Search (50 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  1. Balakrishnan, U,; Soergel, D.; Helfer, O.: Representing concepts through description logic expressions for knowledge organization system (KOS) mapping (2020) 0.02 
    0.020856217 = product of:
  0.05735459 = sum of:
    0.0039050733 = weight(_text_:a in 144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039050733 = score(doc=144,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 144, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=144)
    0.01848474 = product of:
      0.07393896 = sum of:
        0.07393896 = weight(_text_:o in 144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07393896 = score(doc=144,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13338262 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.55433726 = fieldWeight in 144, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=144)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.0034720355 = weight(_text_:s in 144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0034720355 = score(doc=144,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.120123915 = fieldWeight in 144, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=144)
    0.031492744 = weight(_text_:u in 144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031492744 = score(doc=144,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.3617784 = fieldWeight in 144, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=144)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Pages
    S.455-459
    Type
    a
  2. Meng, K.; Ba, Z.; Ma, Y.; Li, G.: ¬A network coupling approach to detecting hierarchical linkages between science and technology (2024) 0.01 
    0.011375662 = product of:
  0.04171076 = sum of:
    0.0040582716 = weight(_text_:a in 1205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040582716 = score(doc=1205,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1205, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1205)
    0.00589224 = weight(_text_:s in 1205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00589224 = score(doc=1205,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.20385705 = fieldWeight in 1205, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1205)
    0.03176025 = weight(_text_:k in 1205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03176025 = score(doc=1205,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.33466667 = fieldWeight in 1205, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1205)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Detecting science-technology hierarchical linkages is beneficial for understanding deep interactions between science and technology (S&T). Previous studies have mainly focused on linear linkages between S&T but ignored their structural linkages. In this paper, we propose a network coupling approach to inspect hierarchical interactions of S&T by integrating their knowledge linkages and structural linkages. S&T knowledge networks are first enhanced with bidirectional encoder representation from transformers (BERT) knowledge alignment, and then their hierarchical structures are identified based on K-core decomposition. Hierarchical coupling preferences and strengths of the S&T networks over time are further calculated based on similarities of coupling nodes' degree distribution and similarities of coupling edges' weight distribution. Extensive experimental results indicate that our approach is feasible and robust in identifying the coupling hierarchy with superior performance compared to other isomorphism and dissimilarity algorithms. Our research extends the mindset of S&T linkage measurement by identifying patterns and paths of the interaction of S&T hierarchical knowledge.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 75(2023) no.2, S.167-187
    Type
    a
  3. Zhou, H.; Guns, R.; Engels, T.C.E.: Towards indicating interdisciplinarity : characterizing interdisciplinary knowledge flow (2023) 0.01 
    0.011233349 = product of:
  0.030891709 = sum of:
    0.0054389704 = product of:
      0.010877941 = sum of:
        0.010877941 = weight(_text_:h in 1072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010877941 = score(doc=1072,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 1072, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1072)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0040582716 = weight(_text_:a in 1072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040582716 = score(doc=1072,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1072, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1072)
    0.019311246 = weight(_text_:r in 1072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019311246 = score(doc=1072,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 1072, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1072)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 1072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=1072,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1072, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1072)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    This study contributes to the recent discussions on indicating interdisciplinarity, that is, going beyond catch-all metrics of interdisciplinarity. We propose a contextual framework to improve the granularity and usability of the existing methodology for interdisciplinary knowledge flow (IKF) in which scientific disciplines import and export knowledge from/to other disciplines. To characterize the knowledge exchange between disciplines, we recognize three aspects of IKF under this framework, namely broadness, intensity, and homogeneity. We show how to utilize them to uncover different forms of interdisciplinarity, especially between disciplines with the largest volume of IKF. We apply this framework in two use cases, one at the level of disciplines and one at the level of journals, to show how it can offer a more holistic and detailed viewpoint on the interdisciplinarity of scientific entities than aggregated and context-unaware indicators. We further compare our proposed framework, an indicating process, with established indicators and discuss how such information tools on interdisciplinarity can assist science policy practices such as performance-based research funding systems and panel-based peer review processes.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.11, S.1325-1340
    Type
    a
  4. Pepper, S.; Arnaud, P.J.L.: Absolutely PHAB : toward a general model of associative relations (2020) 0.01 
    0.008560387 = product of:
  0.031388085 = sum of:
    0.0061744633 = weight(_text_:a in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061744633 = score(doc=103,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 103, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=103)
    0.022758523 = weight(_text_:r in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022758523 = score(doc=103,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.25861394 = fieldWeight in 103, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=103)
    0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024550997 = score(doc=103,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 103, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=103)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    There have been many attempts at classifying the semantic modification relations (R) of N + N compounds but this work has not led to the acceptance of a definitive scheme, so that devising a reusable classification is a worthwhile aim. The scope of this undertaking is extended to other binominal lexemes, i.e. units that contain two thing-morphemes without explicitly stating R, like prepositional units, N + relational adjective units, etc. The 25-relation taxonomy of Bourque (2014) was tested against over 15,000 binominal lexemes from 106 languages and extended to a 29-relation scheme ("Bourque2") through the introduction of two new reversible relations. Bourque2 is then mapped onto Hatcher's (1960) four-relation scheme (extended by the addition of a fifth relation, similarity , as "Hatcher2"). This results in a two-tier system usable at different degrees of granularities. On account of its semantic proximity to compounding, metonymy is then taken into account, following Janda's (2011) suggestion that it plays a role in word formation; Peirsman and Geeraerts' (2006) inventory of 23 metonymic patterns is mapped onto Bourque2, confirming the identity of metonymic and binominal modification relations. Finally, Blank's (2003) and Koch's (2001) work on lexical semantics justifies the addition to the scheme of a third, superordinate level which comprises the three Aristotelean principles of similarity, contiguity and contrast.
    Source
    ¬The Mental Lexicon. 15(2020) no.1, S.101-122
    Type
    a
  5. Rocha Souza, R.; Lemos, D.: a comparative analysis : Knowledge organization systems for the representation of multimedia resources on the Web (2020) 0.01 
    0.007112879 = product of:
  0.026080554 = sum of:
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 5993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=5993,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5993, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5993)
    0.019311246 = weight(_text_:r in 5993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019311246 = score(doc=5993,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 5993, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5993)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 5993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=5993,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 5993, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5993)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    The lack of standardization in the production, organization and dissemination of information in documentation centers and institutions alike, as a result from the digitization of collections and their availability on the internet has called for integration efforts. The sheer availability of multimedia content has fostered the development of many distinct and, most of the time, independent metadata standards for its description. This study aims at presenting and comparing the existing standards of metadata, vocabularies and ontologies for multimedia annotation and also tries to offer a synthetic overview of its main strengths and weaknesses, aiding efforts for semantic integration and enhancing the findability of available multimedia resources on the web. We also aim at unveiling the characteristics that could, should and are perhaps not being highlighted in the characterization of multimedia resources.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 47(2020) no.4, S.300-319
    Type
    a
  6. Wei, W.; Liu, Y.-P.; Wei, L-R.: Feature-level sentiment analysis based on rules and fine-grained domain ontology (2020) 0.01 
    0.006941656 = product of:
  0.025452739 = sum of:
    0.0040582716 = weight(_text_:a in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040582716 = score(doc=5876,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
    0.019311246 = weight(_text_:r in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019311246 = score(doc=5876,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=5876,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Mining product reviews and sentiment analysis are of great significance, whether for academic research purposes or optimizing business strategies. We propose a feature-level sentiment analysis framework based on rules parsing and fine-grained domain ontology for Chinese reviews. Fine-grained ontology is used to describe synonymous expressions of product features, which are reflected in word changes in online reviews. First, a semiautomatic construction method is developed by using Word2Vec for fine-grained ontology. Then, featurelevel sentiment analysis that combines rules parsing and the fine-grained domain ontology is conducted to extract explicit and implicit features from product reviews. Finally, the domain sentiment dictionary and context sentiment dictionary are established to identify sentiment polarities for the extracted feature-sentiment combinations. An experiment is conducted on the basis of product reviews crawled from Chinese e-commerce websites. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 47(2020) no.2, S.105-121
    Type
    a
  7. Simoes, G.; Machado, L.; Gnoli, C.; Souza, R.: Can an ontologically-oriented KO do without concepts? (2020) 0.01 
    0.006738554 = product of:
  0.02470803 = sum of:
    0.0033135647 = weight(_text_:a in 4964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033135647 = score(doc=4964,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4964, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4964)
    0.019311246 = weight(_text_:r in 4964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019311246 = score(doc=4964,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 4964, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4964)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 4964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=4964,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4964, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4964)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    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.
    Pages
    S.502-506
    Type
    a
  8. Almeida, M.B.; Felipe, E.R.; Barcelos, R.: Toward a document-centered ontological theory for information architecture in corporations (2020) 0.01 
    0.006368545 = product of:
  0.02335133 = sum of:
    0.0055226083 = weight(_text_:a in 8) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0055226083 = score(doc=8,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 8, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=8)
    0.016092705 = weight(_text_:r in 8) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016092705 = score(doc=8,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 8, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=8)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 8) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=8,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 8, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=8)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    The beginning of the 21st century attested to the first movements toward information architecture (IA), originating from the field of library and information science (LIS). IA is acknowledged as an important meta-discipline concerned with the design, implementation, and maintenance of digital information spaces. Despite the relevance of IA, there is little research about the subject within LIS, and still less if one considers initiatives for creating a theory for IA. In this article, we provide a theory for IA and describe the resources needed to create it through ontological models. We also choose the "document" as the key entity for such theory, contemplating kinds of documents that not only serve to register information, but also create claims and obligations in society. To achieve our goals, we provide a background for subtheories from LIS and from Applied Ontology. As a result, we present some basic theory for IA in the form of a formal framework to represent corporations in which IA activities take place, acknowledging that our approach is de facto a subset of IA we call the enterprise information architecture (EAI) approach. By doing this, we highlight the effects that documents cause within corporations in the scope of EIA.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.11, S.1308-1326
    Type
    a
  9. Almeida, M.B.: Ontologia em Ciência da Informação: Teoria e Método (1ª ed., Vol. 1). CRV. http://dx.doi.org/10.24824/978655578679.8; Tecnologia e Aplicações (1ª ed., Vol. 2). CRV. http://dx.doi.org/10.24824/978652511477.4; Curso completo com teoria e exercícios (1ª ed., volume suplementar para professores). CRV. [Review] (2022) 0.01 
    0.006123854 = product of:
  0.02245413 = sum of:
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=631,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 631, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=631)
    0.01568482 = product of:
      0.06273928 = sum of:
        0.06273928 = weight(_text_:o in 631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273928 = score(doc=631,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13338262 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.47037077 = fieldWeight in 631, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=631)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 631, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=631)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Nos últimos 30 anos, o tema das ontologias tem sido um dos terrenos mais férteis de investigação na área da Organização do Conhecimento. É um tema complexo e revestido de polémica, pela dificuldade na definição do próprio conceito e pelas apropriações que diferentes campos científicos têm exercido sobre ele. Com origem no domínio da filosofia, a ontologia é hoje um território partilhado pelas Ciências da Computação, com destaque para a Ciência dos Dados (Data Science), e pela Ciência da Informação, particularmente pela Organização do Conhecimento. São raros os autores desta área que não escreveram sobre o tema, abordando as suas fronteiras conceptuais ou discutindo a relação das ontologias com outros sistemas de organização do conhecimento, como as taxonomias, os tesauros ou as classificações.
    Source
    Boletim do Arquivo da Universidade de Coimbra 35(2022) no.1, S.191-198
    Type
    a
  10. Buente, W.; Baybayan, C.K.; Hajibayova, L.; McCorkhill, M.; Panchyshyn, R.: Exploring the renaissance of wayfinding and voyaging through the lens of knowledge representation, organization and discovery systems (2020) 0.01 
    0.005927399 = product of:
  0.021733794 = sum of:
    0.0039050733 = weight(_text_:a in 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039050733 = score(doc=105,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 105, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=105)
    0.016092705 = weight(_text_:r in 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016092705 = score(doc=105,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 105, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=105)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=105,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 105, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=105)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical analysis from an ethical perspective of how the concept of indigenous wayfinding and voyaging is mapped in knowledge representation, organization and discovery systems. Design/methodology/approach In this study, the Dewey Decimal Classification, the Library of Congress Subject Headings, the Library of Congress Classifications systems and the Web of Science citation database were methodically examined to determine how these systems represent and facilitate the discovery of indigenous knowledge of wayfinding and voyaging. Findings The analysis revealed that there was no dedicated representation of the indigenous practices of wayfinding and voyaging in the major knowledge representation, organization and discovery systems. By scattering indigenous practice across various, often very broad and unrelated classes, coherence in the record is disrupted, resulting in misrepresentation of these indigenous concepts. Originality/value This study contributes to a relatively limited research literature on representation and organization of indigenous knowledge of wayfinding and voyaging. This study calls to foster a better understanding and appreciation for the rich knowledge that indigenous cultures provide for an enlightened society.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 76(2020) no.6, S.1279-1293
    Type
    a
  11. Jansen, B.; Browne, G.M.: Navigating information spaces : index / mind map / topic map? (2021) 0.01 
    0.005716784 = product of:
  0.03144231 = sum of:
    0.0062481174 = weight(_text_:a in 436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062481174 = score(doc=436,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 436, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=436)
    0.025194194 = weight(_text_:u in 436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025194194 = score(doc=436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.28942272 = fieldWeight in 436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=436)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the use of wiki technology to provide a navigation structure for a collection of newspaper clippings. We overview the architecture of the wiki, discuss the navigation structure and pose the question: is the navigation structure an index, and if so, what type, or is it just a linkage structure or topic map. Does such a distinction really matter? Are these definitions in reality function based?
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  12. Hauff-Hartig, S.: Wissensrepräsentation durch RDF: Drei angewandte Forschungsbeispiele : Bitte recht vielfältig: Wie Wissensgraphen, Disco und FaBiO Struktur in Mangas und die Humanities bringen (2021) 0.01 
    0.005538839 = product of:
  0.020309076 = sum of:
    0.0031240587 = weight(_text_:a in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0031240587 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 318, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=318)
    0.0027776284 = weight(_text_:s in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027776284 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 318, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=318)
    0.014407388 = product of:
      0.028814776 = sum of:
        0.028814776 = weight(_text_:22 in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028814776 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 318, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=318)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Date
    22. 5.2021 12:43:05
    Type
    a
  13. Auer, S.; Oelen, A.; Haris, A.M.; Stocker, M.; D'Souza, J.; Farfar, K.E.; Vogt, L.; Prinz, M.; Wiens, V.; Jaradeh, M.Y.: Improving access to scientific literature with knowledge graphs : an experiment using library guidelines to judge information integrity (2020) 0.00 
    0.0040357425 = product of:
  0.014797722 = sum of:
    0.004532476 = product of:
      0.009064952 = sum of:
        0.009064952 = weight(_text_:h in 316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009064952 = score(doc=316,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 316, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=316)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0078101465 = weight(_text_:a in 316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0078101465 = score(doc=316,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.25478977 = fieldWeight in 316, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=316)
    0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024550997 = score(doc=316,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 316, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=316)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    The transfer of knowledge has not changed fundamentally for many hundreds of years: It is usually document-based-formerly printed on paper as a classic essay and nowadays as PDF. With around 2.5 million new research contributions every year, researchers drown in a flood of pseudo-digitized PDF publications. As a result research is seriously weakened. In this article, we argue for representing scholarly contributions in a structured and semantic way as a knowledge graph. The advantage is that information represented in a knowledge graph is readable by machines and humans. As an example, we give an overview on the Open Research Knowledge Graph (ORKG), a service implementing this approach. For creating the knowledge graph representation, we rely on a mixture of manual (crowd/expert sourcing) and (semi-)automated techniques. Only with such a combination of human and machine intelligence, we can achieve the required quality of the representation to allow for novel exploration and assistance services for researchers. As a result, a scholarly knowledge graph such as the ORKG can be used to give a condensed overview on the state-of-the-art addressing a particular research quest, for example as a tabular comparison of contributions according to various characteristics of the approaches. Further possible intuitive access interfaces to such scholarly knowledge graphs include domain-specific (chart) visualizations or answering of natural language questions.
    Source
    Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 44(2020) H.3, S.516-529
    Type
    a
  14. Jia, J.: From data to knowledge : the relationships between vocabularies, linked data and knowledge graphs (2021) 0.00 
    0.003994284 = product of:
  0.014645709 = sum of:
    0.0039050733 = weight(_text_:a in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039050733 = score(doc=106,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
    0.009004618 = product of:
      0.018009236 = sum of:
        0.018009236 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018009236 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify the concepts, component parts and relationships between vocabularies, linked data and knowledge graphs (KGs) from the perspectives of data and knowledge transitions. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses conceptual analysis methods. This study focuses on distinguishing concepts and analyzing composition and intercorrelations to explore data and knowledge transitions. Findings Vocabularies are the cornerstone for accurately building understanding of the meaning of data. Vocabularies provide for a data-sharing model and play an important role in supporting the semantic expression of linked data and defining the schema layer; they are also used for entity recognition, alignment and linkage for KGs. KGs, which consist of a schema layer and a data layer, are presented as cubes that organically combine vocabularies, linked data and big data. Originality/value This paper first describes the composition of vocabularies, linked data and KGs. More importantly, this paper innovatively analyzes and summarizes the interrelatedness of these factors, which comes from frequent interactions between data and knowledge. The three factors empower each other and can ultimately empower the Semantic Web.
    Date
    22. 1.2021 14:24:32
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 77(2021) no.1, S.93-105
    Type
    a
  15. Fagundes, P.B.; Freund, G.P.; Vital, L.P.; Monteiro de Barros, C.; Macedo, D.D.J.de: Taxonomias, ontologias e tesauros : possibilidades de contribuição para o processo de Engenharia de Requisitos (2020) 0.00 
    0.0039164405 = product of:
  0.014360281 = sum of:
    0.0033818933 = weight(_text_:a in 5828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033818933 = score(doc=5828,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 5828, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5828)
    0.00924237 = product of:
      0.03696948 = sum of:
        0.03696948 = weight(_text_:o in 5828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03696948 = score(doc=5828,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13338262 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.27716863 = fieldWeight in 5828, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5828)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 5828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=5828,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 5828, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5828)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Some of the fundamental activities of the software development process are related to the discipline of Requirements Engineering, whose objective is the discovery, analysis, documentation and verification of the requirements that will be part of the system. Requirements are the conditions or capabilities that software must have or perform to meet the users needs. The present study is being developed to propose a model of cooperation between Information Science and Requirements Engineering. Aims to present the analysis results on the possibilities of using the knowledge organization systems: taxonomies, thesauri and ontologies during the activities of Requirements Engineering: design, survey, elaboration, negotiation, specification, validation and requirements management. From the results obtained it was possible to identify in which stage of the Requirements Engineering process, each type of knowledge organization system could be used. We expect that this study put in evidence the need for new researchs and proposals to strengt the exchange between Information Science, as a science that has information as object of study, and the Requirements Engineering which has in the information the raw material to identify the informational needs of software users.
    Source
    Em Questão, Porto Alegre. 26(2020) no.1, S.237-254
    Type
    a
  16. Hocker, J.; Schindler, C.; Rittberger, M.: Participatory design for ontologies : a case study of an open science ontology for qualitative coding schemas (2020) 0.00 
    0.0035483441 = product of:
  0.013010595 = sum of:
    0.0044180867 = weight(_text_:a in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044180867 = score(doc=179,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 179, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=179)
    0.0013888142 = weight(_text_:s in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0013888142 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 179, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=179)
    0.007203694 = product of:
      0.014407388 = sum of:
        0.014407388 = weight(_text_:22 in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014407388 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 179, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=179)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Purpose The open science movement calls for transparent and retraceable research processes. While infrastructures to support these practices in qualitative research are lacking, the design needs to consider different approaches and workflows. The paper bases on the definition of ontologies as shared conceptualizations of knowledge (Borst, 1999). The authors argue that participatory design is a good way to create these shared conceptualizations by giving domain experts and future users a voice in the design process via interviews, workshops and observations. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a novel approach for creating ontologies in the field of open science using participatory design. As a case study the creation of an ontology for qualitative coding schemas is presented. Coding schemas are an important result of qualitative research, and reuse can yield great potential for open science making qualitative research more transparent, enhance sharing of coding schemas and teaching of qualitative methods. The participatory design process consisted of three parts: a requirement analysis using interviews and an observation, a design phase accompanied by interviews and an evaluation phase based on user tests as well as interviews. Findings The research showed several positive outcomes due to participatory design: higher commitment of users, mutual learning, high quality feedback and better quality of the ontology. However, there are two obstacles in this approach: First, contradictive answers by the interviewees, which needs to be balanced; second, this approach takes more time due to interview planning and analysis. Practical implications The implication of the paper is in the long run to decentralize the design of open science infrastructures and to involve parties affected on several levels. Originality/value In ontology design, several methods exist by using user-centered design or participatory design doing workshops. In this paper, the authors outline the potentials for participatory design using mainly interviews in creating an ontology for open science. The authors focus on close contact to researchers in order to build the ontology upon the expert's knowledge.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 72(2020) no.4, S.671-685
    Type
    a
  17. Auer, S.; Sens, I.; Stocker, M.: Erschließung wissenschaftlicher Literatur mit dem Open Research Knowledge Graph (2020) 0.00 
    0.003540281 = product of:
  0.01298103 = sum of:
    0.0076918663 = product of:
      0.0153837325 = sum of:
        0.0153837325 = weight(_text_:h in 551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0153837325 = score(doc=551,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.2329171 = fieldWeight in 551, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=551)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0023430442 = weight(_text_:a in 551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0023430442 = score(doc=551,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 551, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=551)
    0.00294612 = weight(_text_:s in 551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00294612 = score(doc=551,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 551, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=551)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Location
    H
    Source
    B.I.T. Online. 23(2020) H.5, S.491-499
    Type
    a
  18. Jiang, Y.-C.; Li, H.: ¬The theoretical basis and basic principles of knowledge network construction in digital library (2023) 0.00 
    0.0029552064 = product of:
  0.010835757 = sum of:
    0.0054389704 = product of:
      0.010877941 = sum of:
        0.010877941 = weight(_text_:h in 1130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010877941 = score(doc=1130,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 1130, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1130)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0033135647 = weight(_text_:a in 1130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033135647 = score(doc=1130,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1130, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1130)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 1130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=1130,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1130, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1130)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Knowledge network construction (KNC) is the essence of dynamic knowledge architecture, and is helpful to illustrate ubiquitous knowledge service in digital libraries (DLs). The authors explore its theoretical foundations and basic rules to elucidate the basic principles of KNC in DLs. The results indicate that world general connection, small-world phenomenon, relevance theory, unity and continuity of science development have been the production tool, architecture aim and scientific foundation of KNC in DLs. By analyzing both the characteristics of KNC based on different types of knowledge linking and the relationships between different forms of knowledge and the appropriate ways of knowledge linking, the basic principle of KNC is summarized as follows: let each kind of knowledge linking form each shows its ability, each kind of knowledge manifestation each answer the purpose intended in practice, and then subjective knowledge network and objective knowledge network are organically combined. This will lay a solid theoretical foundation and provide an action guide for DLs to construct knowledge networks.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 50(2023) no.4, S.245 - 256
    Type
    a
  19. Peponakis, M.; Mastora, A.; Kapidakis, S.; Doerr, M.: Expressiveness and machine processability of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) : an analysis of concepts and relations (2020) 0.00 
    0.0016761612 = product of:
  0.0092188865 = sum of:
    0.0067637865 = weight(_text_:a in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067637865 = score(doc=5787,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 5787, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5787)
    0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024550997 = score(doc=5787,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 5787, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5787)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    This study considers the expressiveness (that is the expressive power or expressivity) of different types of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) and discusses its potential to be machine-processable in the context of the Semantic Web. For this purpose, the theoretical foundations of KOS are reviewed based on conceptualizations introduced by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) and the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS); natural language processing techniques are also implemented. Applying a comparative analysis, the dataset comprises a thesaurus (Eurovoc), a subject headings system (LCSH) and a classification scheme (DDC). These are compared with an ontology (CIDOC-CRM) by focusing on how they define and handle concepts and relations. It was observed that LCSH and DDC focus on the formalism of character strings (nomens) rather than on the modelling of semantics; their definition of what constitutes a concept is quite fuzzy, and they comprise a large number of complex concepts. By contrast, thesauri have a coherent definition of what constitutes a concept, and apply a systematic approach to the modelling of relations. Ontologies explicitly define diverse types of relations, and are by their nature machine-processable. The paper concludes that the potential of both the expressiveness and machine processability of each KOS is extensively regulated by its structural rules. It is harder to represent subject headings and classification schemes as semantic networks with nodes and arcs, while thesauri are more suitable for such a representation. In addition, a paradigm shift is revealed which focuses on the modelling of relations between concepts, rather than the concepts themselves.
    Source
    International journal on digital libraries. 20(2020) no.4, S.433-452
  20. Amirhosseini, M.; Avidan, G.: ¬A dialectic perspective on the evolution of thesauri and ontologies (2021) 0.00 
    0.0015956345 = product of:
  0.0087759895 = sum of:
    0.0070399716 = weight(_text_:a in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070399716 = score(doc=592,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.22966442 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this article is to identify the most important factors and features in the evolution of thesauri and ontologies through a dialectic model. This model relies on a dialectic process or idea which could be discovered via a dialectic method. This method has focused on identifying the logical relationship between a beginning proposition, or an idea called a thesis, a negation of that idea called the antithesis, and the result of the conflict between the two ideas, called a synthesis. During the creation of knowl­edge organization systems (KOSs), the identification of logical relations between different ideas has been made possible through the consideration and use of the most influential methods and tools such as dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, thesaurus, micro-, macro- and metathesauri, ontology, lower, middle and upper level ontologies. The analysis process has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a dialectic method and documentary method as the reasoning process. This supports our arguments and synthesizes a method for the analysis of research results. Confirmed by the research results, the principle of unity has shown to be the most important factor in the development and evolution of the structure of knowl­edge organization systems and their types. There are various types of unity when considering the analysis of logical relations. These include the principle of unity of alphabetical order, unity of science, semantic unity, structural unity and conceptual unity. The results have clearly demonstrated a movement from plurality to unity in the assembling of the complex structure of knowl­edge organization systems to increase information and knowl­edge storage and retrieval performance.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 48(2021) no.6, S.403-429
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 43
  • pt 4
  • d 2
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 45
  • el 13
  • p 4
  • A 1
  • EL 1
  • More… Less…

Themes