Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0039902087 = product of:
  0.02793146 = sum of:
    0.02793146 = weight(_text_:with in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02793146 = score(doc=3849,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2976705 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.

0.0035330812 = product of:
  0.024731567 = sum of:
    0.024731567 = weight(_text_:with in 3685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024731567 = score(doc=3685,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2635687 = fieldWeight in 3685, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3685)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The significant differences that exist between the print and digital worlds are sometimes felt to diminish the need for bibliographic description in the electronic world. An analysis of these differences, especially with respect to (1) the control of production and distribution of documents and (2) the need for software intermediation, coupled with a discussion of the functions of bibliographic description in the task of document retrieval argue, however, for an increased role for bibliographic description in the electronic world

0.0035330812 = product of:
  0.024731567 = sum of:
    0.024731567 = weight(_text_:with in 4475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024731567 = score(doc=4475,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2635687 = fieldWeight in 4475, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4475)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The expression of conceptual syntagmatic relationships in document retrieval systems holds out hope for both increased discrimination generally and increased recall in certain contexts. Such relationships require both a structured inventory of relationships. Examines the means of expressing these. The expression of conceptual syntagmatic relationships must comply with criteria of systematicity, complexity, efficiency and naturalness. Unfortunately, the complex interaction of natural language expression based on lexicalization, word order, function words, and morphosyntactic cases causes failure regarding systematicity. Most methods of expressing conceptual syntagmatic relationships, e.g. term co occurrence techniques, links and role indicators, fail to comply with this and other of the criteria. Only gestalt structures simultaneously representing relationships, participants and roles conform fully to the critical checklist

0.0030908023 = product of:
  0.021635616 = sum of:
    0.021635616 = weight(_text_:with in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021635616 = score(doc=4823,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2305746 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

As part of a larger assessment of relationships in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system, this study investigates the semantic nature of relationships in the DDC notational hierarchy. The semantic relationship between each of a set of randomly selected classes and its parent class in the notational hierarchy is examined against a set of relationship types (specialization, class-instance, several flavours of whole-part).The analysis addresses the prevalence of specific relationship types, their lexical expression, difficulties encountered in assigning relationship types, compatibility of relationships found in the DDC with those found in other knowledge organization systems (KOS), and compatibility of relationships found in the DDC with those in a shared formalism like the Web Ontology Language (OWL). Since notational hierarchy is an organizational mechanism shared across most classification schemes and is often considered to provide an easy solution for ontological transformation of a classification system, the findings of the study are likely to generalize across classification schemes with respect to difficulties that might be encountered in such a transformation process.

0.0028551605 = product of:
  0.019986123 = sum of:
    0.019986123 = weight(_text_:with in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019986123 = score(doc=1193,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.21299566 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The basic conceptual units of cognitive semantics-image schemata, basic level concepts, and frames-are intemally structured, with meaningful relationships existing between components of those units. In metonymy, metaphor, and blended spaces, such intemal conceptual structure is complemented by extemal referential structure, based an mappings between elements of underlying conceptualspaces.

0.0028551605 = product of:
  0.019986123 = sum of:
    0.019986123 = weight(_text_:with in 3960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019986123 = score(doc=3960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.21299566 = fieldWeight in 3960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3960)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.0028551605 = product of:
  0.019986123 = sum of:
    0.019986123 = weight(_text_:with in 3397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019986123 = score(doc=3397,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.21299566 = fieldWeight in 3397, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3397)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

EPC Exhibit 129-36.1 presented intermediate results of a project to connect Relative Index terms to topics associated with classes and to determine if those Relative Index terms approximated the whole of the corresponding class or were in standing room in the class. The Relative Index project constitutes the first stage of a long(er)-term project to instill a more systematic treatment of relationships within the DDC. The present exhibit sets out a plan of study for that long-term project.

0.002637832 = product of:
  0.018464822 = sum of:
    0.018464822 = product of:
      0.036929645 = sum of:
        0.036929645 = weight(_text_:22 in 1419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036929645 = score(doc=1419,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1419, 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=1419)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=3144,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Effective use of syntagmatic relationships in index languages has suffered from inaccurate or incomplete characterization in both linguistics and information science. A number of 'myths' about syntagmatic relationships are debunked: the exclusivity of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships, linearity as a defining characteristic of syntagmatic relationships, the restriction of syntagmatic relationships to surface linguistic units, the limitation of syntagmatic relationship benefits in document retrieval to precision, and the general irrelevance of syntagmatic relationships for document retrieval. None of the mechanisms currently used with index languages is powerful enough to achieve the levels of precision and recall that the expression of conceptual syntagmatic relationships is in theory capable of. New designs for expressing these relationships in index languages will need to take into account such characteristics as their semantic nature, systematicity, generalizability and constituent nature

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=110,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 110, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=110)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Preliminary attempts to identify semantic frames and their internal structure automatically have met with a degree of success. In a first stage, clustering is used to detect 4 previously identified semantic frames (COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION, HIT, JUDGING, RISK) from verb definitions in Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English. In a second stage, nouns used in the definitions of frame-invoking verbs or in whose definitions the frame-invoking verbs occur in certain forms are searched in WordNet to identify frame elements. Suggestions for refinement of the processes are discussed

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 1142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=1142,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 1142, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1142)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Relationships are specified by simultaneously identifying a semantic relationship and the set of participants involved in it, pairing each participant with its role in the relationship. Properties pertaining to the participant set and the nature of the relationship are explored. Relationships in the organization of knowledge are surveyed, encompassing relationships between units of recorded knowledge based an descriptions of those units; intratextual and intertextual relationships, including relationships based an text structure, citation relationships, and hypertext links; subject relationships in thesauri and other classificatory structures, including relationships for literature-based knowledge discovery; and relevance relationships.

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 4615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=4615,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 4615, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4615)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper investigates the semantics of topical, associative see-also relationships in schedule and table entries of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system. Based on the see-also relationships in a random sample of 100 classes containing one or more of these relationships, a semi-structured inventory of sources of see-also relationships is generated, of which the most important are lexical similarity, complementarity, facet difference, and relational configuration difference. The premise that see-also relationships based on lexical similarity may be language-specific is briefly examined. The paper concludes with recommendations on the continued use of see-also relationships in the DDC.

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 4696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=4696,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 4696, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4696)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

WordNet, a lexical database for English, is organized around semantic and lexical relationships between synsets, concepts represented by sets of synonymous word senses. Offering reasonably comprehensive coverage of the nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs of general English, WordNet is a widely used resource for dealing with the ambiguity that arises from homonymy, polysemy, and synonymy. WordNet is used in many information-related tasks and applications (e.g., word sense disambiguation, semantic similarity, lexical chaining, alignment of parallel corpora, text segmentation, sentiment and subjectivity analysis, text classification, information retrieval, text summarization, question answering, information extraction, and machine translation).

0.0021413704 = product of:
  0.014989593 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 3724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=3724,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 3724, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3724)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The assumption of topic matching between user needs and texts topically relevant to those needs is often erroneous. Reports an emprical investigantion of the question 'what relationship types actually account for topical relevance'? In order to avoid the bias to topic matching search strategies, user needs are back generated from a randomly selected subset of the subject headings employed in a user oriented topical concordance. The corresponding relevant texts are those indicated in the concordance under the subject heading. Compares the topics of the user needs with the topics of the relevant texts to determine the relationships between them. Topical relevance relationships include a large variety of relationships, only some of which are matching relationships. Others are examples of paradigmatic or syntagmatic relationships. There appear to be no constraints on the kinds of relationships that can function as topical relevance relationships. They are distinguishable from other types of relationships only on functional grounds

0.0021413704 = product of:
  0.014989593 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 7712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=7712,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 7712, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7712)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Reports results of a study, conducted by Maryland University, College of Library and Information Services, to establish the basic logical design of large scale bibliographic databases using the entity relationship (ER) model, with a view to the eventual conversion of the ER based conceptual schemas into relational databases. A fully normalized relational bibliographic database promises relief from the update, insertion, and deletion anomalies that plague bibliographic databases using MARC formats and USMARC formats internally. Presents the conceptual design of a full scale bibliographic database (inclusing bibliographic, authority, holdings, and classification data), based on entity relationship modelling. This design translates easily into a logical relational design. Discusses the treatment of format integration and the differentiation between the intellectual and bibliographic levels of description and between collective and individual levels of description. Unfortunately, the complexities of bibliographic data result in a tension between the semantic integrity of the relatioal approach and the inefficiencies of normalization and decomposition. Outlines compromise approaches to the dilemma

0.0021413704 = product of:
  0.014989593 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=474,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 474, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=474)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The paper is divided into 3 parts. The 1st develops a framework for evaluating the indexing needs of the humanities with reference to 4 sets of contrasts: user (need)-oriented vs. document-oriented indexing; subject indexing vs. attribute indexing; scientific writing vs. humanistic writing; and topical relevance vs. logical relevance vs. evidential relevance vs. aesthetic relevance. The indexing needs for the humanities range broadly across these contrasts. The 2nd part establishes the centrality of relationships to the communication of indexable matter and examines the advantages and disadvantages of means used for their expression inboth natural languages and indexing languages. The use of relational structure, such as a frame, is shown to represent perhaps the best available option. The 3rd part illustrates where the use of relational structures in humanities indexing would help meet some of the needs previously identified. Although not a panacea, the adoption of frame-based indexing in the humanities might substantially improve the retrieval of its literature

0.0021413704 = product of:
  0.014989593 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Develops a framework for evaluating the indexing needs of the humanities with reference to 4 set of contrasts: user-oriented vs. document oriented indexing; subject indexing vs. attribute indexing; scientific writing vs. humanistic writing; and topical relevance vs. logical relevance vs. evidential relevance vs. aesthetic relevance. The indexing needs of the humanities range broadly across these contrasts. Established the centrality of relationship to the communication of indexable matter and examines the advantages and disadvantages of means used for their expression in both natural languages and index languages. The use of a relational structure, such as a frame, is shown to represent perhaps the best available option. Illustrates where the use of relational structures in humanities indexing would help meet some of the needs previously identified. The adoption of frame-based indexing in the humanities might substantially improve the retrieval of its literature

0.0021413704 = product of:
  0.014989593 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=236,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 236, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=236)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Semantic types provide a level of abstraction over particulars with shared behavior, such as in the participant structure of semantic frames. The paper presents a preliminary investigation, drawing on data from WordNet and FrameNet, into the relationship between hierarchical level and the semantic types that name frame elements (a.k.a. slots). Patterns discovered include: (1) The level of abstraction of a frame is generally matched by the level of abstraction of its frame elements. (2) The roles played by persons tend to be expressed very specifically. (3) Frame elements that mirror the name of the frame tend to be expressed specifically. (4) Some frame participants tend to be expressed at a constant (general) level of abstraction, regardless of the level of abstraction of the overall frame.

0.0018841656 = product of:
  0.013189158 = sum of:
    0.013189158 = product of:
      0.026378317 = sum of:
        0.026378317 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026378317 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

8.11.2015 21:27:22

0.0014275803 = product of:
  0.009993061 = sum of:
    0.009993061 = weight(_text_:with in 2730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009993061 = score(doc=2730,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.10649783 = fieldWeight in 2730, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2730)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper examines whether a concept's hierarchical level affects the likelihood of its universality across schemes for knowledge representation and knowledge organization. Empirical data an equivalents are drawn from a bilingual thesaurus, a pair of biomedical vocabularies, and two ontologies. Conceptual equivalence across resources occurs significantly more often at the basic level than at subordinate or superordinate levels. Attempts to integrate knowledge representation or knowledge organization tools should concentrate an establishing equivalences at the basic level. 1. Rationale The degree of success attainable in the integration of multiple knowledge representation systems or knowledge organization schemes is constrained by limitations an the universality of human conceptual systems. For example, human languages do not all lexicalize the same set of concepts; nor do they structure (quasi-)equivalent concepts in the same relational patterns (Riesthuis, 2001). As a consequence, even multilingual thesauri designed from the outset from the perspective of multiple languages may routinely include situations where corresponding terms are not truly equivalent (Hudon, 1997, 2001). Intuitively, where inexactness and partialness in equivalence mappings across knowledge representation schemes and knowledge organizations schemes exist, a more difficult retrieval scenario arises than where equivalence mappings reflect full and exact conceptual matches. The question we address in this paper is whether a concept's hierarchical level af ects the likelihood of its universality/full equivalence across schemes for knowledge representation and knowledge organization. Cognitive science research has shown that one particular hierarchical level-called the basic level--enjoys a privileged status (Brown, 1958; Rosch et al., 1976). Our underlying hypothesis is that concepts at the basic level (e.g., apple, shoe, chair) are more likely to match across knowledge representation schemes and knowledge organization schemes than concepts at the superordinate (e.g., fruit, footwear, furniture) or subordinate (e.g., Granny Smith, sneaker, recliner) levels. This hypothesis is consistent with ethnobiological data showing that folk classifications of flora are more likely to agree at the basic level than at superordinate or subordinate levels (Berlin, 1992).