Search (185 results, page 1 of 10)

0.1957683 = product of:
  0.3915366 = sum of:
    0.09788415 = product of:
      0.29365245 = sum of:
        0.29365245 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.29365245 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31349787 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.29365245 = weight(_text_:2f in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29365245 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31349787 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.15661463 = product of:
  0.31322926 = sum of:
    0.078307316 = product of:
      0.23492195 = sum of:
        0.23492195 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23492195 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31349787 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.23492195 = weight(_text_:2f in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23492195 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31349787 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H

0.09788415 = product of:
  0.1957683 = sum of:
    0.048942074 = product of:
      0.14682622 = sum of:
        0.14682622 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14682622 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31349787 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.14682622 = weight(_text_:2f in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14682622 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31349787 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

0.047991764 = product of:
  0.09598353 = sum of:
    0.09097355 = weight(_text_:evolution in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09097355 = score(doc=405,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.46448845 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
    0.005009976 = product of:
      0.015029929 = sum of:
        0.015029929 = weight(_text_:22 in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015029929 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Human brain size nearly quadrupled in the six million years since Homo last shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but human brains are thought to have decreased in volume since the end of the last Ice Age. The timing and reason for this decrease is enigmatic. Here we use change-point analysis to estimate the timing of changes in the rate of hominin brain evolution. We find that hominin brains experienced positive rate changes at 2.1 and 1.5 million years ago, coincident with the early evolution of Homo and technological innovations evident in the archeological record. But we also find that human brain size reduction was surprisingly recent, occurring in the last 3,000 years. Our dating does not support hypotheses concerning brain size reduction as a by-product of body size reduction, a result of a shift to an agricultural diet, or a consequence of self-domestication. We suggest our analysis supports the hypothesis that the recent decrease in brain size may instead result from the externalization of knowledge and advantages of group-level decision-making due in part to the advent of social systems of distributed cognition and the storage and sharing of information. Humans live in social groups in which multiple brains contribute to the emergence of collective intelligence. Although difficult to study in the deep history of Homo, the impacts of group size, social organization, collective intelligence and other potential selective forces on brain evolution can be elucidated using ants as models. The remarkable ecological diversity of ants and their species richness encompasses forms convergent in aspects of human sociality, including large group size, agrarian life histories, division of labor, and collective cognition. Ants provide a wide range of social systems to generate and test hypotheses concerning brain size enlargement or reduction and aid in interpreting patterns of brain evolution identified in humans. Although humans and ants represent very different routes in social and cognitive evolution, the insights ants offer can broadly inform us of the selective forces that influence brain size.

Source

Frontiers in ecology and evolution, 22 October 2021 [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.742639/full]

0.045960538 = product of:
  0.091921076 = sum of:
    0.08023113 = weight(_text_:evolution in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08023113 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.4096403 = fieldWeight in 1267, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1267)
    0.011689945 = product of:
      0.035069834 = sum of:
        0.035069834 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035069834 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1267, 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=1267)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

5. 1.2008 19:22:48

0.039394744 = product of:
  0.07878949 = sum of:
    0.06876954 = weight(_text_:evolution in 4167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06876954 = score(doc=4167,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 4167, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4167)
    0.010019952 = product of:
      0.030059857 = sum of:
        0.030059857 = weight(_text_:22 in 4167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030059857 = score(doc=4167,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4167, 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=4167)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

"Da gibt's im Gehirn nicht eine Trennung zwischen Rechenwerk und Programmspeicher und Datenspeicher oder so was, sondern es gibt nur Neurone und deren Verschaltung. Und die Art und Weise, wie die verschaltet sind, nennen wir funktionelle Architektur, und da liegen die ganzen Geheimnisse, denn die Freiheitsgrade sind überschaubar, es kann nur variiert werden, wer mit wem kommuniziert, wie stark oder schwach die Kopplungen sind und ob sie hemmend oder erregend sind, wobei die allermeisten erregend sind. Und mit diesem Lego-Baukasten hat die Evolution die Großhirnrinde zusammengebastelt."

Date

22. 2.2018 18:10:21

0.039394744 = product of:
  0.07878949 = sum of:
    0.06876954 = weight(_text_:evolution in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06876954 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
    0.010019952 = product of:
      0.030059857 = sum of:
        0.030059857 = weight(_text_:22 in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030059857 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 479, 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=479)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

23. 1.2022 10:22:18

0.024313705 = product of:
  0.09725482 = sum of:
    0.09725482 = weight(_text_:evolution in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09725482 = score(doc=761,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.49655905 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.02292318 = product of:
  0.09169272 = sum of:
    0.09169272 = weight(_text_:evolution in 5595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09169272 = score(doc=5595,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.46816036 = fieldWeight in 5595, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5595)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The study of the web as a graph is not only fascinating in its own right, but also yields valuable insight into web algorithms for crawling, searching and community discovery, and the sociological phenomena which characterize its evolution. We report on experiments on local and global properties of the web graph using two Altavista crawls each with over 200M pages and 1.5 billion links. Our study indicates that the macroscopic structure of the web is considerably more intricate than suggested by earlier experiments on a smaller scale

0.02292318 = product of:
  0.09169272 = sum of:
    0.09169272 = weight(_text_:evolution in 4081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09169272 = score(doc=4081,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.46816036 = fieldWeight in 4081, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4081)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The improvement of access to scholarly literature caused by electronic journal publishing quickly led to the wish for seamless linking to referenced articles. This article looks at the evolution of linking technologies with a particular focus on OpenURL, now a NISO standard. The implications for stakeholders in the supply chain are explored, including publishers, intermediaries, libraries and readers. The benefits, expectations and business drivers are examined. The article also highlights some novel, existing and potential future, uses, including increased user-empowerment and possibilities beyond referencing traditional bibliographic material.

0.02292318 = product of:
  0.09169272 = sum of:
    0.09169272 = weight(_text_:evolution in 1563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09169272 = score(doc=1563,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.46816036 = fieldWeight in 1563, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1563)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The h-index has been shown to increase in many cases mostly because of citations to rather old publications. This inertia can be circumvented by restricting the evaluation to a citation time window. Here I report results of an empirical study analyzing the evolution of the thus defined timed h-index in dependence on the length of the citation time window.

0.020261422 = product of:
  0.08104569 = sum of:
    0.08104569 = weight(_text_:evolution in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08104569 = score(doc=1187,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.41379923 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In June of this year, I performed my final official duties as part of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative management team. It is a happy irony to affix a seal on that service in this journal, as both D-Lib Magazine and the Dublin Core celebrate their tenth anniversaries. This essay is a personal reflection on some of the achievements and lessons of that decade. The OCLC-NCSA Metadata Workshop took place in March of 1995, and as we tried to understand what it meant and who would care, D-Lib magazine came into being and offered a natural venue for sharing our work. I recall a certain skepticism when Bill Arms said "We want D-Lib to be the first place people look for the latest developments in digital library research." These were the early days in the evolution of electronic publishing, and the goal was ambitious. By any measure, a decade of high-quality electronic publishing is an auspicious accomplishment, and D-Lib (and its host, CNRI) deserve congratulations for having achieved their goal. I am grateful to have been a contributor. That first DC workshop led to further workshops, a community, a variety of standards in several countries, an ISO standard, a conference series, and an international consortium. Looking back on this evolution is both satisfying and wistful. While I am pleased that the achievements are substantial, the unmet challenges also provide a rich till in which to cultivate insights on the development of digital infrastructure.

0.020261422 = product of:
  0.08104569 = sum of:
    0.08104569 = weight(_text_:evolution in 5260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08104569 = score(doc=5260,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.41379923 = fieldWeight in 5260, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5260)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Fortsetzung als Teil 2: Pedauque - Philosophie of Information - Mathematik und Kybernetik. Unter: Open Password. 2019, Nr.559 vom 14. Mai 2019 [https://www.password-online.de/?wysija-page=1&controller=email&action=view&email_id=706&wysijap=subscriptions&user_id=1045]. Fortsetzung als Teil 3: Naturwissenschaften und Evolution: Die Rolle der Informationswissenschaft. Unter: Open Password. 2019, Nr.564 vom 23. Mai 2019 [https://www.password-online.de/?wysija-page=1&controller=email&action=view&email_id=709&wysijap=subscriptions&user_id=1045].

0.020261422 = product of:
  0.08104569 = sum of:
    0.08104569 = weight(_text_:evolution in 5997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08104569 = score(doc=5997,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.41379923 = fieldWeight in 5997, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5997)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Thesauri are Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS), that arise from the consensus of wide communities. They have been in use for many years and are regularly updated. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals for indexing and searching, today there is a demand for conceptual vocabularies that enable inferencing by machines. The development of the Semantic Web has brought a new opportunity for thesauri, but thesauri also face the challenge of proving that they add value to it. The evolution of thesauri toward their integration with the Semantic Web is examined. Elements and structures in the thesaurus standard, ISO 25964, and SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System), the Semantic Web standard for representing KOS, are reviewed and compared. Moreover, the integrity rules of thesauri are contrasted with the axioms of SKOS. How SKOS has been applied to represent some real thesauri is taken into account. Three thesauri are chosen for this aim: AGROVOC, EuroVoc and the UNESCO Thesaurus. Based on the results of this comparison and analysis, the benefits that Semantic Web technologies offer to thesauri, how thesauri can contribute to the Semantic Web, and the challenges that would help to improve their integration with the Semantic Web are discussed.

0.020057783 = product of:
  0.08023113 = sum of:
    0.08023113 = weight(_text_:evolution in 4328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08023113 = score(doc=4328,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.4096403 = fieldWeight in 4328, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4328)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die Beziehung Information - Wissen ist einfach und fast definitiv, aber die Beziehung Informationswissenschaft - Philosophie ist ein großes neues Thema. Man kann Philosophie nicht bleibend und systematisch strukturieren, sie ist zu lebendig. Der Mensch ist keine Maschine und selbst Computer werden den Menschen nicht ersetzen können. Der gravierendste Unterschied bleibt die Lebendigkeit, die ein Computer per se nicht haben kann. Auch die Evolution des Wissens der gesamten Menschheit ist nicht festlegbar, wie etwa der Druck eines Buches oder Bildes oder die Entwicklung jeder neuen Computer-Generation. Man kann die Informationswissenschaft einsetzen, um Philosophie übersichtlicher, interessanter, einheitlicher und wahrer (= dem Menschen gerechter) zu machen. Keinesfalls kann und soll Philosophie ersetzt werden.

0.017192384 = product of:
  0.06876954 = sum of:
    0.06876954 = weight(_text_:evolution in 198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06876954 = score(doc=198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 198, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=198)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Within the knowledge organization systems (KOS) set, the term "ontology" is paradigmatic of the terminological ambiguity in different typologies. Contributing to this situation is the indiscriminate association of the term "ontology", both as a specific type of KOS and as a process of categorization, due to the interdisciplinary use of the term with different meanings. We present a systematization of the perspectives of different authors of ontologies, as representational artifacts, seeking to contribute to terminological clarification. Focusing the analysis on the intention, semantics and modulation of ontologies, it was possible to notice two broad perspectives regarding ontologies as artifacts that coexist in the knowledge organization systems spectrum. We have ontologies viewed, on the one hand, as an evolution in terms of complexity of traditional conceptual systems, and on the other hand, as a system that organizes ontological rather than epistemological knowledge. The focus of ontological analysis is the item to model and not the intentions that motivate the construction of the system.

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 470, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=470)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

With the rapidly increasing pace at which Web content is evolving, particularly social media, preserving the Web and its evolution over time becomes an important challenge. Meaningful analysis of Web content lends itself to an entity-centric view to organise Web resources according to the information objects related to them. Therefore, the crucial challenge is to extract, detect and correlate entities from a vast number of heterogeneous Web resources where the nature and quality of the content may vary heavily. While a wealth of information extraction tools aid this process, we believe that, the consolidation of automatically extracted data has to be treated as an equally important step in order to ensure high quality and non-ambiguity of generated data. In this paper we present an approach which is based on an iterative cycle exploiting Web data for (1) targeted archiving/crawling of Web objects, (2) entity extraction, and detection, and (3) entity correlation. The long-term goal is to preserve Web content over time and allow its navigation and analysis based on well-formed structured RDF data about entities.

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=763)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vgl. Kommentar Eversberg: Wer dranbleiben will am Puls der Zeit und speziell an der sich dynamisierenden Evolution eines neuen Datenformatkonzepts, der sollte sich langsam beeilen, sich mit BIBFRAME vertraut zu machen: http://bibframe.org Diese Startseite organisiert nun den Zugang zu allem, was schon vorliegt und präsentabel ist, und das ist allerhand. Wer erst mal nur schnuppern will und schauen, wie denn BIBFRAME-Daten wohl aussehen, gehe zur "demonstration area", wo man u.a. auch aufbereitete Daten der DNB findet. Es gibt ferner Online Tools, und darunter einen "Transformation service", dem man eigenes MARC-XML übergeben kann, damit er was draus mache. [Exporte mit unserem MARCXML.APR klappen nicht unmittelbar, man muß zumindest die in der Datei schon vorhandenen zwei Kopfzeilen aktivieren und ans Ende noch </collection> setzen. Und hierarchische Daten machen noch Probleme, die wir uns vornehmen müssen.] Wer jetzt denkt, "Was geht uns das alles an?", der lese die letzte Zeile, die da lautet: "BIBFRAME.ORG is a collaborative effort of US Library of Congress, Zepheira and you!"

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 4069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=4069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 4069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4069)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"Kommt einem das nicht aus der Diskussion um Menschenrechte für Tiere bekannt vor? Da fordern die einen vehement das ein, was für Menschen gesetzt scheint. Unversehrtheit von Leib und Leben, vor allem wenn sie ein Schmerzempfinden haben. Bioethiker Peter Singer begibt sich auf die schwierige Argumentationslinie, dass manche Tiere geistig behinderten Menschen das Wasser reichen könnten. Und andere wie Peter Kunzmann sagen, dass eine solche Initiative die Grundrechte des Menschen aushöhlen könnten. Und dass das moderne Verständnis von Menschenrecht wie etwa das Recht auf Asyl sich auf das Leben in einer Kultur bezieht, die sich Menschen geschaffen haben. Ja nun, man führt ja auch kein Wahlrecht für Gänseblümchen ein. Verstehe. Das ganze wird jetzt hackelig, wenn man nun anfängt, diese Diskussion auf Roboter und AI gesteuerte Bots zu übertragen. Nach einer allgemeinen Definition zeichnen sich Lebewesen dadurch aus, dass sie "(...) unter anderem zu Stoffwechsel, Fortpflanzung, Reizbarkeit, Wachstum und Evolution fähig sind." Gut, die ersteren beiden kann man Bots noch absprechen, aber trotzdem steht man plötzlich mitten in der Diskussion darüber, ob Bots nicht auch das Recht auf freie Rede haben sollten. Dummerweise hat die Verfassung der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika sich in dieser Zeit noch nicht wirklich um die genaue Definition der Zielgruppe eines solchen Amendments gekümmert. Da steht nichts von Menschen, nur vom "Volk" (the people)." Vgl.: http://www.heise.de/-4237434.

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 4108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=4108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 4108, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4108)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Kernpunkt dieser Arbeit ist das Multistrategie-Lernsystem GELOG. Unser Ziel ist, die Vorteile der Methoden der genetischen Algorithmen und induktiven logischen Programmierung zu nutzen und in einem System zu kombinieren. Mit GELOG können logische Programme erzeugt werden, die eine Lösung für eine gegebene Aufgabe darstellen. Die erlernten Programme liegen anschließend als Quelltext in der logischen Programmiersprache PROLOG vor und sind in dieser Form direkt ausführbar. Das Grundsystem wird um drei Adaptionsverfahren erweitert, die die Anwendungswahrscheinlichkeiten der genetischen Operatoren während der Evolution entsprechend dem Betrag der Fitnessänderung beziehungsweise der Erfolgsrate der Operatoren anpassen. Außerdem besteht die Möglichkeit, eine Metaevolution zu starten, um gleichzeitig auf verschiedene lokale Optima hinzuarbeiten und sich auf das jeweils beste Optimum auszurichten. Daher werden hier mehrere Evolutionen parallel durchgeführt, die ihre Zwischenergebnisse über einen Metaalgorithmus untereinander austauschen. Später wird die Verarbeitung von Building-Blocks mit Hilfe des Lernens von Zusammenhängen verbessert, um GELOG zu ermöglichen, für genetische Algorithmen schwere Probleme leichter zu lösen. Außerdem wurde eine Strategie für die Integration problemspezifischen Wissens implementiert, um GELOG besser an das Problem anpassen zu können, mit dem es konfrontiert wird. Die Nutzbarkeit von GELOG wird anhand bekannter Beispiele aus der Theorie des maschinellen Lernens getestet und die erreichten Ergebnisse werden mit anderen, von bekannten Lernmethoden erzielten Lösungen verglichen.