Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011789299 = product of:
  0.023578597 = sum of:
    0.023578597 = product of:
      0.047157194 = sum of:
        0.047157194 = weight(_text_:systems in 1092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047157194 = score(doc=1092,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 1092, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1092)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bericht über: Levels of Reality, Seminar, Bolzano (Bozen) Italy, 26-28 September 2007: Ontologies, the knowledge organization systems now widely used in knowledge management applications, take their name from a branch of philosophy. Philosophical ontology deals with the kinds and the properties of what exists, and with how they can be described by categories like entity, attribute, or process. Readers familiar with facet analysis will notice some analogy with the "fundamental categories" of faceted classifications, and this resemblance is not accidental. Indeed, knowledge organization systems use conceptual structures that can be variously reconnected with the categories of ontology. Though having more practical purposes, the ontologies and classifications of information science can benefit of those of philosophy.
Darin: "However, John Sowa (Vivomind, USA) argued in his speech that the formalized approach, already undertaken by the pioneering project Cyc now having run for 23 years, is not the best way to analyze complex systems. People don't really use axioms in their cognitive processes (even mathematicians first get an idea intuitively, then work on axioms and proofs only at the moment of writing papers). To map between different ontologies, the Vivomind Analogy Engine throws axioms out, and searches instead for analogies in their structures. Analogy is a pragmatic human faculty using a combination of the three logical procedures of deduction, induction, and abduction. Guarino comments that people can communicate without need of axioms as they share a common context, but in order to teach computers how to operate, the requirements are different: he would not trust an airport control system working by analogy."

0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 1095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=1095,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 1095, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Most existing knowledge organization systems (KOS) are based on disciplines. However, as research is increasingly multidisciplinary, scholars need tools allowing them to explore relations between phenomena throughout the whole spectrum of knowledge. We focus on the dependence relationship, holding between one phenomenon and those at lower integrative levels on which it depends for its existence, like alpinism on mountains, and mountains on rocks. This relationship was first described by D.J. Foskett in the context of CRG's work towards a non-disciplinary scheme. We discuss its possible status and representation in three kinds of KOS: thesauri, classification schemes, and ontologies. In thesaural structures, dependence could be one of the subtypes of associative relationships (RT) which have been wished to enrich their semantic functions. In classification, it could act together with hierarchy as a structuring principle, providing a way of connecting and sorting main classes based on integrative levels. In ontologies, it could be defined as a dependsOn direct slot, expressing the fact that through it a class does not inherit all properties of the other class on which it depends. We argue that providing search interfaces with cross-disciplinary links of this kind can give users more adequate tools to examine the recorded knowledge through creative paths overcoming some limitations of its canonical segmentation into disciplines.

0.008252509 = product of:
  0.016505018 = sum of:
    0.016505018 = product of:
      0.033010036 = sum of:
        0.033010036 = weight(_text_:systems in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033010036 = score(doc=3750,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.20583579 = fieldWeight in 3750, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3750)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As an Italian chapter of ISKO has recently been reorganized, I was kindly invited to Write a short report an current KO activities in our country. So, in the following, I will briefly illustrate the local situation of the various kinds of knowledge organization systems, as well as related developments and activities. I am grateful to Paola Capitani, Emanuela Casson, Michele Santoro, and Lorena Zuccolo for providing useful information to be included here.

Content

Terminology and thesauri BNCF is also involved in a working group collecting information an online terminological resources <http://wwwindire.it/websemantico>. The group is headed by Paola Capitani, and has organized several roundtables an terminology in special domains, such as economy, fashion, law, and education. Thesauri are generally poorly known and used in Italy, although there are significant exceptions: among faceted systems we can mention the "Thesauro italiano di sociologia," published in 1999, and the "Thesaurus regionale toscano," as well as specialized an social sciences including a general outline, available both in print (1996) and online <http:// www regione.toscana.it/ius/ns-thesaurus/>. Classification systems The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) is by far the most widespread classification scheme in Italian libraries. A working group, coordinated by Luigi Crocetti, regularly translates the new editions of DDC manuals, and gives refresher courses an it for librarians. BNCF makes DDC numbers for bibliographical records both of its own catalogue, and of the national bibliography (= Bibliografia nazionale italiana: BNI), which is available for other libraries in a CD-ROM edition. A very large number of public libraries use DDC for their shelfmarks, so that users are accustomed to it. This situation is different from other European countries, e.g., Spain where UDC is widespread."

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=534,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 534, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=534)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Knowledge organization systems and services"

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 2134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=2134,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 2134, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2134)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Research can benefit by periodical consideration of its status in a long-term perspective. In knowledge organization (KO), a number of basic questions remain to be addressed in the 21st century. Ten of them are identified and synthetically discussed: (1) Can KO principles be extended to a broader scope, including hypertexts, multimedia, museum objects, and monuments? (2) Can the two basic approaches, ontological and epistemological, be reconciled? (3) Can any ontological foundation of KO be identified? (4) Should disciplines continue to be the structural base of KO? (5) How can viewpoint warrant be respected? (6) How can KO be adapted to local collection needs? (7) How can KO deal with changes in knowledge? (8) How can KO systems represent all the dimensions listed above? (9) How can software and formats be improved to better serve these needs? (10) Who should do KO: information professionals, authors or readers?

0.0068065543 = product of:
  0.013613109 = sum of:
    0.013613109 = product of:
      0.027226217 = sum of:
        0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027226217 = score(doc=661,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 661, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=661)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Some relevant proposals regarding the future of knowledge organization emerged during the 8th conference of the ISKO Spanish chapter, which took place in the beautiful, lively atmosphere of the town of León, between 18 and 20 of April 2007. These proposals are here labeled as "the Leon manifesto", and can be summarized in the following points: - the current trend towards an increasing interdisciplinarity of knowledge calls for essentially new knowledge organization systems (KOS), based on a substantive revision of the principles underlying the traditional discipline-based KOS; - this innovation is not only desirable, but also feasible, and should be implemented by actually developing some new KOS; instead of disciplines, the basic unity of the new KOS should be phenomena of the real world as it is represented in human knowledge; - the new KOS should allow users to shift from one perspective or viewpoint to another, thus reflecting the multidimensional nature of complex thought. In particular, it should allow them to search independently for particular phenomena, for particular theories about phenomena (and about relations between phenomena), and for particular methods of investigation; - the connections between phenomena, those between phenomena and the theories studying them, and those between phenomena and the methods to investigate them, can be expressed and managed by analytico-synthetic techniques already developed in faceted classification.