Search (159 results, page 1 of 8)

0.043793283 = product of:
  0.08758657 = sum of:
    0.08758657 = product of:
      0.13137984 = sum of:
        0.07055833 = weight(_text_:i in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07055833 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.41672117 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
        0.060821515 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060821515 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, 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=6089)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.11-22

Series

Propozycje i Materialy; 6

0.043518182 = sum of:
  0.03564964 = product of:
    0.14259855 = sum of:
      0.14259855 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14259855 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38058892 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044891298 = 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)
  0.007868543 = product of:
    0.02360563 = sum of:
      0.02360563 = weight(_text_:c in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02360563 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044891298 = 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)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.035400786 = product of:
  0.07080157 = sum of:
    0.07080157 = product of:
      0.10620236 = sum of:
        0.08554743 = weight(_text_:i in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08554743 = score(doc=1077,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.5052476 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
        0.020654924 = weight(_text_:c in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020654924 = score(doc=1077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  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.

0.03455264 = product of:
  0.06910528 = sum of:
    0.06910528 = product of:
      0.10365792 = sum of:
        0.056446664 = weight(_text_:i in 6020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056446664 = score(doc=6020,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 6020, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6020)
        0.04721126 = weight(_text_:c in 6020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04721126 = score(doc=6020,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.3048872 = fieldWeight in 6020, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6020)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

I-Views

0.031759724 = product of:
  0.06351945 = sum of:
    0.06351945 = product of:
      0.09527917 = sum of:
        0.05987073 = weight(_text_:i in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05987073 = score(doc=761,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.35359967 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
        0.035408445 = weight(_text_:c in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035408445 = score(doc=761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper, I have traced a series of evolutionary adaptations of FOL motivated entirely by its use by knowledge engineers to represent and share information on the Web culminating in the development of Common Logic. While the primary goal in this paper has been to document this evolution, it is arguable, I think that CL's syntactic and semantic egalitarianism better realizes the goal "topic neutrality" that a logic should ideally exemplify - understood, at least in part, as the idea that logic should as far as possible not itself embody any metaphysical presuppositions. Instead of retaining the traditional metaphysical divisions of FOL that reflect its Fregean origins, CL begins as it were with a single, metaphysically homogeneous domain in which, potentially, anything can play the traditional roles of object, property, relation, and function. Note that the effect of this is not to destroy traditional metaphysical divisions. Rather, it simply to refrain from building those divisions explicitly into one's logic; instead, such divisions are left to the user to introduce and enforce axiomatically in an explicit metaphysical theory.

0.02673723 = product of:
  0.05347446 = sum of:
    0.05347446 = product of:
      0.21389784 = sum of:
        0.21389784 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21389784 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38058892 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.026275968 = product of:
  0.052551936 = sum of:
    0.052551936 = product of:
      0.0788279 = sum of:
        0.042335 = weight(_text_:i in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042335 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 2418, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2418)
        0.036492907 = weight(_text_:22 in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036492907 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2418, 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=2418)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006

0.026275968 = product of:
  0.052551936 = sum of:
    0.052551936 = product of:
      0.0788279 = sum of:
        0.042335 = weight(_text_:i in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042335 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
        0.036492907 = weight(_text_:22 in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036492907 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2623, 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=2623)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Contemporary retrieval systems, which search across collections, usually ignore collection-level metadata. Alternative approaches, exploiting collection-level information, will require an understanding of the various kinds of relationships that can obtain between collection-level and item-level metadata. This paper outlines the problem and describes a project that is developing a logic-based framework for classifying collection/item metadata relationships. This framework will support (i) metadata specification developers defining metadata elements, (ii) metadata creators describing objects, and (iii) system designers implementing systems that take advantage of collection-level metadata. We present three examples of collection/item metadata relationship categories, attribute/value-propagation, value-propagation, and value-constraint and show that even in these simple cases a precise formulation requires modal notions in addition to first-order logic. These formulations are related to recent work in information retrieval and ontology evaluation.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.02591448 = product of:
  0.05182896 = sum of:
    0.05182896 = product of:
      0.07774344 = sum of:
        0.042335 = weight(_text_:i in 2096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042335 = score(doc=2096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 2096, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2096)
        0.035408445 = weight(_text_:c in 2096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035408445 = score(doc=2096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 2096, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2096)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.021595402 = product of:
  0.043190803 = sum of:
    0.043190803 = product of:
      0.0647862 = sum of:
        0.035279166 = weight(_text_:i in 2257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035279166 = score(doc=2257,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 2257, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2257)
        0.029507035 = weight(_text_:c in 2257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029507035 = score(doc=2257,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 2257, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2257)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Future of Information Architecture examines issues surrounding why information is processed, stored and applied in the way that it has, since time immemorial. Contrary to the conventional wisdom held by many scholars in human history, the recurrent debate on the explanation of the most basic categories of information (eg space, time causation, quality, quantity) has been misconstrued, to the effect that there exists some deeper categories and principles behind these categories of information - with enormous implications for our understanding of reality in general. To understand this, the book is organised in to four main parts: Part I begins with the vital question concerning the role of information within the context of the larger theoretical debate in the literature. Part II provides a critical examination of the nature of data taxonomy from the main perspectives of culture, society, nature and the mind. Part III constructively invesitgates the world of information network from the main perspectives of culture, society, nature and the mind. Part IV proposes six main theses in the authors synthetic theory of information architecture, namely, (a) the first thesis on the simpleness-complicatedness principle, (b) the second thesis on the exactness-vagueness principle (c) the third thesis on the slowness-quickness principle (d) the fourth thesis on the order-chaos principle, (e) the fifth thesis on the symmetry-asymmetry principle, and (f) the sixth thesis on the post-human stage.

0.020535579 = product of:
  0.041071158 = sum of:
    0.041071158 = product of:
      0.061606735 = sum of:
        0.028223332 = weight(_text_:i in 762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028223332 = score(doc=762,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 762, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=762)
        0.033383403 = weight(_text_:c in 762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033383403 = score(doc=762,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.21558782 = fieldWeight in 762, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=762)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: Waard, A. de, C. Fluit u. F. van Harmelen: Drug Ontology Project for Elsevier (DOPE). In: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/Elsevier/Elsevier_Aduna_VU.pdf.

0.01782482 = product of:
  0.03564964 = sum of:
    0.03564964 = product of:
      0.14259855 = sum of:
        0.14259855 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14259855 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38058892 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = 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.

0.01727632 = product of:
  0.03455264 = sum of:
    0.03455264 = product of:
      0.05182896 = sum of:
        0.028223332 = weight(_text_:i in 2659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028223332 = score(doc=2659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 2659, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2659)
        0.02360563 = weight(_text_:c in 2659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02360563 = score(doc=2659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 2659, 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=2659)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The field of knowledge organization (KO) can be described as composed of the four distinct but connected layers of theory, systems, representation, and application. This paper focuses on the relations between KO theory and KO systems. It is acknowledged how the structure of KO systems is the product of a mixture of ontological, epistemological, and pragmatical factors. However, different systems give different priorities to each factor. A more ontologically-oriented approach, though not offering quick solutions for any particular group of users, will produce systems of wide and long-lasting application as they are based on general, shareable principles. I take the case of the ontological theory of integrative levels, which has been considered as a useful source for general classifications for several decades, and is currently implemented in the Integrative Levels Classification system. The theory produces a sequence of main classes modelling a natural order between phenomena. This order has interesting effects also on other features of the system, like the citation order of concepts within compounds. As it has been shown by facet analytical theory, it is useful that citation order follow a principle of inversion, as compared to the order of the same concepts in the schedules. In the light of integrative levels theory, this principle also acquires an ontological meaning: phenomena of lower level should be cited first, as most often they act as specifications of higher-level ones. This ontological principle should be complemented by consideration of the epistemological treatment of phenomena: in case a lower-level phenomenon is the main theme, it can be promoted to the leading position in the compound subject heading. The integration of these principles is believed to produce optimal results in the ordering of knowledge contents.

0.01663076 = product of:
  0.03326152 = sum of:
    0.03326152 = product of:
      0.09978455 = sum of:
        0.09978455 = weight(_text_:i in 3217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09978455 = score(doc=3217,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.58933276 = fieldWeight in 3217, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3217)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this chapter I propose that frames provide the fundamental representation of knowledge in human cognition. In the first section, I raise problems with the feature list representations often found in theories of knowledge, and I sketch the solutions that frames provide to them. In the second section, I examine the three fundamental concepts of frames: attribute-value sets, structural invariants, and constraints. Because frames also represents the attributes, values, structural invariants, and constraints within a frame, the mechanism that constructs frames builds them recursively. The frame theory I propose borrows heavily from previous frame theories, although its collection of representational components is somewhat unique. Furthermore, frame theorists generally assume that frames are rigid configurations of independent attributes, whereas I propose that frames are dynamic relational structures whose form is flexible and context dependent. In the third section, I illustrate how frames support a wide variety of representational tasks central to conceptual processing in natural and artificial intelligence. Frames can represent exemplars and propositions, prototypes and membership, subordinates and taxonomies. Frames can also represent conceptual combinations, event sequences, rules, and plans. In the fourth section, I show how frames define the extent of conceptual fields and how they provide a powerful productive mechanism for generating specific concepts within a field.

0.01597808 = product of:
  0.03195616 = sum of:
    0.03195616 = product of:
      0.047934234 = sum of:
        0.02360563 = weight(_text_:c in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02360563 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15484828 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 179, 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=179)
        0.024328604 = weight(_text_:22 in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024328604 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15720168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 179, 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=179)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.013304608 = product of:
  0.026609216 = sum of:
    0.026609216 = product of:
      0.079827644 = sum of:
        0.079827644 = weight(_text_:i in 1594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079827644 = score(doc=1594,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.4714662 = fieldWeight in 1594, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1594)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.013304608 = product of:
  0.026609216 = sum of:
    0.026609216 = product of:
      0.079827644 = sum of:
        0.079827644 = weight(_text_:i in 216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079827644 = score(doc=216,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.4714662 = fieldWeight in 216, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=216)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Proceedings of I-Know '07, Graz, September 5-7

0.012221063 = product of:
  0.024442125 = sum of:
    0.024442125 = product of:
      0.07332637 = sum of:
        0.07332637 = weight(_text_:i in 2489) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07332637 = score(doc=2489,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.43306938 = fieldWeight in 2489, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2489)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It is proposed that sufficient research into ontology design has not been achieved and that this deficiency has led to the insufficiency of ontology in reinforcing its communications frameworks, knowledge sharing and re-use applications. In order to diagnose the problems of ontology research, I first survey the notion of ontology in the context of ontology design, based on a Means-Ends tool provided by a Cognitive Work Analysis. The potential contributions of knowledge organization in library and information sciences that can be used to improve the limitations of ontology research are demonstrated. I propose a context-centered view as an approach for ontology design, and present faceted classification as an appropriate method for structuring ontology. In addition, I also provides a case study of wine ontology in order to demonstrate how knowledge organization approaches in library and information science can improve ontology design.

0.011759723 = product of:
  0.023519445 = sum of:
    0.023519445 = product of:
      0.07055833 = sum of:
        0.07055833 = weight(_text_:i in 4327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07055833 = score(doc=4327,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.41672117 = fieldWeight in 4327, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4327)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Part I. Analyzing the state of the art - What is semantic search? Part II. The proposal - An ontology-based IR model - Semantic retrieval on the Web Part III. Extensions - Semantic knowledge gateway - Coping with knowledge incompleteness

0.011641531 = product of:
  0.023283063 = sum of:
    0.023283063 = product of:
      0.069849186 = sum of:
        0.069849186 = weight(_text_:i in 3939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069849186 = score(doc=3939,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16931784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044891298 = queryNorm
            0.41253293 = fieldWeight in 3939, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3939)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Semantic Web has attracted much attention, both from academia and industry. An important role in research towards the Semantic Web is played by formalisms and technologies for handling uncertainty and/or vagueness. In this paper, I first provide some motivating examples for handling uncertainty and/or vagueness in the Semantic Web. I then give an overview of some own formalisms for handling uncertainty and/or vagueness in the Semantic Web.