Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × author_ss:"Gnoli, C."
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Gnoli, C.: Faceted classifications as linked data : a logical analysis (2021) 0.00 
    0.00325127 = product of:
  0.009753809 = sum of:
    0.009753809 = weight(_text_:a in 452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009753809 = score(doc=452,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  2. Simoes, G.; Machado, L.; Gnoli, C.; Souza, R.: Can an ontologically-oriented KO do without concepts? (2020) 0.00 
    0.0018771215 = product of:
  0.0056313644 = sum of:
    0.0056313644 = weight(_text_:a in 4964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0056313644 = score(doc=4964,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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

Authors