-
Axelos, C.; Flasch, K.; Schepers, H.; Kuhlen, R.; Romberg, R.; Zimmermann, R.: Allgemeines/Besonderes (1971-2007)
0.16
0.16231902 = product of:
0.6492761 = sum of:
0.32463804 = weight(_text_:2f in 4031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.32463804 = score(doc=4031,freq=4.0), product of:
0.35009617 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.92728245 = fieldWeight in 4031, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4031)
0.32463804 = weight(_text_:2f in 4031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.32463804 = score(doc=4031,freq=4.0), product of:
0.35009617 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.92728245 = fieldWeight in 4031, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4031)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Footnote
- DOI: 10.24894/HWPh.5033. Vgl. unter: https://www.schwabeonline.ch/schwabe-xaveropp/elibrary/start.xav#__elibrary__%2F%2F*%5B%40attr_id%3D%27verw.allgemeinesbesonderes%27%5D__1515856414979.
-
Campos, L.M.: Princípios teóricos usados na elaboracao de ontologias e sua influência na recuperacao da informacao com uso de de inferências [Theoretical principles used in ontology building and their influence on information retrieval using inferences] (2021)
0.04
0.040289566 = product of:
0.08057913 = sum of:
0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029519552 = score(doc=826,freq=4.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 826, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=826)
0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021389665 = score(doc=826,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 826, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=826)
0.02011309 = weight(_text_:of in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02011309 = score(doc=826,freq=26.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 826, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=826)
0.00955682 = product of:
0.01911364 = sum of:
0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01911364 = score(doc=826,freq=6.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 826, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=826)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(4/8)
- Abstract
- Several instruments of knowledge organization will reflect different possibilities for information retrieval. In this context, ontologies have a different potential because they allow knowledge discovery, which can be used to retrieve information in a more flexible way. However, this potential can be affected by the theoretical principles adopted in ontology building. The aim of this paper is to discuss, in an introductory way, how a (not exhaustive) set of theoretical principles can influence an aspect of ontologies: their use to obtain inferences. In this context, the role of Ingetraut Dahlberg's Theory of Concept is discussed. The methodology is exploratory, qualitative, and from the technical point of view it uses bibliographic research supported by the content analysis method. It also presents a small example of application as a proof of concept. As results, a discussion about the influence of conceptual definition on subsumption inferences is presented, theoretical contributions are suggested that should be used to guide the formation of hierarchical structures on which such inferences are supported, and examples are provided of how the absence of such contributions can lead to erroneous inferences
-
Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory (2009)
0.03
0.034695145 = product of:
0.06939029 = sum of:
0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020873476 = score(doc=3461,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021389665 = score(doc=3461,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
0.019324033 = weight(_text_:of in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019324033 = score(doc=3461,freq=24.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
0.007803111 = product of:
0.015606222 = sum of:
0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015606222 = score(doc=3461,freq=4.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(4/8)
- Abstract
- Concept theory is an extremely broad, interdisciplinary and complex field of research related to many deep fields with very long historical traditions without much consensus. However, information science and knowledge organization cannot avoid relating to theories of concepts. Knowledge organizing systems (e.g., classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies) should be understood as systems basically organizing concepts and their semantic relations. The same is the case with information retrieval systems. Different theories of concepts have different implications for how to construe, evaluate, and use such systems. Based on a post-Kuhnian view of paradigms, this article put forward arguments that the best understanding and classification of theories of concepts is to view and classify them in accordance with epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism). It is also argued that the historicist and pragmatist understandings of concepts are the most fruitful views and that this understanding may be part of a broader paradigm shift that is also beginning to take place in information science. The importance of historicist and pragmatic theories of concepts for information science is outlined.
- Footnote
- Vgl.: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S. 1076-1077 und die Erwiderung darauf von B. Hjoerland (S.1078-1080)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1519-1536
-
Hetzler, B.: Visual analysis and exploration of relationships (2002)
0.03
0.033901017 = product of:
0.090402715 = sum of:
0.041327372 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041327372 = score(doc=1189,freq=4.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029945528 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
0.019129815 = weight(_text_:of in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019129815 = score(doc=1189,freq=12.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- Relationships can provide a rich and powerful set of information and can be used to accomplish application goals, such as information retrieval and natural language processing. A growing trend in the information science community is the use of information visualization-taking advantage of people's natural visual capabilities to perceive and understand complex information. This chapter explores how visualization and visual exploration can help users gain insight from known relationships and discover evidence of new relationships not previously anticipated.
- Source
- The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: Green, R., C.A. Bean u. S.H. Myaeng
- Theme
- Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
-
Conceptual structures : logical, linguistic, and computational issues. 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2000, Darmstadt, Germany, August 14-18, 2000 (2000)
0.03
0.029183196 = product of:
0.05836639 = sum of:
0.012524086 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012524086 = score(doc=691,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.10026272 = fieldWeight in 691, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=691)
0.018149732 = weight(_text_:use in 691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018149732 = score(doc=691,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.1435354 = fieldWeight in 691, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=691)
0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018933605 = score(doc=691,freq=64.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 691, product of:
8.0 = tf(freq=64.0), with freq of:
64.0 = termFreq=64.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=691)
0.008758971 = product of:
0.017517941 = sum of:
0.017517941 = weight(_text_:on in 691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017517941 = score(doc=691,freq=14.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.19287792 = fieldWeight in 691, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=691)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(4/8)
- Abstract
- Computer scientists create models of a perceived reality. Through AI techniques, these models aim at providing the basic support for emulating cognitive behavior such as reasoning and learning, which is one of the main goals of the Al research effort. Such computer models are formed through the interaction of various acquisition and inference mechanisms: perception, concept learning, conceptual clustering, hypothesis testing, probabilistic inference, etc., and are represented using different paradigms tightly linked to the processes that use them. Among these paradigms let us cite: biological models (neural nets, genetic programming), logic-based models (first-order logic, modal logic, rule-based systems), virtual reality models (object systems, agent systems), probabilistic models (Bayesian nets, fuzzy logic), linguistic models (conceptual dependency graphs, language-based rep resentations), etc. One of the strengths of the Conceptual Graph (CG) theory is its versatility in terms of the representation paradigms under which it falls. It can be viewed and therefore used, under different representation paradigms, which makes it a popular choice for a wealth of applications. Its full coupling with different cognitive processes lead to the opening of the field toward related research communities such as the Description Logic, Formal Concept Analysis, and Computational Linguistic communities. We now see more and more research results from one community enrich the other, laying the foundations of common philosophical grounds from which a successful synergy can emerge. ICCS 2000 embodies this spirit of research collaboration. It presents a set of papers that we believe, by their exposure, will benefit the whole community. For instance, the technical program proposes tracks on Conceptual Ontologies, Language, Formal Concept Analysis, Computational Aspects of Conceptual Structures, and Formal Semantics, with some papers on pragmatism and human related aspects of computing. Never before was the program of ICCS formed by so heterogeneously rooted theories of knowledge representation and use. We hope that this swirl of ideas will benefit you as much as it already has benefited us while putting together this program
- Content
- Concepts and Language: The Role of Conceptual Structure in Human Evolution (Keith Devlin) - Concepts in Linguistics - Concepts in Natural Language (Gisela Harras) - Patterns, Schemata, and Types: Author Support through Formalized Experience (Felix H. Gatzemeier) - Conventions and Notations for Knowledge Representation and Retrieval (Philippe Martin) - Conceptual Ontology: Ontology, Metadata, and Semiotics (John F. Sowa) - Pragmatically Yours (Mary Keeler) - Conceptual Modeling for Distributed Ontology Environments (Deborah L. McGuinness) - Discovery of Class Relations in Exception Structured Knowledge Bases (Hendra Suryanto, Paul Compton) - Conceptual Graphs: Perspectives: CGs Applications: Where Are We 7 Years after the First ICCS ? (Michel Chein, David Genest) - The Engineering of a CC-Based System: Fundamental Issues (Guy W. Mineau) - Conceptual Graphs, Metamodeling, and Notation of Concepts (Olivier Gerbé, Guy W. Mineau, Rudolf K. Keller) - Knowledge Representation and Reasonings: Based on Graph Homomorphism (Marie-Laure Mugnier) - User Modeling Using Conceptual Graphs for Intelligent Agents (James F. Baldwin, Trevor P. Martin, Aimilia Tzanavari) - Towards a Unified Querying System of Both Structured and Semi-structured Imprecise Data Using Fuzzy View (Patrice Buche, Ollivier Haemmerlé) - Formal Semantics of Conceptual Structures: The Extensional Semantics of the Conceptual Graph Formalism (Guy W. Mineau) - Semantics of Attribute Relations in Conceptual Graphs (Pavel Kocura) - Nested Concept Graphs and Triadic Power Context Families (Susanne Prediger) - Negations in Simple Concept Graphs (Frithjof Dau) - Extending the CG Model by Simulations (Jean-François Baget) - Contextual Logic and Formal Concept Analysis: Building and Structuring Description Logic Knowledge Bases: Using Least Common Subsumers and Concept Analysis (Franz Baader, Ralf Molitor) - On the Contextual Logic of Ordinal Data (Silke Pollandt, Rudolf Wille) - Boolean Concept Logic (Rudolf Wille) - Lattices of Triadic Concept Graphs (Bernd Groh, Rudolf Wille) - Formalizing Hypotheses with Concepts (Bernhard Ganter, Sergei 0. Kuznetsov) - Generalized Formal Concept Analysis (Laurent Chaudron, Nicolas Maille) - A Logical Generalization of Formal Concept Analysis (Sébastien Ferré, Olivier Ridoux) - On the Treatment of Incomplete Knowledge in Formal Concept Analysis (Peter Burmeister, Richard Holzer) - Conceptual Structures in Practice: Logic-Based Networks: Concept Graphs and Conceptual Structures (Peter W. Eklund) - Conceptual Knowledge Discovery and Data Analysis (Joachim Hereth, Gerd Stumme, Rudolf Wille, Uta Wille) - CEM - A Conceptual Email Manager (Richard Cole, Gerd Stumme) - A Contextual-Logic Extension of TOSCANA (Peter Eklund, Bernd Groh, Gerd Stumme, Rudolf Wille) - A Conceptual Graph Model for W3C Resource Description Framework (Olivier Corby, Rose Dieng, Cédric Hébert) - Computational Aspects of Conceptual Structures: Computing with Conceptual Structures (Bernhard Ganter) - Symmetry and the Computation of Conceptual Structures (Robert Levinson) An Introduction to SNePS 3 (Stuart C. Shapiro) - Composition Norm Dynamics Calculation with Conceptual Graphs (Aldo de Moor) - From PROLOG++ to PROLOG+CG: A CG Object-Oriented Logic Programming Language (Adil Kabbaj, Martin Janta-Polczynski) - A Cost-Bounded Algorithm to Control Events Generalization (Gaël de Chalendar, Brigitte Grau, Olivier Ferret)
- Series
- Lecture notes in computer science; vol.1867: Lecture notes on artificial intelligence
-
Storms, G.; VanMechelen, I.; DeBoeck, P.: Structural-analysis of the intension and extension of semantic concepts (1994)
0.03
0.02735874 = product of:
0.072956644 = sum of:
0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029945528 = score(doc=2574,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 2574, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2574)
0.02342914 = weight(_text_:of in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02342914 = score(doc=2574,freq=18.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 2574, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2574)
0.019581974 = product of:
0.039163947 = sum of:
0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039163947 = score(doc=2574,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2574, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2574)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- A method (HICLAS, DeBoeck & Rosenberg, 1988) for studying the internal structure of semantic concepts is presented. The proposed method reveals the internal structure of the extension as well as the intesion of a concept, together with a correspondence relation that shows the mutual dependence of both structures. Its use is illustrated with the analysis of simple concepts (e.g. sports) and conjunctive concepts (e.g. birds that are also pets). The underlying structure that is revealed can be interpreted as a differentiation of the simple concepts studied and for conjunctive concepts the proposed method is able to extract non-inherited and emergent features (Hampton, 1988)
- Date
- 22. 7.2000 19:17:40
- Source
- European journal of cognitive psychology. 6(1994) no.1, S.43-75
-
¬The semantics of relationships : an interdisciplinary perspective (2002)
0.03
0.025243375 = product of:
0.06731567 = sum of:
0.036153924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036153924 = score(doc=1430,freq=6.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
0.021604925 = weight(_text_:of in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021604925 = score(doc=1430,freq=30.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
30.0 = termFreq=30.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
0.00955682 = product of:
0.01911364 = sum of:
0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01911364 = score(doc=1430,freq=6.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- Work on relationships takes place in many communities, including, among others, data modeling, knowledge representation, natural language processing, linguistics, and information retrieval. Unfortunately, continued disciplinary splintering and specialization keeps any one person from being familiar with the full expanse of that work. By including contributions form experts in a variety of disciplines and backgrounds, this volume demonstrates both the parallels that inform work on relationships across a number of fields and the singular emphases that have yet to be fully embraced, The volume is organized into 3 parts: (1) Types of relationships (2) Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning (3) Applications of relationships
- Content
- Enthält die Beiträge: Pt.1: Types of relationships: CRUDE, D.A.: Hyponymy and its varieties; FELLBAUM, C.: On the semantics of troponymy; PRIBBENOW, S.: Meronymic relationships: from classical mereology to complex part-whole relations; KHOO, C. u.a.: The many facets of cause-effect relation - Pt.2: Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning: GREEN, R.: Internally-structured conceptual models in cognitive semantics; HOVY, E.: Comparing sets of semantic relations in ontologies; GUARINO, N., C. WELTY: Identity and subsumption; JOUIS; C.: Logic of relationships - Pt.3: Applications of relationships: EVENS, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval; KHOO, C., S.H. MYAENG: Identifying semantic relations in text for information retrieval and information extraction; McCRAY, A.T., O. BODENREICHER: A conceptual framework for the biiomedical domain; HETZLER, B.: Visual analysis and exploration of relationships
- Footnote
- Mit ausführlicher Einleitung der Herausgeber zu den Themen: Types of relationships - Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning - Applications of relationships
-
Nakamura, Y.: Subdivisions vs. conjunctions : a discussion on concept theory (1998)
0.02
0.022138784 = product of:
0.059036758 = sum of:
0.029222867 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029222867 = score(doc=69,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
0.022089208 = weight(_text_:of in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022089208 = score(doc=69,freq=16.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
0.007724685 = product of:
0.01544937 = sum of:
0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01544937 = score(doc=69,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- After studying the relations between two words(nouns) that constitute a compound term, the relation between corresponding concepts discussed. The impossibility of having a conjunction between two concepts that have no common feature causes inconvenience in the application of concept theory to information retrieval problems. Another kind of conjunctions, different from that by co-occurrence, is proposed and characteristics of this conjunction is studied. It revealed that one of new ones has the same character with colon combination in UDC. The possibility of having three kinds of conjunction including Wsterian concept conjunction is presented. It is also discussed that subdivisions can be replaced by new conjunctions
- Source
- Structures and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 5th International ISKO-Conference, Lille, 25.-29.8.1998. Ed.: W. Mustafa el Hadi et al
-
Gerbé, O.; Mineau, G.W.; Keller, R.K.: Conceptual graphs, metamodelling, and notation of concepts : fundamental issues (2000)
0.02
0.019285616 = product of:
0.05142831 = sum of:
0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 5078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025667597 = score(doc=5078,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 5078, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5078)
0.016396983 = weight(_text_:of in 5078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016396983 = score(doc=5078,freq=12.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 5078, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5078)
0.009363732 = product of:
0.018727465 = sum of:
0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 5078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018727465 = score(doc=5078,freq=4.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 5078, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5078)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- Knowledge management, in particular corporate knowledge management, is a challenge companies and researchers have to meet. The conceptual graph formalism is a good candidate for the representation of corporate knowledge, and for the development of knowledge management systems. But many of the issues concerning the use of conceptual graphs as a metalanguage have not been worked out in detail. By introducing a function that maps higher level to lower level, this paper clarifies the metalevel semantics, notation and manipulation of concepts in the conceptual graph formalism. In addition, this function allows metamodeling activities to take place using the CG notation
- Series
- Lecture notes in computer science; vol.1867: Lecture notes on artificial intelligence
- Source
- Conceptual structures: logical, linguistic, and computational issues. 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2000, Darmstadt, Germany, August 14-18, 2000. Ed.: B. Ganter et al
-
Evens, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval (2002)
0.02
0.018430047 = product of:
0.07372019 = sum of:
0.05600942 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05600942 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
0.017710768 = weight(_text_:of in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017710768 = score(doc=1201,freq=14.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- Thesaural relations have long been used in information retrieval to enrich queries; they have sometimes been used to cluster documents as well. Sometimes the first query to an information retrieval system yields no results at all, or, what can be even more disconcerting, many thousands of hits. One solution is to rephrase the query, improving the choice of query terms by using related terms of different types. A collection of related terms is often called a thesaurus. This chapter describes the lexical-semantic relations that have been used in building thesauri and summarizes some of the effects of using these relational thesauri in information retrieval experiments
- Source
- The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: Green, R., C.A. Bean u. S.H. Myaeng
- Theme
- Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
-
Khoo, C.; Myaeng, S.H.: Identifying semantic relations in text for information retrieval and information extraction (2002)
0.02
0.0155795785 = product of:
0.062318314 = sum of:
0.04338471 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04338471 = score(doc=1197,freq=6.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018933605 = score(doc=1197,freq=16.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- Automatic identification of semantic relations in text is a difficult problem, but is important for many applications. It has been used for relation matching in information retrieval to retrieve documents that contain not only the concepts but also the relations between concepts specified in the user's query. It is an integral part of information extraction-extracting from natural language text, facts or pieces of information related to a particular event or topic. Other potential applications are in the construction of relational thesauri (semantic networks of related concepts) and other kinds of knowledge bases, and in natural language processing applications such as machine translation and computer comprehension of text. This chapter examines the main methods used for identifying semantic relations automatically and their application in information retrieval and information extraction.
- Source
- The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: Green, R., C.A. Bean u. S.H. Myaeng
-
Principles of semantic networks : explorations in the representation of knowledge (1991)
0.01
0.014381239 = product of:
0.057524957 = sum of:
0.04174695 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04174695 = score(doc=1677,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1677, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1677)
0.015778005 = weight(_text_:of in 1677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015778005 = score(doc=1677,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 1677, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1677)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Theme
- Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
-
Hudon, M.: Preparing terminological definitions for indexing and retrieval thesauri : a model (1996)
0.01
0.014252979 = product of:
0.057011917 = sum of:
0.033397563 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033397563 = score(doc=5193,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 5193, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5193)
0.023614356 = weight(_text_:of in 5193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023614356 = score(doc=5193,freq=14.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 5193, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5193)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- A model for standardizing existing definitions and/or writing new definitions for thesaurus descriptors has been developed, within the framework of a research project concerned with the usefulness of terminological definitions for indexers working with a thesaurus. The proposed model is an expansion of a model presented by Sager and L'Homme in 1994. Examples of its application in a thesaurus describing the field of Adult literacy programming and training are introduced
- Source
- Knowledge organization and change: Proceedings of the Fourth International ISKO Conference, 15-18 July 1996, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Ed.: R. Green
-
Olson, H.A.: How we construct subjects : a feminist analysis (2007)
0.01
0.013231035 = product of:
0.03528276 = sum of:
0.015778005 = weight(_text_:of in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015778005 = score(doc=5588,freq=16.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
0.0055176322 = product of:
0.0110352645 = sum of:
0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0110352645 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.013987125 = product of:
0.02797425 = sum of:
0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02797425 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- To organize information, librarians create structures. These structures grow from a logic that goes back at least as far as Aristotle. It is the basis of classification as we practice it, and thesauri and subject headings have developed from it. Feminist critiques of logic suggest that logic is gendered in nature. This article will explore how these critiques play out in contemporary standards for the organization of information. Our widely used classification schemes embody principles such as hierarchical force that conform to traditional/Aristotelian logic. Our subject heading strings follow a linear path of subdivision. Our thesauri break down subjects into discrete concepts. In thesauri and subject heading lists we privilege hierarchical relationships, reflected in the syndetic structure of broader and narrower terms, over all other relationships. Are our classificatory and syndetic structures gendered? Are there other options? Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice (1982), Women's Ways of Knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986), and more recent related research suggest a different type of structure for women's knowledge grounded in "connected knowing." This article explores current and potential elements of connected knowing in subject access with a focus on the relationships, both paradigmatic and syntagmatic, between concepts.
- Date
- 11.12.2019 19:00:22
-
Casagrande, J.B.; Hale, K.L.: Semantic relations in Papago folk definitions (1967)
0.01
0.013225921 = product of:
0.052903686 = sum of:
0.04174695 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04174695 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
0.011156735 = weight(_text_:of in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011156735 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Footnote
- Zitiert in: Evens, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval. In: The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: R. Green u.a. Dordrecht: Kluwer 2002. S.143-160.
-
Simoes, G.; Machado, L.; Gnoli, C.; Souza, R.: Can an ontologically-oriented KO do without concepts? (2020)
0.01
0.012678601 = product of:
0.050714403 = sum of:
0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 4964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025667597 = score(doc=4964,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 4964, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4964)
0.025046807 = weight(_text_:of in 4964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025046807 = score(doc=4964,freq=28.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.38787308 = fieldWeight in 4964, product of:
5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
28.0 = termFreq=28.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4964)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- The ontological approach in the development of KOS is an attempt to overcome the limitations of the traditional epistemological approach. Questions raise about the representation and organization of ontologically-oriented KO units, such as BFO universals or ILC phenomena. The study aims to compare the ontological approaches of BFO and ILC using a hermeneutic approach. We found that the differences between the units of the two systems are primarily due to the formal level of abstraction of BFO and the different organizations, namely the grouping of phenomena into ILC classes that represent complex compounds of entities in the BFO approach. In both systems the use of concepts is considered instrumental, although in the ILC they constitute the intersubjective component of the phenomena whereas in BFO they serve to access the entities of reality but are not part of them.
- Source
- Knowledge Organization at the Interface. Proceedings of the Sixteenth International ISKO Conference, 2020 Aalborg, Denmark. Ed.: M. Lykke et al
-
Hovy, E.: Comparing sets of semantic relations in ontologies (2002)
0.01
0.012059253 = product of:
0.04823701 = sum of:
0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025048172 = score(doc=2178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2178, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2178)
0.023188837 = weight(_text_:of in 2178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023188837 = score(doc=2178,freq=24.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 2178, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2178)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- A set of semantic relations is created every time a domain modeler wants to solve some complex problem computationally. These relations are usually organized into ontologies. But three is little standardization of ontologies today, and almost no discussion an ways of comparing relations, of determining a general approach to creating relations, or of modeling in general. This chapter outlines an approach to establishing a general methodology for comparing and justifying sets of relations (and ontologies in general). It first provides several dozen characteristics of ontologies, organized into three taxonomies of increasingly detailed features, by which many essential characteristics of ontologies can be described. These features enable one to compare ontologies at a general level, without studying every concept they contain. But sometimes it is necessary to make detailed comparisons of content. The chapter then illustrates one method for determining salient points for comparison, using algorithms that semi-automatically identify similarities and differences between ontologies.
- Source
- The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: Green, R., C.A. Bean u. S.H. Myaeng
- Theme
- Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
-
Pribbenow, S.: Meronymic relationships : from classical mereology to complex part-whole relations (2002)
0.01
0.011967305 = product of:
0.04786922 = sum of:
0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025667597 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
0.022201622 = weight(_text_:of in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022201622 = score(doc=1202,freq=22.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- Meronymic or partonomic relations are ontological relations that are considered as fundamental as the ubiquitous, taxonomic subsumption relationship. While the latter is well-established and thoroughly investigated, there is still much work to be done in the field of meronymic relations. The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview an current research in characterizing, formalizing, classifying, and processing meronymic or partonomic relations (also called part-whole relations in artificial intelligence and application domains). The first part of the chapter investigates the role of knowledge about parts in human cognition, for example, visual perception and conceptual knowledge. The second part describes the classical approach provided by formal mereology and its extensions, which use one single transitive part-of relation, thus focusing an the notion of "part" and neglecting the notion of (something being a) "whole". This limitation leads to classifications of different part-whole relations, one of which is presented in the last part of the chapter.
- Source
- The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: Green, R., C.A. Bean u. S.H. Myaeng
-
O'Neill, E.T.; Kammerer, K.A.; Bennett, R.: ¬The aboutness of words (2017)
0.01
0.010689735 = product of:
0.04275894 = sum of:
0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025048172 = score(doc=3835,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3835, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3835)
0.017710768 = weight(_text_:of in 3835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017710768 = score(doc=3835,freq=14.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 3835, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3835)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- Word aboutness is defined as the relationship between words and subjects associated with them. An aboutness coefficient is developed to estimate the strength of the aboutness relationship. Words that are randomly distributed across subjects are assumed to lack aboutness and the degree to which their usage deviates from a random pattern indicates the strength of the aboutness. To estimate aboutness, title words and their associated subjects are extracted from the titles of non-fiction English language books in the OCLC WorldCat database. The usage patterns of the title words are analyzed and used to compute aboutness coefficients for each of the common title words. Words with low aboutness coefficients (An and In) are commonly found in stop word lists, whereas words with high aboutness coefficients (Carbonate, Autism) are unambiguous and have a strong subject association. The aboutness coefficient potentially can enhance indexing, advance authority control, and improve retrieval.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.10, S.2471-2483
-
Besler, G.; Szulc, J.: Gottlob Frege's theory of definition as useful tool for knowledge organization : definition of 'context' - case study (2014)
0.01
0.010328858 = product of:
0.041315433 = sum of:
0.027328307 = weight(_text_:of in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027328307 = score(doc=1440,freq=48.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.42320424 = fieldWeight in 1440, product of:
6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
48.0 = termFreq=48.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1440)
0.013987125 = product of:
0.02797425 = sum of:
0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02797425 = score(doc=1440,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1440, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1440)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- The aim of this paper is to analyze the Gottlob Frege's (1848-1925) theory of definition as a tool for knowledge organization. The objective was achieved by discussing the theory of definition including: the aims of definition, kinds of definition, condition of correct definition, what is undefinable. Frege indicated the following aims of a defining: (1) to introduce a new word, which has had no precise meaning until then (2) to explain the meaning of a word; (3) to catch a thought. We would like to present three kinds of definitions used by Frege: a contextual definition, a stipulative definition and a piecemeal definition. In the history of theory of definition Frege was the first to have formulated the condition of a correct definition. According to Frege not everything can be defined, what is logically simple cannot have a proper definition Usability of Frege's theory of definition is referred in the case study. Definitions that serve as an example are definitions of 'context'. The term 'context' is used in different situations and meanings in the field of knowledge organization. The paper is rounded by a discussion of how Frege's theory of definition can be useful for knowledge organization. To present G. Frege's theory of definition in view of the need for knowledge organization we shall start with different ranges of knowledge organization.
- Source
- Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
