Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015585244 = product of:
  0.031170487 = sum of:
    0.031170487 = product of:
      0.062340975 = sum of:
        0.062340975 = weight(_text_:1997 in 474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062340975 = score(doc=474,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.38071686 = fieldWeight in 474, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=474)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization. 24(1997) no.2, S.72-83

Year

1997

0.015585244 = product of:
  0.031170487 = sum of:
    0.031170487 = product of:
      0.062340975 = sum of:
        0.062340975 = weight(_text_:1997 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062340975 = score(doc=1786,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.38071686 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information services and use. 17(1997) nos.2/3, S.85-100

Year

1997

0.010688796 = product of:
  0.021377591 = sum of:
    0.021377591 = product of:
      0.042755183 = sum of:
        0.042755183 = weight(_text_:22 in 1419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042755183 = score(doc=1419,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1419, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1419)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.0076348544 = product of:
  0.015269709 = sum of:
    0.015269709 = product of:
      0.030539418 = sum of:
        0.030539418 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030539418 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2282, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

8.11.2015 21:27:22

0.0065713157 = product of:
  0.013142631 = sum of:
    0.013142631 = product of:
      0.026285263 = sum of:
        0.026285263 = weight(_text_:1997 in 2730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026285263 = score(doc=2730,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.16052432 = fieldWeight in 2730, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2730)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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