Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.016505018 = product of:
  0.033010036 = sum of:
    0.033010036 = product of:
      0.06602007 = sum of:
        0.06602007 = weight(_text_:systems in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06602007 = score(doc=3523,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.41167158 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This work tries to propose a set of evaluation dimensions for the analysis of the knowledge organization systems (KOS), building over previous research and the available literature on the subject. It presents a compiled taxonomy of KOSs, a set of tentative characteristics proposed in the literature and the authors' spectra proposal. The full details of the typology are not covered in the scope of the article, but will be available as an ontology in the near future.

Source

Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO Conference, 23-26 February 2010 Rome, Italy. Edited by Claudio Gnoli and Fulvio Mazzocchi

0.010890487 = product of:
  0.021780973 = sum of:
    0.021780973 = product of:
      0.043561947 = sum of:
        0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043561947 = score(doc=859,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 859, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=859)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 5881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=5881,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 5881, 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=5881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Traditionally connected to philosophy, the term ontology is increasingly related to information systems areas. Some researchers consider the approaches of the two disciplinary contexts to be completely different. Others consider that, although different, they should talk to each other, as both seek to answer similar questions. With the extensive literature on this topic, we intend to contribute to the understanding of the use of the term ontology in current research and which references support this use. An exploratory study was developed with a mixed methodology and a sample collected from the Web of Science of articles publishe in 2018. The results show the current prevalence of computer science in studies related to ontology and also of Gruber's view suggesting ontology as kind of conceptualization, a dominant view in that field. Some researchers, particularly in the field of biomedicine, do not adhere to this dominant view but to another one that seems closer to ontological study in the philosophical context. The term ontology, in the context of information systems, appears to be consolidating with a meaning different from the original, presenting traces of the process of "metaphorization" in the transfer of the term between the two fields of study.

0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=139,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 139, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=139)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper analyzes previous work on the classification of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS), discusses strengths and weaknesses, and proposes a new and integrative framework. It argues that current analyses of the KOS tend to be idiosyncratic and incomplete, relying on a limited number of dimensions of analysis. The paper discusses why and how KOS should be classified on a new basis. Based on the available literature and previous work, the authors propose a wider set of dimensions for the analysis of KOS. These are represented in a taxonomy of KOS. Issues arising are discussed.

0.0070702205 = product of:
  0.014140441 = sum of:
    0.014140441 = product of:
      0.028280882 = sum of:
        0.028280882 = weight(_text_:22 in 1441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028280882 = score(doc=1441,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1441, 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=1441)
      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

0.0070702205 = product of:
  0.014140441 = sum of:
    0.014140441 = product of:
      0.028280882 = sum of:
        0.028280882 = weight(_text_:22 in 1442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028280882 = score(doc=1442,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1442, 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=1442)
      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

0.0068065543 = product of:
  0.013613109 = sum of:
    0.013613109 = product of:
      0.027226217 = sum of:
        0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 3625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027226217 = score(doc=3625,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 3625, 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=3625)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge organization (KO) as an activity is, among other meanings, a process for conceptual modeling of knowledge domains that produces a consensual abstraction model of this domain with a particular purpose. It adopts a myriad of techniques to analyze and build efficient knowledge organization systems, and one of these techniques is called sentiment analysis (SA) or opinion mining, which is emerging as promising and useful in a variety of ways. It is based in NLP and AI algorithms, and aims at identifying opinions and emotions toward any person, organization or subject; evaluating them as positive or negative, in both binary and graded fashions. This study sought to show various aspects of the implementation of SA for knowledge organization tasks as register ed in the scientific literature. We began with exploratory bibliographic research and built a corpus of 91 scientific papers, written in English, selected in the LISA Database, between 2000 to 2016. We analyzed these papers and extracted title, year of publication, author(s) and institution(s), title of the journal where they were published, keywords, the LISA classification code, methods/techniques adopted and its application areas. Our main findings are that theoretical papers still prevail, which may indicate a field in the early stages. We found many institutions and authors from Asia, which points to a new shift in world expertise. We concluded that SA is still a novelty in the KO field, being slowly adopted as an aid to the main tasks, as document classification.

0.0068065543 = product of:
  0.013613109 = sum of:
    0.013613109 = product of:
      0.027226217 = sum of:
        0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 5300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027226217 = score(doc=5300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 5300, 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=5300)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The web has been, in the last decades, the place where information retrieval achieved its maximum importance, given its ubiquity and the sheer volume of information. However, its exponential growth made the retrieval task increasingly hard, relying in its effectiveness on idiosyncratic and somewhat biased ranking algorithms. To deal with this problem, a "new" web, called the Semantic Web (SW), was proposed, bringing along concepts like "Web of Data" and "Linked Data," although the definitions and connections among these concepts are often unclear. Based on a qualitative approach built over a literature review, a definition of SW is presented, discussing the related concepts sometimes used as synonyms. It concludes that the SW is a comprehensive and ambitious construct that includes the great purpose of making the web a global database. It also follows the specifications developed and/or associated with its operationalization and the necessary procedures for the connection of data in an open format on the web. The goals of this comprehensive SW are the union of two outcomes still tenuously connected: the virtually unlimited possibility of connections between data-the web domain-with the potentiality of the automated inference of "intelligent" systems-the semantic component.