institutions, e.g., the Max-Planck or Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany or to universities. Their scope and research areas relate to the elaboration of knowledge systems of subject related concepts, according to Desideratum 1, and may be connected to training activities and KOsubject-related research work. 7. ISKO experts should not accept to be impressed by Internet and Computer Science, but should demonstrate their expertise more actively on the public plane. They should tend to take a leading part in the ISKO Secretariats and the KO Institutes, and act as consultants and informants, as well as editors of statistics and other publications. 8. All colleagues trained in the field of classification/indexing and thesauri construction and active in different countries should be identified and approached for membership in ISKO. This would have to be accomplished by the General Secretariat with the collaboration of the experts in the different secretariats of the countries, as soon as they start to work. The more members ISKO will have, the greater will be its reputation and influence. But it will also prove its professionalism by the quality of its products, especially its innovating conceptual order systems to come. 9. ISKO should-especially in view of global expansion-intensify the promotion of knowledge about its own subject area through the publications mentioned here and in further publications as deemed necessary. It should be made clear that, especially in ISKO's own publications, professional subject indexes are a sine qua non. 10. 1) Knowledge Organization, having arisen from librarianship and documentation, the contents of which has many points of contact with numerous application fields, should-although still linked up with its areas of descent-be recognized in the long run as an independent autonomous discipline to be located under the science of science, since only thereby can it fully play its role as an equal partner in all application fields; and, 2) An "at-a-first-glance knowledge order" could be implemented through the Information Coding Classification (ICC), as this system is based on an entirely new approach, namely based on general object areas, thus deviating from discipline-oriented main classes of the current main universal classification systems. It can therefore recoup by simple display on screen the hitherto lost overview of all knowledge areas and fields. On "one look", one perceives 9 object areas subdivided into 9 aspects which break down into 81 subject areas with their 729 subject fields, including further special fields. The synthesis and place of order of all knowledge becomes thus evident at a glance to everybody. Nobody would any longer be irritated by the abundance of singular apparently unrelated knowledge fields or become hesitant in his/her understanding of the world.

Footnote

Slightly revised translation into English of a contribution given at the 11th German ISKO Conference, Bonn, 19-21 Oct.2009. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_38_2011_1g.pdf.

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 1381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=1381,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 1381, 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=1381)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As an introduction, the circumstances leading to the foundation of the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO) are outlined and the prerequisites for the formal and conceptual description of the scope of knowledge organization (KO) are laid out, followed by the explanation of the scheme as used in the bibliography of KO. An overview is provided of the tasks and activities of this discipline; thereafter and in conclusion an urgent appeal is made to ISKO and to all active scientific societies with a view to establishing KO as an autonomous scientific discipline within the science of science, as well as an indication is given of urgently required tasks.

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 4057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=4057,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4057, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4057)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 2198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=2198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 2198, 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=2198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Anlaß für dieses kleine Werk war einerseits meine Feststellung bei der letzten internationalen Konferenz der Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation in Krakau, 19.-23.5.2014, dass sehr viele junge Teilnehmer sich offen-bar nicht klar waren, was eigentlich unter "Wissensorganisation" zu verstehen ist. Andererseits hatte ich gerade das Handbook on Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies von M.-A. Sicilia durchgeackert und dabei feststellen müssen, dass bei den Informatiker-Kollegen doch vielfach das Wissen fehlt, das immerhin schon seit Jahrhunderten in den Geisteswissenschaften auf dem Gebiet der Klassifikation entwickelt wurde. Sie haben wohl erkannt, dass ihre Daten auch Inhalte haben, und benutzen gern die Klassifikationssysteme und Thesauri, die von Informationswissenschaftlern erstellt wurden, doch fehlen ihnen deren Grundlagen.

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 3235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=3235,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3235, 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=3235)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 3473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=3473,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3473, 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=3473)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

8.4567186E-4 = product of:
  0.0016913437 = sum of:
    0.0016913437 = product of:
      0.0033826875 = sum of:
        0.0033826875 = weight(_text_:a in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033826875 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a