Search (79 results, page 1 of 4)

0.017972663 = product of:
  0.035945326 = sum of:
    0.035945326 = product of:
      0.053917985 = sum of:
        0.0105208345 = weight(_text_:a in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0105208345 = score(doc=2574,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 2574, 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=2574)
        0.04339715 = weight(_text_:22 in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04339715 = score(doc=2574,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2574, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2574)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A method (HICLAS, DeBoeck & Rosenberg, 1988) for studying the internal structure of semantic concepts is presented. The proposed method reveals the internal structure of the extension as well as the intesion of a concept, together with a correspondence relation that shows the mutual dependence of both structures. Its use is illustrated with the analysis of simple concepts (e.g. sports) and conjunctive concepts (e.g. birds that are also pets). The underlying structure that is revealed can be interpreted as a differentiation of the simple concepts studied and for conjunctive concepts the proposed method is able to extract non-inherited and emergent features (Hampton, 1988)

Date

22. 7.2000 19:17:40

Type

a

0.015215723 = product of:
  0.030431446 = sum of:
    0.030431446 = product of:
      0.045647167 = sum of:
        0.0146492 = weight(_text_:a in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146492 = score(doc=33,freq=38.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.2776507 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
              6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
                38.0 = termFreq=38.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
        0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030997967 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 33, 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=33)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The concept of concept has seldom been examined in its entirety, and the term very seldom defined. The rigidity, or lack thereof, and the homogeneity, or lack thereof, of concepts, are only two of their characteristics that have been debated. These issues are reviewed in this paper, namely: 1) does a concept represent its referent(s), or is it a free creation of the mind?; 2) can a concept be analyzed in parts or elements?; 3) must a concept be general, i.e., refer to a category or a type, or can it refer to a single object, physical or mental?; 4) are concepts as clearly delimited as terms are? Are concepts voiceless terms?; and, 5) what do terms contribute to an individual's and a community's conceptual richness? As regards the relationship of concepts with their referents in the stage of formation, it seems reasonable to conclude that said relationship may be close in some concepts, less close in others, and lacking altogether in some cases. The set of elements of a concept, which varies from individual to individual and across time inside the same individual, is called the intension of a concept. The set of referents of a concept is called the extension of that concept. Most concepts don't have a clearly delimited extension: their referents form a fuzzy set. The aspects of a concept's intension form a scale of generality. A concept is not equal to the term that describes it; rather, many terms are joined to concepts. Language, therefore, renders a gamut of services to the development, consolidation, and communication of conceptual richness.

Date

22. 1.2012 13:11:25

Type

a

0.014671376 = product of:
  0.029342752 = sum of:
    0.029342752 = product of:
      0.044014126 = sum of:
        0.013016158 = weight(_text_:a in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013016158 = score(doc=1204,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.24669915 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
        0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030997967 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1204, 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=1204)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A main goal of recent studies in semantics is to integrate into conceptual structures the models of representation used in linguistics, logic, and/or artificial intelligence. A fundamental problem resides in the need to structure knowledge and then to check the validity of constructed representations. We propose associating logical properties with relationships by introducing the relationships into a typed and functional system of specifcations. This makes it possible to compare conceptual representations against the relationships established between the concepts. The mandatory condition to validate such a conceptual representation is consistency. The semantic system proposed is based an a structured set of semantic primitives-types, relations, and properties-based an a global model of language processing, Applicative and Cognitive Grammar (ACG) (Desc16s, 1990), and an extension of this model to terminology (Jouis & Mustafa 1995, 1996, 1997). The ACG postulates three levels of representation of languages, including a cognitive level. At this level, the meanings of lexical predicates are represented by semantic cognitive schemes. From this perspective, we propose a set of semantic concepts, which defines an organized system of meanings. Relations are part of a specification network based an a general terminological scheure (i.e., a coherent system of meanings of relations). In such a system, a specific relation may be characterized as to its: (1) functional type (the semantic type of arguments of the relation); (2) algebraic properties (reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, etc.); and (3) combinatorial relations with other entities in the same context (for instance, the part of the text where a concept is defined).

Date

1.12.2002 11:12:22

Type

a

0.014213324 = product of:
  0.028426647 = sum of:
    0.028426647 = product of:
      0.04263997 = sum of:
        0.011642005 = weight(_text_:a in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011642005 = score(doc=1440,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 1440, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1440)
        0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030997967 = score(doc=1440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1440, 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=1440)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to analyze the Gottlob Frege's (1848-1925) theory of definition as a tool for knowledge organization. The objective was achieved by discussing the theory of definition including: the aims of definition, kinds of definition, condition of correct definition, what is undefinable. Frege indicated the following aims of a defining: (1) to introduce a new word, which has had no precise meaning until then (2) to explain the meaning of a word; (3) to catch a thought. We would like to present three kinds of definitions used by Frege: a contextual definition, a stipulative definition and a piecemeal definition. In the history of theory of definition Frege was the first to have formulated the condition of a correct definition. According to Frege not everything can be defined, what is logically simple cannot have a proper definition Usability of Frege's theory of definition is referred in the case study. Definitions that serve as an example are definitions of 'context'. The term 'context' is used in different situations and meanings in the field of knowledge organization. The paper is rounded by a discussion of how Frege's theory of definition can be useful for knowledge organization. To present G. Frege's theory of definition in view of the need for knowledge organization we shall start with different ranges of knowledge organization.

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

0.013296565 = product of:
  0.02659313 = sum of:
    0.02659313 = product of:
      0.039889693 = sum of:
        0.008891728 = weight(_text_:a in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008891728 = score(doc=5588,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
        0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030997967 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5588, 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=5588)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To organize information, librarians create structures. These structures grow from a logic that goes back at least as far as Aristotle. It is the basis of classification as we practice it, and thesauri and subject headings have developed from it. Feminist critiques of logic suggest that logic is gendered in nature. This article will explore how these critiques play out in contemporary standards for the organization of information. Our widely used classification schemes embody principles such as hierarchical force that conform to traditional/Aristotelian logic. Our subject heading strings follow a linear path of subdivision. Our thesauri break down subjects into discrete concepts. In thesauri and subject heading lists we privilege hierarchical relationships, reflected in the syndetic structure of broader and narrower terms, over all other relationships. Are our classificatory and syndetic structures gendered? Are there other options? Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice (1982), Women's Ways of Knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986), and more recent related research suggest a different type of structure for women's knowledge grounded in "connected knowing." This article explores current and potential elements of connected knowing in subject access with a focus on the relationships, both paradigmatic and syntagmatic, between concepts.

Date

11.12.2019 19:00:22

Type

a

0.008381914 = product of:
  0.016763829 = sum of:
    0.016763829 = product of:
      0.025145743 = sum of:
        0.009699729 = weight(_text_:a in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009699729 = score(doc=5089,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.1838419 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
        0.015446015 = weight(_text_:h in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015446015 = score(doc=5089,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.13586831 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures - Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues (ICCS 2000) brings together a wide range of researchers and practitioners working with conceptual structures. During the last few years, the ICCS conference series has considerably widened its scope on different kinds of conceptual structures, stimulating research across domain boundaries. We hope that this stimulation is further enhanced by ICCS 2000 joining the long tradition of conferences in Darmstadt with extensive, lively discussions. This volume consists of contributions presented at ICCS 2000, complementing the volume "Conceptual Structures: Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues" (B. Ganter, G.W. Mineau (Eds.), LNAI 1867, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg 2000). It contains submissions reviewed by the program committee, and position papers. We wish to express our appreciation to all the authors of submitted papers, to the general chair, the program chair, the editorial board, the program committee, and to the additional reviewers for making ICCS 2000 a valuable contribution in the knowledge processing research field. Special thanks go to the local organizers for making the conference an enjoyable and inspiring event. We are grateful to Darmstadt University of Technology, the Ernst Schröder Center for Conceptual Knowledge Processing, the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Technology, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Land Hessen, and NaviCon GmbH for their generous support

Content

Concepts & Language: Knowledge organization by procedures of natural language processing. A case study using the method GABEK (J. Zelger, J. Gadner) - Computer aided narrative analysis using conceptual graphs (H. Schärfe, P. 0hrstrom) - Pragmatic representation of argumentative text: a challenge for the conceptual graph approach (H. Irandoust, B. Moulin) - Conceptual graphs as a knowledge representation core in a complex language learning environment (G. Angelova, A. Nenkova, S. Boycheva, T. Nikolov) - Conceptual Modeling and Ontologies: Relationships and actions in conceptual categories (Ch. Landauer, K.L. Bellman) - Concept approximations for formal concept analysis (J. Saquer, J.S. Deogun) - Faceted information representation (U. Priß) - Simple concept graphs with universal quantifiers (J. Tappe) - A framework for comparing methods for using or reusing multiple ontologies in an application (J. van ZyI, D. Corbett) - Designing task/method knowledge-based systems with conceptual graphs (M. Leclère, F.Trichet, Ch. Choquet) - A logical ontology (J. Farkas, J. Sarbo) - Algorithms and Tools: Fast concept analysis (Ch. Lindig) - A framework for conceptual graph unification (D. Corbett) - Visual CP representation of knowledge (H.D. Pfeiffer, R.T. Hartley) - Maximal isojoin for representing software textual specifications and detecting semantic anomalies (Th. Charnois) - Troika: using grids, lattices and graphs in knowledge acquisition (H.S. Delugach, B.E. Lampkin) - Open world theorem prover for conceptual graphs (J.E. Heaton, P. Kocura) - NetCare: a practical conceptual graphs software tool (S. Polovina, D. Strang) - CGWorld - a web based workbench for conceptual graphs management and applications (P. Dobrev, K. Toutanova) - Position papers: The edition project: Peirce's existential graphs (R. Mülller) - Mining association rules using formal concept analysis (N. Pasquier) - Contextual logic summary (R Wille) - Information channels and conceptual scaling (K.E. Wolff) - Spatial concepts - a rule exploration (S. Rudolph) - The TEXT-TO-ONTO learning environment (A. Mädche, St. Staab) - Controlling the semantics of metadata on audio-visual documents using ontologies (Th. Dechilly, B. Bachimont) - Building the ontological foundations of a terminology from natural language to conceptual graphs with Ribosome, a knowledge extraction system (Ch. Jacquelinet, A. Burgun) - CharGer: some lessons learned and new directions (H.S. Delugach) - Knowledge management using conceptual graphs (W.K. Pun)

0.005544043 = product of:
  0.011088086 = sum of:
    0.011088086 = product of:
      0.016632129 = sum of:
        0.0072704293 = weight(_text_:a in 691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0072704293 = score(doc=691,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
        0.009361698 = weight(_text_:h in 691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009361698 = score(doc=691,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.08234863 = fieldWeight in 691, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=691)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  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)

0.0027164682 = product of:
  0.0054329364 = sum of:
    0.0054329364 = product of:
      0.016298808 = sum of:
        0.016298808 = weight(_text_:a in 7579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016298808 = score(doc=7579,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.3089162 = fieldWeight in 7579, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7579)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0025348421 = product of:
  0.0050696842 = sum of:
    0.0050696842 = product of:
      0.015209052 = sum of:
        0.015209052 = weight(_text_:a in 1772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015209052 = score(doc=1772,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 1772, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1772)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0023711277 = product of:
  0.0047422554 = sum of:
    0.0047422554 = product of:
      0.014226765 = sum of:
        0.014226765 = weight(_text_:a in 5193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014226765 = score(doc=5193,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.26964417 = fieldWeight in 5193, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5193)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A model for standardizing existing definitions and/or writing new definitions for thesaurus descriptors has been developed, within the framework of a research project concerned with the usefulness of terminological definitions for indexers working with a thesaurus. The proposed model is an expansion of a model presented by Sager and L'Homme in 1994. Examples of its application in a thesaurus describing the field of Adult literacy programming and training are introduced

Type

a

0.0022405048 = product of:
  0.0044810097 = sum of:
    0.0044810097 = product of:
      0.013443029 = sum of:
        0.013443029 = weight(_text_:a in 2792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013443029 = score(doc=2792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.25478977 = fieldWeight in 2792, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=2792)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0022405048 = product of:
  0.0044810097 = sum of:
    0.0044810097 = product of:
      0.013443029 = sum of:
        0.013443029 = weight(_text_:a in 2944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013443029 = score(doc=2944,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.25478977 = fieldWeight in 2944, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2944)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A new comprehensive taxonomy of all kinds of aspects (such as attribute, characteristic, feature, property and quality) is proposed, and concise, uniform names are suggested for the respective concepts. Based on this taxonomy, a new semantic network notation called ETA is briefly introduced

Type

a

0.0022179869 = product of:
  0.0044359737 = sum of:
    0.0044359737 = product of:
      0.013307921 = sum of:
        0.013307921 = weight(_text_:a in 2005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013307921 = score(doc=2005,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 2005, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2005)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0020164545 = product of:
  0.004032909 = sum of:
    0.004032909 = product of:
      0.012098727 = sum of:
        0.012098727 = weight(_text_:a in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012098727 = score(doc=5876,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Intended is first of all a preliminary review of the implications that the new approaches to the theory of classification, mainly from cognitive psychology and epistemology may have for information work and research. As a secondary topic the scientific relations existing among information science, epistemology and the cognitive sciences are discussed. Classification is seen as a central activity in all daily and scientific activities, and, of course, of knowledge organization in information services. There is a mutual implication between classification and conceptualization, as the former moves in a natural way to the latter and the best result elaborated for classification is the concept. Research in concept theory is a need for a theory of classification. In this direction it is of outstanding importance to integrate the achievements of 'natural concept formation theory' (NCFT) as an alternative approach to conceptualization different from the traditional one of logicians and problem solving researchers. In conclusion both approaches are seen as being complementary: the NCFT approach being closer to the user and the logical one being more suitable for experts, including 'expert systems'

Type

a

0.0017924039 = product of:
  0.0035848077 = sum of:
    0.0035848077 = product of:
      0.010754423 = sum of:
        0.010754423 = weight(_text_:a in 794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010754423 = score(doc=794,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 794, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=794)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0017924039 = product of:
  0.0035848077 = sum of:
    0.0035848077 = product of:
      0.010754423 = sum of:
        0.010754423 = weight(_text_:a in 1084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010754423 = score(doc=1084,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1084, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1084)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0017924039 = product of:
  0.0035848077 = sum of:
    0.0035848077 = product of:
      0.010754423 = sum of:
        0.010754423 = weight(_text_:a in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010754423 = score(doc=2550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 2550, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2550)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0017924039 = product of:
  0.0035848077 = sum of:
    0.0035848077 = product of:
      0.010754423 = sum of:
        0.010754423 = weight(_text_:a in 2913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010754423 = score(doc=2913,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 2913, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2913)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0017924039 = product of:
  0.0035848077 = sum of:
    0.0035848077 = product of:
      0.010754423 = sum of:
        0.010754423 = weight(_text_:a in 3198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010754423 = score(doc=3198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 3198, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3198)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0017924039 = product of:
  0.0035848077 = sum of:
    0.0035848077 = product of:
      0.010754423 = sum of:
        0.010754423 = weight(_text_:a in 7867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010754423 = score(doc=7867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 7867, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7867)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a