Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0036409218 = product of:
  0.0509729 = sum of:
    0.0509729 = weight(_text_:representation in 5459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0509729 = score(doc=5459,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.44023782 = fieldWeight in 5459, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5459)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Purpose The need for inclusive and logically consistent representation of diverse and even confronting viewpoints on the domain knowledge has been widely discussed in the literature in the past decade. The purpose of this paper is to propose a generic model for building an open coherent diversified knowledge organization system (KOS). Design/methodology/approach The proposed model incorporates a generic epistemological component, the validity scope type, assigned to each statement in the constructed KOS. Statements are clustered by their association with various validity scope types into internally coherent subsystems. These subsystems form a knowledge organization network connected through the universal (consensual) subsystems with more than one validity scope type. The model extends the Galili's Cultural Content Representation paradigm, which divides the knowledge content of a scientific theory into two confronting parts: body and periphery. Findings The knowledge organization network model makes it possible to comparatively examine similarities and differences among various viewpoints and theories on the domain knowledge. The presented approach conforms with the principle of Open Knowledge Network initiative for creation of open accessible knowledge. Practical implications The proposed model can be used for ontological reasoning by a variety of information services, such as ontology-based decision-support and learning systems, diversified search and customer management applications. Social implications The model enables explicit representation of social and cultural minority voices and historical knowledge in the KOS. Originality/value The main contribution of the proposed model is that it generalizes and enhances various previously proposed representations of epistemological aspects of KOS and allows for multiple inter-linked subsystems to coherently co-exist as part of the extensible network.

0.0025225044 = product of:
  0.03531506 = sum of:
    0.03531506 = weight(_text_:representation in 589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03531506 = score(doc=589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 589, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=589)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Plurality of beliefs and theories in different knowledge domains calls for modelling multi-viewpoint ontologies and knowledge organization systems (KOS). A generic theoretical approach recently proposed for heterogeneity representation in KOS was linking each ontological statement to a specific validity scope to determine a set of conditions under which the statement is valid. However, the practical applicability of this approach has yet to be empirically assessed. In addition, there is still a need to investigate the types of inconsistencies that might arise in multi-viewpoint ontologies as well as their possible causes. This study proposes a new framework for systematic analysis and classification of inconsistencies in multi-viewpoint ontologies. The framework is based on eight generic logical structures of ontological statements. To test the validity of the proposed framework, two ontologies from different knowledge domains were examined. We found that only three of the eight structures led to inconsistencies in both ontologies, while the other two structures were always present in logically consistent statements. The study has practical implications for building diversified and personalized knowledge systems.

4.0958173E-4 = product of:
  0.005734144 = sum of:
    0.005734144 = product of:
      0.017202431 = sum of:
        0.017202431 = weight(_text_:29 in 3439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017202431 = score(doc=3439,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3439, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3439)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

16.11.2017 13:29:37

4.0958173E-4 = product of:
  0.005734144 = sum of:
    0.005734144 = product of:
      0.017202431 = sum of:
        0.017202431 = weight(_text_:29 in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017202431 = score(doc=3593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

16.11.2017 13:33:29

4.0958173E-4 = product of:
  0.005734144 = sum of:
    0.005734144 = product of:
      0.017202431 = sum of:
        0.017202431 = weight(_text_:29 in 4457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017202431 = score(doc=4457,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4457, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4457)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

29. 9.2018 11:35:30

3.247178E-4 = product of:
  0.004546049 = sum of:
    0.004546049 = product of:
      0.013638147 = sum of:
        0.013638147 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013638147 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1634, 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=1634)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

3.247178E-4 = product of:
  0.004546049 = sum of:
    0.004546049 = product of:
      0.013638147 = sum of:
        0.013638147 = weight(_text_:22 in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013638147 = score(doc=3071,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3071, 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=3071)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22