Search (53 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Formale Begriffsanalyse"
  1. Priss, U.: Formal concept analysis in information science (2006) 0.04 
    0.041589975 = product of:
  0.06238496 = sum of:
    0.017084066 = weight(_text_:in in 4305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017084066 = score(doc=4305,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 4305, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4305)
    0.045300893 = product of:
      0.09060179 = sum of:
        0.09060179 = weight(_text_:science in 4305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09060179 = score(doc=4305,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.6585298 = fieldWeight in 4305, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4305)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 40(2006), S.xxx-xxx
  2. Prediger, S.: Kontextuelle Urteilslogik mit Begriffsgraphen : Ein Beitrag zur Restrukturierung der mathematischen Logik (1998) 0.03 
    0.030706827 = product of:
  0.046060238 = sum of:
    0.010677542 = weight(_text_:in in 3142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010677542 = score(doc=3142,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 3142, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3142)
    0.035382695 = product of:
      0.07076539 = sum of:
        0.07076539 = weight(_text_:22 in 3142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07076539 = score(doc=3142,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3142, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3142)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    26. 2.2008 15:58:22
    Footnote
    Rez. in: KO 26(1999) no.3, S.175-176 (R. Wille)
  3. Vogt, F.; Wille, R.: TOSCANA - a graphical tool for analyzing and exploring data (1995) 0.03 
    0.026924279 = product of:
  0.040386416 = sum of:
    0.01208026 = weight(_text_:in in 1901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01208026 = score(doc=1901,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 1901, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1901)
    0.028306156 = product of:
      0.056612313 = sum of:
        0.056612313 = weight(_text_:22 in 1901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056612313 = score(doc=1901,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1901, 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=1901)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    TOSCANA is a computer program which allows an online interaction with larger data bases to analyse and explore data conceptually. It uses labelled line diagrams of concept lattices to communicate knowledge coded in given data. The basic problem to create online presentations of concept lattices is solved by composing prepared diagrams to nested line diagrams. A larger number of applications in different areas have already shown that TOSCANA is a useful tool for many purposes
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 22(1995) no.2, S.78-81
  4. Priss, U.: Faceted knowledge representation (1999) 0.02 
    0.023558743 = product of:
  0.035338115 = sum of:
    0.010570227 = weight(_text_:in in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010570227 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
    0.024767887 = product of:
      0.049535774 = sum of:
        0.049535774 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049535774 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2654, 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=2654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Faceted Knowledge Representation provides a formalism for implementing knowledge systems. The basic notions of faceted knowledge representation are "unit", "relation", "facet" and "interpretation". Units are atomic elements and can be abstract elements or refer to external objects in an application. Relations are sequences or matrices of 0 and 1's (binary matrices). Facets are relational structures that combine units and relations. Each facet represents an aspect or viewpoint of a knowledge system. Interpretations are mappings that can be used to translate between different representations. This paper introduces the basic notions of faceted knowledge representation. The formalism is applied here to an abstract modeling of a faceted thesaurus as used in information retrieval.
    Date
    22. 1.2016 17:30:31
  5. Priss, U.: Faceted information representation (2000) 0.02 
    0.021494776 = product of:
  0.032242164 = sum of:
    0.0074742786 = weight(_text_:in in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074742786 = score(doc=5095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 5095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5095)
    0.024767887 = product of:
      0.049535774 = sum of:
        0.049535774 = weight(_text_:22 in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049535774 = score(doc=5095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5095, 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=5095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This paper presents an abstract formalization of the notion of "facets". Facets are relational structures of units, relations and other facets selected for a certain purpose. Facets can be used to structure large knowledge representation systems into a hierarchical arrangement of consistent and independent subsystems (facets) that facilitate flexibility and combinations of different viewpoints or aspects. This paper describes the basic notions, facet characteristics and construction mechanisms. It then explicates the theory in an example of a faceted information retrieval system (FaIR)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 17:47:06
  6. Burmeister, P.; Holzer, R.: On the treatment of incomplete knowledge in formal concept analysis (2000) 0.02 
    0.020088403 = product of:
  0.030132603 = sum of:
    0.01812039 = weight(_text_:in in 5085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01812039 = score(doc=5085,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 5085, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5085)
    0.012012213 = product of:
      0.024024425 = sum of:
        0.024024425 = weight(_text_:science in 5085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024024425 = score(doc=5085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 5085, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5085)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Some possible treatments of incomplete knowledge in conceptual data representation, data analysis and knowledge acquisition are presented. In particular, some ways of conceptual scalings as well as the role of the three-valued KLEENE-logic are briefly investigated. This logic is also one background in attribute exploration, a conceptual tool for knowledge acquisition. For this method a strategy is given to obtain as much of (attribute) implicational knowledge about a given "universe" as possible; and we show how to represent incomplete knowledge in order to be able to pin down the questions still to be answered in order to obtain complete knowledge in this situation
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; vol.1867: Lecture notes on artificial intelligence
  7. Eklund. P.W.: Logic-based networks : concept graphs and conceptual structures (2000) 0.02 
    0.018722842 = product of:
  0.028084261 = sum of:
    0.011096427 = weight(_text_:in in 5084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011096427 = score(doc=5084,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 5084, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5084)
    0.016987834 = product of:
      0.03397567 = sum of:
        0.03397567 = weight(_text_:science in 5084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03397567 = score(doc=5084,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 5084, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5084)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Logic-based networks are semantic networks that support reasoning capabilities. In this paper, knowledge processing within logicbased networks is viewed as three stages. The first stage involves the formation of concepts and relations: the basic primitives with which we wish to formulate knowledge. The second stage involves the formation of wellformed formulas that express knowledge about the primitive concepts and relations once isolated. The final stage involves efficiently processing the wffs to the desired end. Our research involves each of these steps as they relate to Sowa's conceptual structures and Wille's concept lattices. Formal Concept Analysis gives us a capability to perform concept formation via symbolic machine learning. Concept(ual) Graphs provide a means to describe relational properties between primitive concept and relation types. Finally, techniques from other areas of computer science are required to compute logic-based networks efficiently. This paper illustrates the three stages of knowledge processing in practical terms using examples from our research
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; vol.1867: Lecture notes on artificial intelligence
  8. Ganter, B.; Wille, R.: Formal concept analysis : mathematical foundations (1998) 0.02 
    0.017558426 = product of:
  0.026337638 = sum of:
    0.014325427 = weight(_text_:in in 5061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014325427 = score(doc=5061,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 5061, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5061)
    0.012012213 = product of:
      0.024024425 = sum of:
        0.024024425 = weight(_text_:science in 5061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024024425 = score(doc=5061,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 5061, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5061)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This is the first textbook on formal concept analysis. It gives a systematic presentation of the mathematical foundations and their relation to applications in computer science, especially data analysis and knowledge processing. Above all, it presents graphical methods for representing conceptual systems that have proved themselves in communicating knowledge. Theory and graphical representation are thus closely coupled together. The mathematical foundations are treated thouroughly and illuminated by means of numerous examples. Since computers are being used ever more widely for knowledge processing, formal methods for conceptual analysis are gaining in importance. This book makes the basic theory for such methods accessible in a compact form
    Footnote
    Rez. in: KO 26(1999) no.3, S.172-173 (U. Priss)
  9. Ganter, B.: Computing with conceptual structures (2000) 0.02 
    0.017558426 = product of:
  0.026337638 = sum of:
    0.014325427 = weight(_text_:in in 5088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014325427 = score(doc=5088,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 5088, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5088)
    0.012012213 = product of:
      0.024024425 = sum of:
        0.024024425 = weight(_text_:science in 5088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024024425 = score(doc=5088,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 5088, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5088)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    We give an overview over the computational tools for conceptional structures that have emerged from the theory of Formal Concept Analysis, with emphasis on basic ideas rather than technical details. We describe what we mean by conceptual computations, and try to convince the reader that an elaborate formalization is a necessary precondition. Claiming that Formal Concept Analysis provides such a formal background, we present as examples two well known algorithms in very simple pseudo code. These earl be used for navigating in a lattice, thereby supporting some prototypical tasks of conceptual computation. We refer to some of the many more advanced methods, discuss how to compute with limited precision and explain why in the case of incomplete knowledge the conceptual approach is more efficient than a combinatorial one. Utilizing this efficiency requires skillful use of the formalism. We present two results that lead in this direction
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; vol.1867: Lecture notes on artificial intelligence
  10. Hereth, J.; Stumme, G.; Wille, R.; Wille, U.: Conceptual knowledge discovery and data analysis (2000) 0.02 
    0.017350994 = product of:
  0.02602649 = sum of:
    0.016016312 = weight(_text_:in in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016016312 = score(doc=5083,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
    0.010010177 = product of:
      0.020020355 = sum of:
        0.020020355 = weight(_text_:science in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020020355 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    In this paper, we discuss Conceptual Knowledge Discovery in Databases (CKDD) in its connection with Data Analysis. Our approach is based on Formal Concept Analysis, a mathematical theory which has been developed and proven useful during the last 20 years. Formal Concept Analysis has led to a theory of conceptual information systems which has been applied by using the management system TOSCANA in a wide range of domains. In this paper, we use such an application in database marketing to demonstrate how methods and procedures of CKDD can be applied in Data Analysis. In particular, we show the interplay and integration of data mining and data analysis techniques based on Formal Concept Analysis. The main concern of this paper is to explain how the transition from data to knowledge can be supported by a TOSCANA system. To clarify the transition steps we discuss their correspondence to the five levels of knowledge representation established by R. Brachman and to the steps of empirically grounded theory building proposed by A. Strauss and J. Corbin
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; vol.1867: Lecture notes on artificial intelligence
  11. Eklund, P.; Groh, B.; Stumme, G.; Wille, R.: ¬A conceptual-logic extension of TOSCANA (2000) 0.02 
    0.015405759 = product of:
  0.023108639 = sum of:
    0.011096427 = weight(_text_:in in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011096427 = score(doc=5082,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
    0.012012213 = product of:
      0.024024425 = sum of:
        0.024024425 = weight(_text_:science in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024024425 = score(doc=5082,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The aim of this paper is to indicate how TOSCANA may be extended to allow graphical representations not only of concept lattices but also of concept graphs in the sense of Contextual Logic. The contextual- logic extension of TOSCANA requires the logical scaling of conceptual and relational scales for which we propose the Peircean Algebraic Logic as reconstructed by R. W. Burch. As graphical representations we recommend, besides labelled line diagrams of concept lattices and Sowa's diagrams of conceptual graphs, particular information maps for utilizing background knowledge as much as possible. Our considerations are illustrated by a small information system about the domestic flights in Austria
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; vol.1867: Lecture notes on artificial intelligence
  12. Priss, U.; Jacob, E.: Utilizing faceted structures for information systems design (1999) 0.01 
    0.014941695 = product of:
  0.022412542 = sum of:
    0.008542033 = weight(_text_:in in 2470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008542033 = score(doc=2470,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2470, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2470)
    0.013870509 = product of:
      0.027741019 = sum of:
        0.027741019 = weight(_text_:science in 2470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027741019 = score(doc=2470,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.20163277 = fieldWeight in 2470, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2470)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The writers show that a faceted navigation structure makes web sites easier to use. They begin by analyzing the web sites of three library and information science faculties, and seeing if the sites easily provide the answers to five specific questions, e.g., how the school ranks in national evaluations. (It is worth noting that the web site of the Faculty of Information Studies and the University of Toronto, where this bibliography is being written, would fail on four of the five questions.) Using examples from LIS web site content, they show how facets can be related and constructed, and use concept diagrams for illustration. They briefly discuss constraints necessary when joining facets: for example, enrolled students can be full- or part-time, but prospective and alumni students cannot. It should not be possible to construct terms such as "part-time alumni" (see Yannis Tzitzikas et al, below in Background). They conclude that a faceted approach is best for web site navigation, because it can clearly show where the user is in the site, what the related pages are, and how to get to them. There is a short discussion of user interfaces, and the diagrams in the paper will be of interest to anyone making a facet-based web site. This paper is clearly written, informative, and thought-provoking. Uta Priss's web site lists her other publications, many of which are related and some of which are online: http://www.upriss.org.uk/top/research.html.
    Series
    Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science; vol.36
    Source
    Knowledge: creation, organization and use. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 31.10.-4.11.1999. Ed.: L. Woods
  13. Negm, E.; AbdelRahman, S.; Bahgat, R.: PREFCA: a portal retrieval engine based on formal concept analysis (2017) 0.01 
    0.012872128 = product of:
  0.01930819 = sum of:
    0.011300049 = weight(_text_:in in 3291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011300049 = score(doc=3291,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.15905021 = fieldWeight in 3291, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3291)
    0.008008142 = product of:
      0.016016284 = sum of:
        0.016016284 = weight(_text_:science in 3291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016016284 = score(doc=3291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 3291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The web is a network of linked sites whereby each site either forms a physical portal or a standalone page. In the former case, the portal presents an access point to its embedded web pages that coherently present a specific topic. In the latter case, there are millions of standalone web pages, that are scattered throughout the web, having the same topic and could be conceptually linked together to form virtual portals. Search engines have been developed to help users in reaching the adequate pages in an efficient and effective manner. All the known current search engine techniques rely on the web page as the basic atomic search unit. They ignore the conceptual links, that reveal the implicit web related meanings, among the retrieved pages. However, building a semantic model for the whole portal may contain more semantic information than a model of scattered individual pages. In addition, user queries can be poor and contain imprecise terms that do not reflect the real user intention. Consequently, retrieving the standalone individual pages that are directly related to the query may not satisfy the user's need. In this paper, we propose PREFCA, a Portal Retrieval Engine based on Formal Concept Analysis that relies on the portal as the main search unit. PREFCA consists of three phases: First, the information extraction phase that is concerned with extracting portal's semantic data. Second, the formal concept analysis phase that utilizes formal concept analysis to discover the conceptual links among portal and attributes. Finally, the information retrieval phase where we propose a portal ranking method to retrieve ranked pairs of portals and embedded pages. Additionally, we apply the network analysis rules to output some portal characteristics. We evaluated PREFCA using two data sets, namely the Forum for Information Retrieval Evaluation 2010 and ClueWeb09 (category B) test data, for physical and virtual portals respectively. PREFCA proves higher F-measure accuracy, better Mean Average Precision ranking and comparable network analysis and efficiency results than other search engine approaches, namely Term Frequency Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF), Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA), and BM25 techniques. As well, it gains high Mean Average Precision in comparison with learning to rank techniques. Moreover, PREFCA also gains better reach time than Carrot as a well-known topic-based search engine.
    Content
    Vgl.: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306457316303569 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2016.08.002].
  14. Carpineto, C.; Romano, G.: Order-theoretical ranking (2000) 0.01 
    0.012838133 = product of:
  0.019257199 = sum of:
    0.009247023 = weight(_text_:in in 4766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009247023 = score(doc=4766,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 4766, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4766)
    0.010010177 = product of:
      0.020020355 = sum of:
        0.020020355 = weight(_text_:science in 4766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020020355 = score(doc=4766,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4766, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4766)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Current best-match ranking (BMR) systems perform well but cannot handle word mismatch between a query and a document. The best known alternative ranking method, hierarchical clustering-based ranking (HCR), seems to be more robust than BMR with respect to this problem, but it is hampered by theoretical and practical limitations. We present an approach to document ranking that explicitly addresses the word mismatch problem by exploiting interdocument similarity information in a novel way. Document ranking is seen as a query-document transformation driven by a conceptual representation of the whole document collection, into which the query is merged. Our approach is nased on the theory of concept (or Galois) lattices, which, er argue, provides a powerful, well-founded, and conputationally-tractable framework to model the space in which documents and query are represented and to compute such a transformation. We compared information retrieval using concept lattice-based ranking (CLR) to BMR and HCR. The results showed that HCR was outperformed by CLR as well as BMR, and suggested that, of the two best methods, BMR achieved better performance than CLR on the whole document set, whereas CLR compared more favorably when only the first retrieved documents were used for evaluation. We also evaluated the three methods' specific ability to rank documents that did not match the query, in which case the speriority of CLR over BMR and HCR was apparent
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.7, S.587-601
  15. Conceptual structures : logical, linguistic, and computational issues. 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2000, Darmstadt, Germany, August 14-18, 2000 (2000) 0.01 
    0.010757141 = product of:
  0.016135711 = sum of:
    0.010129605 = weight(_text_:in in 691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010129605 = score(doc=691,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.14257601 = fieldWeight in 691, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=691)
    0.0060061063 = product of:
      0.012012213 = sum of:
        0.012012213 = weight(_text_:science in 691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012012213 = score(doc=691,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.08730954 = fieldWeight in 691, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=691)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Computer scientists create models of a perceived reality. Through AI techniques, these models aim at providing the basic support for emulating cognitive behavior such as reasoning and learning, which is one of the main goals of the Al research effort. Such computer models are formed through the interaction of various acquisition and inference mechanisms: perception, concept learning, conceptual clustering, hypothesis testing, probabilistic inference, etc., and are represented using different paradigms tightly linked to the processes that use them. Among these paradigms let us cite: biological models (neural nets, genetic programming), logic-based models (first-order logic, modal logic, rule-based systems), virtual reality models (object systems, agent systems), probabilistic models (Bayesian nets, fuzzy logic), linguistic models (conceptual dependency graphs, language-based rep resentations), etc. One of the strengths of the Conceptual Graph (CG) theory is its versatility in terms of the representation paradigms under which it falls. It can be viewed and therefore used, under different representation paradigms, which makes it a popular choice for a wealth of applications. Its full coupling with different cognitive processes lead to the opening of the field toward related research communities such as the Description Logic, Formal Concept Analysis, and Computational Linguistic communities. We now see more and more research results from one community enrich the other, laying the foundations of common philosophical grounds from which a successful synergy can emerge. ICCS 2000 embodies this spirit of research collaboration. It presents a set of papers that we believe, by their exposure, will benefit the whole community. For instance, the technical program proposes tracks on Conceptual Ontologies, Language, Formal Concept Analysis, Computational Aspects of Conceptual Structures, and Formal Semantics, with some papers on pragmatism and human related aspects of computing. Never before was the program of ICCS formed by so heterogeneously rooted theories of knowledge representation and use. We hope that this swirl of ideas will benefit you as much as it already has benefited us while putting together this program
    Content
    Concepts and Language: The Role of Conceptual Structure in Human Evolution (Keith Devlin) - Concepts in Linguistics - Concepts in Natural Language (Gisela Harras) - Patterns, Schemata, and Types: Author Support through Formalized Experience (Felix H. Gatzemeier) - Conventions and Notations for Knowledge Representation and Retrieval (Philippe Martin) - Conceptual Ontology: Ontology, Metadata, and Semiotics (John F. Sowa) - Pragmatically Yours (Mary Keeler) - Conceptual Modeling for Distributed Ontology Environments (Deborah L. McGuinness) - Discovery of Class Relations in Exception Structured Knowledge Bases (Hendra Suryanto, Paul Compton) - Conceptual Graphs: Perspectives: CGs Applications: Where Are We 7 Years after the First ICCS ? (Michel Chein, David Genest) - The Engineering of a CC-Based System: Fundamental Issues (Guy W. Mineau) - Conceptual Graphs, Metamodeling, and Notation of Concepts (Olivier Gerbé, Guy W. Mineau, Rudolf K. Keller) - Knowledge Representation and Reasonings: Based on Graph Homomorphism (Marie-Laure Mugnier) - User Modeling Using Conceptual Graphs for Intelligent Agents (James F. Baldwin, Trevor P. Martin, Aimilia Tzanavari) - Towards a Unified Querying System of Both Structured and Semi-structured Imprecise Data Using Fuzzy View (Patrice Buche, Ollivier Haemmerlé) - Formal Semantics of Conceptual Structures: The Extensional Semantics of the Conceptual Graph Formalism (Guy W. Mineau) - Semantics of Attribute Relations in Conceptual Graphs (Pavel Kocura) - Nested Concept Graphs and Triadic Power Context Families (Susanne Prediger) - Negations in Simple Concept Graphs (Frithjof Dau) - Extending the CG Model by Simulations (Jean-François Baget) - Contextual Logic and Formal Concept Analysis: Building and Structuring Description Logic Knowledge Bases: Using Least Common Subsumers and Concept Analysis (Franz Baader, Ralf Molitor) - On the Contextual Logic of Ordinal Data (Silke Pollandt, Rudolf Wille) - Boolean Concept Logic (Rudolf Wille) - Lattices of Triadic Concept Graphs (Bernd Groh, Rudolf Wille) - Formalizing Hypotheses with Concepts (Bernhard Ganter, Sergei 0. Kuznetsov) - Generalized Formal Concept Analysis (Laurent Chaudron, Nicolas Maille) - A Logical Generalization of Formal Concept Analysis (Sébastien Ferré, Olivier Ridoux) - On the Treatment of Incomplete Knowledge in Formal Concept Analysis (Peter Burmeister, Richard Holzer) - Conceptual Structures in Practice: Logic-Based Networks: Concept Graphs and Conceptual Structures (Peter W. Eklund) - Conceptual Knowledge Discovery and Data Analysis (Joachim Hereth, Gerd Stumme, Rudolf Wille, Uta Wille) - CEM - A Conceptual Email Manager (Richard Cole, Gerd Stumme) - A Contextual-Logic Extension of TOSCANA (Peter Eklund, Bernd Groh, Gerd Stumme, Rudolf Wille) - A Conceptual Graph Model for W3C Resource Description Framework (Olivier Corby, Rose Dieng, Cédric Hébert) - Computational Aspects of Conceptual Structures: Computing with Conceptual Structures (Bernhard Ganter) - Symmetry and the Computation of Conceptual Structures (Robert Levinson) An Introduction to SNePS 3 (Stuart C. Shapiro) - Composition Norm Dynamics Calculation with Conceptual Graphs (Aldo de Moor) - From PROLOG++ to PROLOG+CG: A CG Object-Oriented Logic Programming Language (Adil Kabbaj, Martin Janta-Polczynski) - A Cost-Bounded Algorithm to Control Events Generalization (Gaël de Chalendar, Brigitte Grau, Olivier Ferret)
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; vol.1867: Lecture notes on artificial intelligence
  16. Wille, R.: Knowledge acquisition by methods of formal concept analysis (1989) 0.01 
    0.0093428325 = product of:
  0.028028497 = sum of:
    0.028028497 = product of:
      0.056056995 = sum of:
        0.056056995 = weight(_text_:science in 594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056056995 = score(doc=594,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 594, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=594)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Imprint
    New York : Nova Science Publishers
  17. Wille, R.: Liniendiagramme hierarchischer Begriffssysteme (1984) 0.01 
    0.00604013 = product of:
  0.01812039 = sum of:
    0.01812039 = weight(_text_:in in 593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01812039 = score(doc=593,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 593, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=593)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Footnote
    Engl. in: International classification 11(1984) S.77-86
    Source
    Anwendungen in der Klassifikation. II: Datenanalyse und numerische Klassifikation. Proc. 8. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Hofgeismar, 10.-13.4.1984. Hrsg.: H.H. Bock
  18. Wille, R.: Lattices in data analysis : how to draw them with a computer (1989) 0.01 
    0.0056946888 = product of:
  0.017084066 = sum of:
    0.017084066 = weight(_text_:in in 3043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017084066 = score(doc=3043,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 3043, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3043)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  19. Kent, R.E.: Implications and rules in thesauri (1994) 0.01 
    0.0056946888 = product of:
  0.017084066 = sum of:
    0.017084066 = weight(_text_:in in 3457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017084066 = score(doc=3457,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 3457, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3457)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    A central consideration in the study of whole language semantic space as encoded in thesauri is word sense comparability. Shows how word sense comparability can be adequately expressed by the logical implications and rules from Formal Concept Analysis. Formal concept analysis, a new approach to formal logic initiated by Rudolf Wille, has been used for data modelling, analysis and interpretation, and also for knowledge representation and knowledge discovery
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.4
  20. Viehmann, V.: Formale Begriffsanalyse in der bibliothekarischen Sacherschließung (1996) 0.01 
    0.0056946888 = product of:
  0.017084066 = sum of:
    0.017084066 = weight(_text_:in in 4570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017084066 = score(doc=4570,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 4570, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4570)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 35
  • d 17

Types

  • a 40
  • m 8
  • s 3
  • p 2
  • el 1
  • r 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications