Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0129082 = product of:
  0.09035739 = sum of:
    0.082401805 = weight(_text_:representation in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.082401805 = score(doc=2654,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.71167994 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
    0.007955586 = product of:
      0.023866756 = sum of:
        0.023866756 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023866756 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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

0.009460352 = product of:
  0.06622247 = sum of:
    0.058266878 = weight(_text_:representation in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058266878 = score(doc=5095,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.50323373 = fieldWeight in 5095, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5095)
    0.007955586 = product of:
      0.023866756 = sum of:
        0.023866756 = weight(_text_:22 in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023866756 = score(doc=5095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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

0.00475648 = product of:
  0.06659072 = sum of:
    0.06659072 = weight(_text_:representation in 618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06659072 = score(doc=618,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.57512426 = fieldWeight in 618, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=618)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

A lattice theoretical description of concept hierarchies is developed using for attributes the terms "given", "negated", "open" and "impossible" as the truth-values of a four-valued logic. Similar to the theory of B. Ganter and R. Wille so does this framework permit a precise representation of the usual interdependences in a field of related concepts - such as superconcepts, subconcept, contrary concepts etc. -, whenever the concepts under consideration can be sufficiently described by the presence or absence of certain attributes ...

0.0033633395 = product of:
  0.04708675 = sum of:
    0.04708675 = weight(_text_:representation in 3457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04708675 = score(doc=3457,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 3457, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3457)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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

0.0029429218 = product of:
  0.041200902 = sum of:
    0.041200902 = weight(_text_:representation in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041200902 = score(doc=3033,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.35583997 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Objects, attributes, and concepts are basic notations of conceptual knowledge; they are linked by the following four basic relations: an object has an attribute, an object belongs to a concept, an attribute abstracts from a concept, and a concept is a subconcept of another concept. These structural elements are well mathematized in formal concept analysis. Therefore, conceptual knowledge systems can be mathematically modelled in the frame of formal concept analysis. How such modelling may be performed is indicated by an example of a conceptual knowledge system. The formal definition of the model finally clarifies in which ways representation, inference, acquisition, and communication of conceptual knowledge can be mathematically treated

0.0029429218 = product of:
  0.041200902 = sum of:
    0.041200902 = weight(_text_:representation in 5230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041200902 = score(doc=5230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.35583997 = fieldWeight in 5230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5230)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0029429218 = product of:
  0.041200902 = sum of:
    0.041200902 = weight(_text_:representation in 6055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041200902 = score(doc=6055,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.35583997 = fieldWeight in 6055, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6055)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

A lattice-based model for information retrieval was suggested in the 1960's but has been seen as a theoretical possibility hard to practically apply ever since. This paper attempts to revive the lattice model and demonstrate its applicability in an information retrieval system, FalR, that incorporates a graphical representation of a faceted thesaurus. It shows how Boolean queries can be lattice-theoretically related to the concepts of the thesaurus and visualized within the thesaurus display. An advantage of FaIR is that it allows for a high level of transparency of the system, which can be controlled by the user

0.0029429218 = product of:
  0.041200902 = sum of:
    0.041200902 = weight(_text_:representation in 6658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041200902 = score(doc=6658,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.35583997 = fieldWeight in 6658, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6658)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This paper describes a graphical interface for the navigation and construction of faceted thesauri that is based on formal concept analysis. Each facet of a thesaurus is represented as a mathematical lattice that is further subdivided into components. Users can graphically navigate through the Java implementation of the interface by clicking on terms that connect facets and components. Since there are many applications for thesauri in the knowledge representation field, such a graphical interface has the potential of being very useful

0.0025225044 = product of:
  0.03531506 = sum of:
    0.03531506 = weight(_text_:representation in 5085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03531506 = score(doc=5085,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 5085, 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=5085)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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

0.0025225044 = product of:
  0.03531506 = sum of:
    0.03531506 = weight(_text_:representation in 2737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03531506 = score(doc=2737,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 2737, 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=2737)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

In recent years, knowledge structuring is assuming important roles in several real world applications such as decision support, cooperative problem solving, e-commerce, Semantic Web and, even in planning systems. Ontologies play an important role in supporting automated processes to access information and are at the core of new strategies for the development of knowledge-based systems. Yet, developing an ontology is a time-consuming task which often needs an accurate domain expertise to tackle structural and logical difficulties in the definition of concepts as well as conceivable relationships. This work presents an ontology-based retrieval approach, that supports data organization and visualization and provides a friendly navigation model. It exploits the fuzzy extension of the Formal Concept Analysis theory to elicit conceptualizations from datasets and generate a hierarchy-based representation of extracted knowledge. An intuitive graphical interface provides a multi-facets view of the built ontology. Through a transparent query-based retrieval, final users navigate across concepts, relations and population.

0.0021020873 = product of:
  0.02942922 = sum of:
    0.02942922 = weight(_text_:representation in 4766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02942922 = score(doc=4766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 4766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4766)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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

0.0021020873 = product of:
  0.02942922 = sum of:
    0.02942922 = weight(_text_:representation in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02942922 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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

0.0013106616 = product of:
  0.01834926 = sum of:
    0.01834926 = product of:
      0.055047777 = sum of:
        0.055047777 = weight(_text_:29 in 4305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055047777 = score(doc=4305,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.6218451 = fieldWeight in 4305, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4305)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:29:59

6.494356E-4 = product of:
  0.009092098 = sum of:
    0.009092098 = product of:
      0.027276294 = sum of:
        0.027276294 = weight(_text_:22 in 1901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027276294 = score(doc=1901,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Knowledge organization. 22(1995) no.2, S.78-81