Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × theme_ss:"Theorie verbaler Dokumentationssprachen"
  1. Boteram, F.: Semantische Relationen in Dokumentationssprachen : vom Thesaurus zum semantischen Netz (2010) 0.01
    0.0106115695 = product of:
      0.021223139 = sum of:
        0.021223139 = product of:
          0.042446278 = sum of:
            0.042446278 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042446278 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.044755515 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  2. Mazzocchi, F.: Relations in KOS : is it possible to couple a common nature with different roles? (2017) 0.01
    0.010078075 = product of:
      0.02015615 = sum of:
        0.02015615 = product of:
          0.0403123 = sum of:
            0.0403123 = weight(_text_:2007 in 78) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0403123 = score(doc=78,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.044755515 = queryNorm
                0.19951613 = fieldWeight in 78, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=78)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The purpose of this paper, which increases and deepens what was expressed in a previous work (Mazzocchi et al., 2007), is to scrutinize the underlying assumptions of the types of relations included in thesauri, particularly the genus-species relation. Logicist approaches to information organization, which are still dominant, will be compared with hermeneutically oriented approaches. In the light of these approaches, the nature and features of the relations, and what the notion of a priori could possibly mean with regard to them, are examined, together with the implications for designing and implementing knowledge organizations systems (KOS). Design/methodology/approach The inquiry is based on how the relations are described in literature, engaging in particular a discussion with Hjørland (2015) and Svenonius (2004). The philosophical roots of today's leading views are briefly illustrated, in order to put them under perspective and deconstruct the uncritical reception of their authority. To corroborate the discussion a semantic analysis of specific terms and relations is provided too. Findings All relations should be seen as "perspectival" (not as a priori). On the other hand, different types of relations, depending on the conceptual features of the terms involved, can hold a different degree of "stability." On this basis, they could be used to address different information concerns (e.g. interoperability vs expressiveness). Research limitations/implications Some arguments that the paper puts forth at the conceptual level need to be tested in application contexts. Originality/value This paper considers that the standpoint of logic and of hermeneutic (usually seen as conflicting) are both significant for information organization, and could be pragmatically integrated. In accordance with this view, an extension of thesaurus relations' set is advised, meaning that perspective hierarchical relations (i.e. relations that are not logically based but function contingently) should be also included in such a set.