Search (27 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Begriffstheorie"
  1. Dahlberg, I.: ¬Die gegenstandsbezogene, analytische Begriffstheorie und ihre Definitionsarten (1987) 0.02
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = product of:
          0.09898309 = sum of:
            0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09898309 = score(doc=880,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 880, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=880)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Pages
    S.9-22
  2. Wüster, E.: Begriffs- und Themaklassifikation : Unterschiede in ihrem Wesen und in ihrer Anwendung (1971) 0.02
    0.021210661 = product of:
      0.042421322 = sum of:
        0.042421322 = product of:
          0.084842645 = sum of:
            0.084842645 = weight(_text_:22 in 3904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.084842645 = score(doc=3904,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3904, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3904)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 22(1971) H.3, S.98-104 (T.1); H.4, S.143-150 (T.2)
  3. Dahlberg, I.: On the theory of the concept (1979) 0.02
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = product of:
          0.06534292 = sum of:
            0.06534292 = weight(_text_:systems in 1615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06534292 = score(doc=1615,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 1615, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1615)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Ordering systems for global information networks. Proc. of the 3rd Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Bombay 1975
  4. Svenonius, E.: Indexical contents (1982) 0.02
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = product of:
          0.06534292 = sum of:
            0.06534292 = weight(_text_:systems in 27) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06534292 = score(doc=27,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 27, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=27)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg
  5. Sowa, J.F.: Top-level ontological categories (1995) 0.02
    0.015401474 = product of:
      0.030802948 = sum of:
        0.030802948 = product of:
          0.061605897 = sum of:
            0.061605897 = weight(_text_:systems in 4743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.061605897 = score(doc=4743,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 4743, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4743)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Surveys ontological questions that arise in artificial intelligence, some of the answers that have been proposed by various philosophers, and an application of the philosophical analysis to the clarification of some current issues in artificial intelligence. Charles Sanders Peirce and Alfred North Whitehead have developed the most complete systems of categories. Their analyses suggest a basic structure of categories that can provide some guidelines for the design of artificial intelligence systems
  6. Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory (2009) 0.02
    0.015219918 = product of:
      0.030439837 = sum of:
        0.030439837 = product of:
          0.060879674 = sum of:
            0.060879674 = weight(_text_:systems in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.060879674 = score(doc=3461,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.37961838 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Concept theory is an extremely broad, interdisciplinary and complex field of research related to many deep fields with very long historical traditions without much consensus. However, information science and knowledge organization cannot avoid relating to theories of concepts. Knowledge organizing systems (e.g., classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies) should be understood as systems basically organizing concepts and their semantic relations. The same is the case with information retrieval systems. Different theories of concepts have different implications for how to construe, evaluate, and use such systems. Based on a post-Kuhnian view of paradigms, this article put forward arguments that the best understanding and classification of theories of concepts is to view and classify them in accordance with epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism). It is also argued that the historicist and pragmatist understandings of concepts are the most fruitful views and that this understanding may be part of a broader paradigm shift that is also beginning to take place in information science. The importance of historicist and pragmatic theories of concepts for information science is outlined.
  7. Dahlberg, I.: Zur Theorie des Begriffs (1974) 0.01
    0.014147157 = product of:
      0.028294314 = sum of:
        0.028294314 = product of:
          0.056588627 = sum of:
            0.056588627 = weight(_text_:systems in 1617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.056588627 = score(doc=1617,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 1617, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1617)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    A concept is regarded as the common element of both classification systems and thesauri. Reality and knowledge are not represented by words or terms but by the meanings "behind" these tokens. A concept of, say, an object, a property of an object, a process, etc. is derived from verbal statements on these as subjects and may therefore be defined as the whole of true and possible predicates that can be collected on a given subject. It is from these predicates that the characteristics of the corresponding concepts can be derived. Common characteristics in different concepts lead to relationsbetween concepts, which relations in turn are factors for the formation of concept systems. Different kinds of relationships as well as different kinds of concepts are distinguished. It is pointed out that an orderly supply of the elements for propositions (informative statements) on new knowledge requires the construction and availability of such concept systems
  8. Dahlberg, I.: Begriffsarbeit in der Wissensorganisation (2010) 0.01
    0.014140441 = product of:
      0.028280882 = sum of:
        0.028280882 = product of:
          0.056561764 = sum of:
            0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.056561764 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3726, 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=3726)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  9. Principles of semantic networks : explorations in the representation of knowledge (1991) 0.01
    0.013613109 = product of:
      0.027226217 = sum of:
        0.027226217 = product of:
          0.054452434 = sum of:
            0.054452434 = weight(_text_:systems in 1677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054452434 = score(doc=1677,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.339541 = fieldWeight in 1677, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1677)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Enthält 3 thematische Sektionen: (1) Issues in knowledge representation; (2) formal analyses; (3) systems for knowledge representation
  10. Storms, G.; VanMechelen, I.; DeBoeck, P.: Structural-analysis of the intension and extension of semantic concepts (1994) 0.01
    0.012372886 = product of:
      0.024745772 = sum of:
        0.024745772 = product of:
          0.049491543 = sum of:
            0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049491543 = score(doc=2574,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2574, 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=2574)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 7.2000 19:17:40
  11. Bauer, G.: ¬Die vielseitigen Anwendungsmöglichkeiten des Kategorienprinzips bei der Wissensorganisation (2006) 0.01
    0.012372886 = product of:
      0.024745772 = sum of:
        0.024745772 = product of:
          0.049491543 = sum of:
            0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 5710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049491543 = score(doc=5710,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5710, 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=5710)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Pages
    S.22-33
  12. Hjoerland, B.: Concepts, paradigms and knowledge organization (2010) 0.01
    0.011551105 = product of:
      0.02310221 = sum of:
        0.02310221 = product of:
          0.04620442 = sum of:
            0.04620442 = weight(_text_:systems in 3512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04620442 = score(doc=3512,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 3512, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3512)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    It is argued that concepts are the building blocks of knowledge organizing systems (KOS). Objections to this view are considered and answers are provided. By implication the theory of concepts constitutes the foundation for knowledge organization (KO). The theory of concepts is understood as related to and derived from theories of knowledge. Different theories of knowledge such as empiricism, rationalism, historicism and pragmatism imply different theories of concepts. Such different epistemologies and their associated theories of concepts represent different methodological ideals which probably compete in all knowledge domains. Different approaches to KO are also in fundamental ways associated with different theories of concepts. The paper holds that the historicist and pragmatic theory of concept should be considered most valuable. By implication is it is necessary to know about competing theories in the fields being organized. A further implication of the pragmatic view is that the construction of a KOS must be understood as a way of participating in the discourses in the domain that is being represented.
    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
  13. Simoes, G.; Machado, L.; Gnoli, C.; Souza, R.: Can an ontologically-oriented KO do without concepts? (2020) 0.01
    0.011551105 = product of:
      0.02310221 = sum of:
        0.02310221 = product of:
          0.04620442 = sum of:
            0.04620442 = weight(_text_:systems in 4964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04620442 = score(doc=4964,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 4964, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4964)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The ontological approach in the development of KOS is an attempt to overcome the limitations of the traditional epistemological approach. Questions raise about the representation and organization of ontologically-oriented KO units, such as BFO universals or ILC phenomena. The study aims to compare the ontological approaches of BFO and ILC using a hermeneutic approach. We found that the differences between the units of the two systems are primarily due to the formal level of abstraction of BFO and the different organizations, namely the grouping of phenomena into ILC classes that represent complex compounds of entities in the BFO approach. In both systems the use of concepts is considered instrumental, although in the ILC they constitute the intersubjective component of the phenomena whereas in BFO they serve to access the entities of reality but are not part of them.
  14. Thellefsen, M.: ¬The dynamics of information representation and knowledge mediation (2006) 0.01
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = product of:
          0.043561947 = sum of:
            0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043561947 = score(doc=170,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 170, 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=170)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper present an alternative approach to knowledge organization based on semiotic reasoning. The semantic distance between domain specific terminology and KOS is analyzed by means of their different sign systems. It is argued that a faceted approach may provide the means needed to minimize the gap between knowledge domains and KOS.
  15. Treude, L.: ¬Das Problem der Konzeptdefinition in der Wissensorganisation : über einen missglückten Versuch der Klärung (2013) 0.01
    0.010605331 = product of:
      0.021210661 = sum of:
        0.021210661 = product of:
          0.042421322 = sum of:
            0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042421322 = score(doc=3060,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3060, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3060)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.22, 2013, S.xx-xx
  16. Hjoerland, B.: Are relations in thesauri "context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds"? (2015) 0.01
    0.009625921 = product of:
      0.019251842 = sum of:
        0.019251842 = product of:
          0.038503684 = sum of:
            0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.038503684 = score(doc=2033,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 2033, 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=2033)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Much of the literature of information science and knowledge organization has accepted and built upon Elaine Svenonius's (2004) claim that "paradigmatic relationships are those that are context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds" (p. 583). At the same time, the literature demonstrates a common understanding that paradigmatic relations are the kinds of semantic relations used in thesauri and other knowledge organization systems (including equivalence relations, hierarchical relations, and associative relations). This understanding is problematic and harmful because it directs attention away from the empirical and contextual basis for knowledge-organizing systems. Whether A is a kind of X is certainly not context-free and definitional in empirical sciences or in much everyday information. Semantic relations are theory-dependent and, in biology, for example, a scientific revolution has taken place in which many relations have changed following the new taxonomic paradigm named "cladism." This biological example is not an exception, but the norm. Semantic relations including paradigmatic relations are not a priori but are dependent on subject knowledge, scientific findings, and paradigms. As long as information scientists and knowledge organizers isolate themselves from subject knowledge, knowledge organization cannot possibly progress.
  17. Pathak, L.P.: Concept-term relationship and a classified schedule of isolates for the term 'concept' (2000) 0.01
    0.009529176 = product of:
      0.019058352 = sum of:
        0.019058352 = product of:
          0.038116705 = sum of:
            0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 6046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.038116705 = score(doc=6046,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 6046, 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=6046)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Draws attention to the efforts to define the terms 'concept' and 'term' and suggests a schedule of isolates for the term 'concept' under eight headings: 0. Concept; 1. Theoretical aspects; 2. Learning theory and Psychological aspects; 3. Origin, evolution, formation, construction; 4. Semantic aspects; 5.Terms and Terminology; 6. Usage and discipline-specific applications; and 7. Concepts and ISAR systems. The schedule also includes about 150 aspects/isolate terms related to 'concept' along with the name of the authors who have used them. The schedule is intended to help in identifying the various aspects of a concept with the help of the terms used for them. These aspects may guide to some extent, in dissecting and seeing the social science concepts from various point of views
  18. Jouis, C.: Logic of relationships (2002) 0.01
    0.008837775 = product of:
      0.01767555 = sum of:
        0.01767555 = product of:
          0.0353511 = sum of:
            0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0353511 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    1.12.2002 11:12:22
  19. Marradi, A.: ¬The concept of concept : concepts and terms (2012) 0.01
    0.008837775 = product of:
      0.01767555 = sum of:
        0.01767555 = product of:
          0.0353511 = sum of:
            0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0353511 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 1.2012 13:11:25
  20. Besler, G.; Szulc, J.: Gottlob Frege's theory of definition as useful tool for knowledge organization : definition of 'context' - case study (2014) 0.01
    0.008837775 = product of:
      0.01767555 = sum of:
        0.01767555 = product of:
          0.0353511 = sum of:
            0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0353511 = score(doc=1440,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1440, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1440)
          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