Search (74 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Begriffstheorie"
  1. ¬The role of formal ontology in the information technology (1995) 0.05
    0.051116638 = product of:
      0.085194394 = sum of:
        0.026643137 = weight(_text_:on in 4746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026643137 = score(doc=4746,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 4746, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4746)
        0.024003621 = weight(_text_:information in 4746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024003621 = score(doc=4746,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 4746, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4746)
        0.03454763 = product of:
          0.06909526 = sum of:
            0.06909526 = weight(_text_:technology in 4746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06909526 = score(doc=4746,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049850095 = queryNorm
                0.46537298 = fieldWeight in 4746, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4746)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6 = coord(3/5)
    
    Abstract
    A special issue devoted to the role of formal ontology in information technology. Papers were given at the International Workshop on Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation, held in Padova, Iatly, Mar 95
  2. Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory (2009) 0.04
    0.035140015 = product of:
      0.05856669 = sum of:
        0.018839544 = weight(_text_:on in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018839544 = score(doc=3461,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = 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)
        0.02245333 = weight(_text_:information in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02245333 = score(doc=3461,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.256578 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
        0.017273815 = product of:
          0.03454763 = sum of:
            0.03454763 = weight(_text_:technology in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03454763 = score(doc=3461,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049850095 = queryNorm
                0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6 = coord(3/5)
    
    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
    Theme
    Information
  3. Barsalou, L.W.: Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields (1992) 0.03
    0.030673085 = product of:
      0.15336542 = sum of:
        0.15336542 = weight(_text_:section in 3217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15336542 = score(doc=3217,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.58301973 = fieldWeight in 3217, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3217)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    In this chapter I propose that frames provide the fundamental representation of knowledge in human cognition. In the first section, I raise problems with the feature list representations often found in theories of knowledge, and I sketch the solutions that frames provide to them. In the second section, I examine the three fundamental concepts of frames: attribute-value sets, structural invariants, and constraints. Because frames also represents the attributes, values, structural invariants, and constraints within a frame, the mechanism that constructs frames builds them recursively. The frame theory I propose borrows heavily from previous frame theories, although its collection of representational components is somewhat unique. Furthermore, frame theorists generally assume that frames are rigid configurations of independent attributes, whereas I propose that frames are dynamic relational structures whose form is flexible and context dependent. In the third section, I illustrate how frames support a wide variety of representational tasks central to conceptual processing in natural and artificial intelligence. Frames can represent exemplars and propositions, prototypes and membership, subordinates and taxonomies. Frames can also represent conceptual combinations, event sequences, rules, and plans. In the fourth section, I show how frames define the extent of conceptual fields and how they provide a powerful productive mechanism for generating specific concepts within a field.
  4. Olson, H.A.: How we construct subjects : a feminist analysis (2007) 0.03
    0.026943434 = product of:
      0.044905722 = sum of:
        0.013321568 = weight(_text_:on in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013321568 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = 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)
        0.014699157 = weight(_text_:information in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014699157 = score(doc=5588,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
        0.016885 = product of:
          0.03377 = sum of:
            0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03377 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049850095 = 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)
      0.6 = coord(3/5)
    
    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.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft 'Gender Issues in Information Needs and Services'.
    Date
    11.12.2019 19:00:22
  5. Bivins, K.T.: Concept formation : the evidence from experimental psychology and linguistics and its relationship to information science (1980) 0.03
    0.026899895 = product of:
      0.06724974 = sum of:
        0.031971764 = weight(_text_:on in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031971764 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 1319, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1319)
        0.035277974 = weight(_text_:information in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035277974 = score(doc=1319,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.40312737 = fieldWeight in 1319, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1319)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Source
    Theory and application of information research. Proc. of the 2nd Int. Research Forum on Information Science, 3.-6.8.1977, Copenhagen. Ed.: O. Harbo u. L. Kajberg
  6. Dahlberg, I.: On the theory of the concept (1979) 0.03
    0.02623306 = product of:
      0.06558265 = sum of:
        0.045214903 = weight(_text_:on in 1615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045214903 = score(doc=1615,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.4123903 = fieldWeight in 1615, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1615)
        0.020367749 = weight(_text_:information in 1615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020367749 = score(doc=1615,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1615, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1615)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Source
    Ordering systems for global information networks. Proc. of the 3rd Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Bombay 1975
  7. Hjoerland, B.: Are relations in thesauri "context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds"? (2015) 0.03
    0.025505476 = product of:
      0.042509124 = sum of:
        0.013321568 = weight(_text_:on in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013321568 = score(doc=2033,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2033, 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=2033)
        0.016973123 = weight(_text_:information in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016973123 = score(doc=2033,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
        0.012214432 = product of:
          0.024428863 = sum of:
            0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024428863 = score(doc=2033,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049850095 = queryNorm
                0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6 = coord(3/5)
    
    Abstract
    Much of the literature of information science and knowledge organization has accepted and built upon Elaine Svenonius's (2004) claim that "paradigmatic relationships are those that are context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds" (p. 583). At the same time, the literature demonstrates a common understanding that paradigmatic relations are the kinds of semantic relations used in thesauri and other knowledge organization systems (including equivalence relations, hierarchical relations, and associative relations). This understanding is problematic and harmful because it directs attention away from the empirical and contextual basis for knowledge-organizing systems. Whether A is a kind of X is certainly not context-free and definitional in empirical sciences or in much everyday information. Semantic relations are theory-dependent and, in biology, for example, a scientific revolution has taken place in which many relations have changed following the new taxonomic paradigm named "cladism." This biological example is not an exception, but the norm. Semantic relations including paradigmatic relations are not a priori but are dependent on subject knowledge, scientific findings, and paradigms. As long as information scientists and knowledge organizers isolate themselves from subject knowledge, knowledge organization cannot possibly progress.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.7, S.1367-1373
  8. Working with conceptual structures : contributions to ICCS 2000. 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures: Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues. Darmstadt, August 14-18, 2000 (2000) 0.02
    0.023485882 = product of:
      0.039143134 = sum of:
        0.018650195 = weight(_text_:on in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018650195 = score(doc=5089,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
        0.008401267 = weight(_text_:information in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008401267 = score(doc=5089,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.0960027 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
        0.012091671 = product of:
          0.024183342 = sum of:
            0.024183342 = weight(_text_:technology in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024183342 = score(doc=5089,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049850095 = queryNorm
                0.16288054 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6 = coord(3/5)
    
    Abstract
    The 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures - Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues (ICCS 2000) brings together a wide range of researchers and practitioners working with conceptual structures. During the last few years, the ICCS conference series has considerably widened its scope on different kinds of conceptual structures, stimulating research across domain boundaries. We hope that this stimulation is further enhanced by ICCS 2000 joining the long tradition of conferences in Darmstadt with extensive, lively discussions. This volume consists of contributions presented at ICCS 2000, complementing the volume "Conceptual Structures: Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues" (B. Ganter, G.W. Mineau (Eds.), LNAI 1867, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg 2000). It contains submissions reviewed by the program committee, and position papers. We wish to express our appreciation to all the authors of submitted papers, to the general chair, the program chair, the editorial board, the program committee, and to the additional reviewers for making ICCS 2000 a valuable contribution in the knowledge processing research field. Special thanks go to the local organizers for making the conference an enjoyable and inspiring event. We are grateful to Darmstadt University of Technology, the Ernst Schröder Center for Conceptual Knowledge Processing, the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Technology, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Land Hessen, and NaviCon GmbH for their generous support
    Content
    Concepts & Language: Knowledge organization by procedures of natural language processing. A case study using the method GABEK (J. Zelger, J. Gadner) - Computer aided narrative analysis using conceptual graphs (H. Schärfe, P. 0hrstrom) - Pragmatic representation of argumentative text: a challenge for the conceptual graph approach (H. Irandoust, B. Moulin) - Conceptual graphs as a knowledge representation core in a complex language learning environment (G. Angelova, A. Nenkova, S. Boycheva, T. Nikolov) - Conceptual Modeling and Ontologies: Relationships and actions in conceptual categories (Ch. Landauer, K.L. Bellman) - Concept approximations for formal concept analysis (J. Saquer, J.S. Deogun) - Faceted information representation (U. Priß) - Simple concept graphs with universal quantifiers (J. Tappe) - A framework for comparing methods for using or reusing multiple ontologies in an application (J. van ZyI, D. Corbett) - Designing task/method knowledge-based systems with conceptual graphs (M. Leclère, F.Trichet, Ch. Choquet) - A logical ontology (J. Farkas, J. Sarbo) - Algorithms and Tools: Fast concept analysis (Ch. Lindig) - A framework for conceptual graph unification (D. Corbett) - Visual CP representation of knowledge (H.D. Pfeiffer, R.T. Hartley) - Maximal isojoin for representing software textual specifications and detecting semantic anomalies (Th. Charnois) - Troika: using grids, lattices and graphs in knowledge acquisition (H.S. Delugach, B.E. Lampkin) - Open world theorem prover for conceptual graphs (J.E. Heaton, P. Kocura) - NetCare: a practical conceptual graphs software tool (S. Polovina, D. Strang) - CGWorld - a web based workbench for conceptual graphs management and applications (P. Dobrev, K. Toutanova) - Position papers: The edition project: Peirce's existential graphs (R. Mülller) - Mining association rules using formal concept analysis (N. Pasquier) - Contextual logic summary (R Wille) - Information channels and conceptual scaling (K.E. Wolff) - Spatial concepts - a rule exploration (S. Rudolph) - The TEXT-TO-ONTO learning environment (A. Mädche, St. Staab) - Controlling the semantics of metadata on audio-visual documents using ontologies (Th. Dechilly, B. Bachimont) - Building the ontological foundations of a terminology from natural language to conceptual graphs with Ribosome, a knowledge extraction system (Ch. Jacquelinet, A. Burgun) - CharGer: some lessons learned and new directions (H.S. Delugach) - Knowledge management using conceptual graphs (W.K. Pun)
  9. Thellefsen, M.M.; Thellefsen, T.; Sørensen, B.: Information as signs : a semiotic analysis of the information concept, determining its ontological and epistemological foundations (2018) 0.02
    0.019325024 = product of:
      0.048312556 = sum of:
        0.013321568 = weight(_text_:on in 4241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013321568 = score(doc=4241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 4241, 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=4241)
        0.03499099 = weight(_text_:information in 4241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03499099 = score(doc=4241,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.39984792 = fieldWeight in 4241, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4241)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    The purpose of this paper is to formulate an analytical framework for the information concept based on the semiotic theory. Design/methodology/approach The paper is motivated by the apparent controversy that still surrounds the information concept. Information, being a key concept within LIS, suffers from being anchored in various incompatible theories. The paper suggests that information is signs, and it demonstrates how the concept of information can be understood within C.S. Peirce's phenomenologically rooted semiotic. Hence, from there, certain ontological conditions as well epistemological consequences of the information concept can be deduced. Findings The paper argues that an understanding of information, as either objective or subjective/discursive, leads to either objective reductionism and signal processing, that fails to explain how information becomes meaningful at all, or conversely, information is understood only relative to subjective/discursive intentions, agendas, etc. To overcome the limitations of defining information as either objective or subjective/discursive, a semiotic analysis shows that information understood as signs is consistently sensitive to both objective and subjective/discursive features of information. It is consequently argued that information as concept should be defined in relation to ontological conditions having certain epistemological consequences. Originality/value The paper presents an analytical framework, derived from semiotics, that adds to the developments of the philosophical dimensions of information within LIS.
    Theme
    Information
  10. Bonnevie, E.: Dretske's semantic information theory and meta-theories in library and information science (2001) 0.02
    0.01756812 = product of:
      0.0439203 = sum of:
        0.013321568 = weight(_text_:on in 4484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013321568 = score(doc=4484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 4484, 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=4484)
        0.030598734 = weight(_text_:information in 4484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030598734 = score(doc=4484,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.34965688 = fieldWeight in 4484, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4484)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    This article presents the semantic information theory, formulated by the philosopher Fred I. Dretske, as a contribution to the discussion of metatheories and their practical implications in the field of library and information science. Dretske's theory is described in Knowledge and the flow of information. It is founded on mathematical communication theory but developed and elaborated into a cognitive, functionalistic theory, is individually oriented, and deals with the content of information. The topics are: the information process from perception to cognition, and how concept formation takes place in terms of digitisation. Other important issues are the concepts of information and knowledge, truth and meaning. Semantic information theory can be used as a frame of reference in order to explain, clarify and refute concepts currently used in library and information science, and as the basis for critical reviews of elements of the cognitive viewpoint in IR, primarily the notion of "potential information". The main contribution of the theory lies in a clarification of concepts, but there are still problems regarding the practical applications. More research is needed to combine philosophical discussions with the practice of information and library science.
    Theme
    Information
  11. ¬The semantics of relationships : an interdisciplinary perspective (2002) 0.02
    0.016820064 = product of:
      0.04205016 = sum of:
        0.023073634 = weight(_text_:on in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023073634 = score(doc=1430,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = 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)
        0.018976528 = weight(_text_:information in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018976528 = score(doc=1430,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
  12. Machado, L.M.O.; Martínez-Ávila, D.; Simões, M.da Graça de Melo: Concept theory in library and information science : an epistemological analysis (2019) 0.02
    0.0167159 = product of:
      0.041789748 = sum of:
        0.029787935 = weight(_text_:on in 5457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029787935 = score(doc=5457,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.271686 = fieldWeight in 5457, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5457)
        0.012001811 = weight(_text_:information in 5457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012001811 = score(doc=5457,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5457, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5457)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the literature on concept theory in library and information science (LIS) from an epistemological perspective, ascribing each paper to an epistemological family and discussing their relevance in the context of the knowledge organization (KO) domain. Design/methodology/approach This paper adopts a hermeneutic approach for the analysis of the texts that compose the corpus of study following contingency and categorical analyses. More specifically, the paper works with Bardin's contingency analysis and follows Hjørland's families of epistemologies for the categorization. Findings The analysis corroborates the observations made for the last ten years about the scarcity of studies on concept theory in LIS and KO. However, the study also reveals an epistemological turn on concept theory since 2009 that could be considered a departure from the rationalist views that dominated the field and a continuation of a broader paradigm shift in LIS and KO. All analyzed papers except two follow pragmatist or historicist approaches. Originality/value This paper follows-up and systematizes the contributions to the LIS and KO fields on concept theory mainly during the last decade. The epistemological analysis reveals the dominant views in this paradigm shift and the main authors and trends that are present in the LIS literature on concept theory.
  13. Dahlberg, I.: Conceptual structures and systematization (1995) 0.02
    0.016206963 = product of:
      0.040517405 = sum of:
        0.02131451 = weight(_text_:on in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02131451 = score(doc=3965,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
        0.019202897 = weight(_text_:information in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019202897 = score(doc=3965,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Examines the nature of knowledge and the relationship between the transfer of knowledge and information communication. Discusses the 3 kinds of relationships existing between concepts: formal; form-categorical; and material relationships, and characteristics of concepts. Concludes with a discussion of conceptual structures for concept definitions, conceptual systematization , concept systematization and functionality, and the analytical, referent-oriented concept theory
    Source
    International forum on information and documentation. 20(1995) no.3, S.9-24
  14. 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) 0.02
    0.015109116 = product of:
      0.03777279 = sum of:
        0.023073634 = weight(_text_:on in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023073634 = score(doc=826,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = 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)
        0.014699157 = weight(_text_:information in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014699157 = score(doc=826,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 826, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=826)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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
  15. Kageura, K.: Terminological semantics : an examination of 'concept' and 'meaning' in the study of terms (1995) 0.01
    0.013957202 = product of:
      0.034893006 = sum of:
        0.02131451 = weight(_text_:on in 4561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02131451 = score(doc=4561,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 4561, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4561)
        0.013578499 = weight(_text_:information in 4561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013578499 = score(doc=4561,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4561, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4561)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Source
    International forum on information and documentation. 20(1995) no.4, S.25-31
  16. Thellefsen, M.: ¬The dynamics of information representation and knowledge mediation (2006) 0.01
    0.013957202 = product of:
      0.034893006 = sum of:
        0.02131451 = weight(_text_:on in 170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02131451 = score(doc=170,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 170, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=170)
        0.013578499 = weight(_text_:information in 170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013578499 = score(doc=170,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 170, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=170)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    This paper present an alternative approach to knowledge organization based on semiotic reasoning. The semantic distance between domain specific terminology and KOS is analyzed by means of their different sign systems. It is argued that a faceted approach may provide the means needed to minimize the gap between knowledge domains and KOS.
  17. Garcia Marco, F.J.; Esteban Navarro, M.A.: On some contributions of the cognitive sciences and epistemology to a theory of classification (1993) 0.01
    0.013449947 = product of:
      0.03362487 = sum of:
        0.015985882 = weight(_text_:on in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015985882 = score(doc=5876,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
        0.017638987 = weight(_text_:information in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017638987 = score(doc=5876,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Intended is first of all a preliminary review of the implications that the new approaches to the theory of classification, mainly from cognitive psychology and epistemology may have for information work and research. As a secondary topic the scientific relations existing among information science, epistemology and the cognitive sciences are discussed. Classification is seen as a central activity in all daily and scientific activities, and, of course, of knowledge organization in information services. There is a mutual implication between classification and conceptualization, as the former moves in a natural way to the latter and the best result elaborated for classification is the concept. Research in concept theory is a need for a theory of classification. In this direction it is of outstanding importance to integrate the achievements of 'natural concept formation theory' (NCFT) as an alternative approach to conceptualization different from the traditional one of logicians and problem solving researchers. In conclusion both approaches are seen as being complementary: the NCFT approach being closer to the user and the logical one being more suitable for experts, including 'expert systems'
  18. Gerbé, O.; Mineau, G.W.; Keller, R.K.: Conceptual graphs, metamodelling, and notation of concepts : fundamental issues (2000) 0.01
    0.01311653 = product of:
      0.032791324 = sum of:
        0.022607451 = weight(_text_:on in 5078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022607451 = score(doc=5078,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = 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)
        0.0101838745 = weight(_text_:information in 5078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0101838745 = score(doc=5078,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5078, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5078)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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
    Theme
    Information Resources Management
  19. Nakamura, Y.: Subdivisions vs. conjunctions : a discussion on concept theory (1998) 0.01
    0.012212552 = product of:
      0.03053138 = sum of:
        0.018650195 = weight(_text_:on in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018650195 = score(doc=69,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = 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)
        0.011881187 = weight(_text_:information in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011881187 = score(doc=69,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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
  20. Fellbaum, C.: On the semantics of troponymy (2002) 0.01
    0.012212552 = product of:
      0.03053138 = sum of:
        0.018650195 = weight(_text_:on in 1191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018650195 = score(doc=1191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 1191, 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=1191)
        0.011881187 = weight(_text_:information in 1191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011881187 = score(doc=1191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1191, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1191)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3

Languages

  • e 55
  • d 17
  • nl 1
  • pt 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 61
  • m 6
  • s 6
  • el 3
  • n 1
  • p 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…