Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.048147637 = sum of:
  0.03617191 = product of:
    0.14468764 = sum of:
      0.14468764 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14468764 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38616458 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045548957 = queryNorm
          0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.011975727 = product of:
    0.023951454 = sum of:
      0.023951454 = weight(_text_:c in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023951454 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045548957 = queryNorm
          0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Information Technologies. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.cmu.edu%2F~cx%2Fpapers%2Fknowledge_based_text_representation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0SaTSvhWLTh__Uz_HtOtl3.

0.018085955 = product of:
  0.03617191 = sum of:
    0.03617191 = product of:
      0.14468764 = sum of:
        0.14468764 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14468764 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38616458 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F1627&ei=tAtYUYrBNoHKtQb3l4GYBw&usg=AFQjCNHeaxKkKU3-u54LWxMNYGXaaDLCGw&sig2=8WykXWQoDKjDSdGtAakH2Q&bvm=bv.44442042,d.Yms.

0.015428137 = product of:
  0.030856274 = sum of:
    0.030856274 = product of:
      0.061712548 = sum of:
        0.061712548 = weight(_text_:22 in 3406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061712548 = score(doc=3406,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3406, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3406)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 5.2010 16:22:35

0.0077140685 = product of:
  0.015428137 = sum of:
    0.015428137 = product of:
      0.030856274 = sum of:
        0.030856274 = weight(_text_:22 in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030856274 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1670, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1670)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26. 9.2006 21:00:22

0.006171255 = product of:
  0.01234251 = sum of:
    0.01234251 = product of:
      0.02468502 = sum of:
        0.02468502 = weight(_text_:22 in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02468502 = score(doc=4399,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4399, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4399)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.00523938 = product of:
  0.01047876 = sum of:
    0.01047876 = product of:
      0.02095752 = sum of:
        0.02095752 = weight(_text_:c in 4495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02095752 = score(doc=4495,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.13338815 = fieldWeight in 4495, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4495)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Der in Kapitel B behandelte Schwerpunkt ist die Ontologie-Entwicklung. Nach der Erfassung der grundlegenden Charakteristika ontologiebasierter Wissensmodellierung stehen hier die Anforderungen bei der Erstellung einer Ontologie im Vordergrund. Dazu werden die wesentlichen diesbezüglichen Errungenschaften des sogenannten Ontology Engineering erörtert. Es werden zunächst methodologische Ansätze für den Entwicklungsprozess von Ontologien sowie für die einzelnen Aufgabengebiete entwickelter Techniken und Verfahren vorgestellt. Anschließend daran werden Design-Kriterien und ein Ansatz zur Meta-Modellierung besprochen, welche der Qualitätssicherung einer Ontologie dienen sollen. Diese Betrachtungen sollen eine Übersicht über den Erkenntnisstand des Ontology Engineering geben, womit ein wesentlicher Aspekt zur Nutzung ontologiebasierter Verfahren der Wissensmodellierung im Semantic Web abgedeckt wird. Als letzter Aspekt zur Erfassung der Charakteristika ontologiebasierter Wissensmodellierung wird in Kapitel C die Fragestellung bearbeitet, wie Ontologien in Informationssystemen eingesetzt werden können. Dazu werden zunächst die Verwendungsmöglichkeiten von Ontologien identifiziert. Dann werden Anwendungsgebiete von Ontologien vorgestellt, welche zum einen Beispiele für die aufgefundenen Einsatzmöglichkeiten darstellen und zum anderen im Hinblick auf die Untersuchung der Verwendung von Ontologien im Semantic Web grundlegende Aspekte desselben erörtern sollen. Im Anschluss daran werden die wesentlichen softwaretechnischen Herausforderungen besprochen, die sich durch die Verwendung von Ontologien in Informationssystemen ergeben. Damit wird die Erarbeitung der wesentlichen Charakteristika ontologiebasierter Verfahren der Wissensmodellierung als erstem Teil dieser Arbeit abgeschlossen.

0.00523938 = product of:
  0.01047876 = sum of:
    0.01047876 = product of:
      0.02095752 = sum of:
        0.02095752 = weight(_text_:c in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02095752 = score(doc=1077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.13338815 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

My thesis discusses two related problems that have taken center stage in the recent literature on concepts: 1) What are the individuation conditions of concepts? Under what conditions is a concept Cv(1) the same concept as a concept Cv(2)? 2) What are the possession conditions of concepts? What conditions must be satisfied for a thinker to have a concept C? The thesis defends a novel account of concepts, which I call "pluralist-contextualist": 1) Pluralism: Different concepts have different kinds of individuation and possession conditions: some concepts are individuated more "coarsely", have less demanding possession conditions and are widely shared, while other concepts are individuated more "finely" and not shared. 2) Contextualism: When a speaker ascribes a propositional attitude to a subject S, or uses his ascription to explain/predict S's behavior, the speaker's intentions in the relevant context determine the correct individuation conditions for the concepts involved in his report. In chapters 1-3 I defend a contextualist, non-Millian theory of propositional attitude ascriptions. Then, I show how contextualism can be used to offer a novel perspective on the problem of concept individuation/possession. More specifically, I employ contextualism to provide a new, more effective argument for Fodor's "publicity principle": if contextualism is true, then certain specific concepts must be shared in order for interpersonally applicable psychological generalizations to be possible. In chapters 4-5 I raise a tension between publicity and another widely endorsed principle, the "Fregean constraint" (FC): subjects who are unaware of certain identity facts and find themselves in so-called "Frege cases" must have distinct concepts for the relevant object x. For instance: the ancient astronomers had distinct concepts (HESPERUS/PHOSPHORUS) for the same object (the planet Venus). First, I examine some leading theories of concepts and argue that they cannot meet both of our constraints at the same time. Then, I offer principled reasons to think that no theory can satisfy (FC) while also respecting publicity. (FC) appears to require a form of holism, on which a concept is individuated by its global inferential role in a subject S and can thus only be shared by someone who has exactly the same inferential dispositions as S. This explains the tension between publicity and (FC), since holism is clearly incompatible with concept shareability. To solve the tension, I suggest adopting my pluralist-contextualist proposal: concepts involved in Frege cases are holistically individuated and not public, while other concepts are more coarsely individuated and widely shared; given this "plurality" of concepts, we will then need contextual factors (speakers' intentions) to "select" the specific concepts to be employed in our intentional generalizations in the relevant contexts. In chapter 6 I develop the view further by contrasting it with some rival accounts. First, I examine a very different kind of pluralism about concepts, which has been recently defended by Daniel Weiskopf, and argue that it is insufficiently radical. Then, I consider the inferentialist accounts defended by authors like Peacocke, Rey and Jackson. Such views, I argue, are committed to an implausible picture of reference determination, on which our inferential dispositions fix the reference of our concepts: this leads to wrong predictions in all those cases of scientific disagreement where two parties have very different inferential dispositions and yet seem to refer to the same natural kind.

0.0044908975 = product of:
  0.008981795 = sum of:
    0.008981795 = product of:
      0.01796359 = sum of:
        0.01796359 = weight(_text_:c in 585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01796359 = score(doc=585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.114332706 = fieldWeight in 585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Im fünften Kapitel wurden die neuen Suchmaschinen, die ausschließlich auf dem Konzept der Topic Maps basieren und diese Technik auch tatsächlich verwenden, angesprochen und mit Beispielanfragen erläutert. In dieser Diplomarbeit wurden wegen dem großen Einsatzpotential von Topic Maps, viele Gebiete angesprochen, angefangen bei den Webkatalogen über Suchmaschinen bis hin zum E-Learning. Mit XML Topic Maps gibt man den Beziehungen zwischen den verschiedenen Topics die Chance sich auszuzeichnen. Damit erreicht die Suche eine neue, bis dahin unmögliche Qualität. Mit einer Topic Map lassen sich beispielsweise die klassischen Navigationselemente technischer Dokumentation (Inhalt, Index, Glossar etc.) in einheitlicher Weise beschreiben; eine andere Topic Map könnte die inhaltliche Vernetzung von Artikeln in einem Lexikon ausdrücken (z.B. Person A wurde geboren in Stadt B, B liegt in Land C, Oper D wurde komponiert von A, Person E war Zeitgenosse von A) und für "siehe auch"-Verweise sorgen (andere Werke dieses Komponisten, andere Städte in diesem Land etc.). Es klingt wie die Lösung aller Suchprobleme. Allerdings nur in der Theorie. Denn Tools, die in der Lage sind, das Wissen oder die Riesendaten in Topicmaps automatisch zu generieren, sind noch Mangelware, was die Ausbreitung von Topic Maps hemmt. Der Aufbau solcher Netze erfordert sehr viel Zeit und sehr viel "Handarbeit" - und damit auch viel Geld, was viele Firmen davon abhält Topic Maps zu benutzen.