Search (62 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Begriffstheorie"
  1. Friedman, A.; Thellefsen, M.: Concept theory and semiotics in knowledge organization (2011) 0.08 
    0.07838102 = product of:
  0.15676203 = sum of:
    0.120177045 = weight(_text_:representation in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120177045 = score(doc=292,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.6100114 = fieldWeight in 292, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=292)
    0.03658498 = product of:
      0.10975494 = sum of:
        0.10975494 = weight(_text_:theory in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10975494 = score(doc=292,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.61640584 = fieldWeight in 292, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=292)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the basics of semiotic analysis and concept theory that represent two dominant approaches to knowledge representation, and explore how these approaches are fruitful for knowledge organization. Design/methodology/approach - In particular the semiotic theory formulated by the American philosopher C.S. Peirce and the concept theory formulated by Ingetraut Dahlberg are investigated. The paper compares the differences and similarities between these two theories of knowledge representation. Findings - The semiotic model is a general and unrestricted model of signs and Dahlberg's model is thought from the perspective and demand of better knowledge organization system (KOS) development. It is found that Dahlberg's concept model provides a detailed method for analyzing and representing concepts in a KOS, where semiotics provides the philosophical context for representation. Originality/value - This paper is the first to combine theories of knowledge representation, semiotic and concept theory, within the context of knowledge organization.
  2. Conceptual structures : theory, tools and applications. 6th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS'98, Montpellier, France, August, 10-12, 1998, Proceedings (1998) 0.05 
    0.05096655 = product of:
  0.1019331 = sum of:
    0.08011803 = weight(_text_:representation in 1378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08011803 = score(doc=1378,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 1378, 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=1378)
    0.021815069 = product of:
      0.06544521 = sum of:
        0.06544521 = weight(_text_:theory in 1378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06544521 = score(doc=1378,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.36755344 = fieldWeight in 1378, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1378)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS'98, held in Montpellier, France, in August 1998. The 20 revised full papers and 10 research reports presented were carefully selected from a total of 66 submissions; also included are three invited contributions. The volume is divided in topical sections on knowledge representation and knowledge engineering, tools, conceptual graphs and other models, relationships with logics, algorithms and complexity, natural language processing, and applications.
  3. Jouis, C.: Logic of relationships (2002) 0.05 
    0.048199594 = product of:
  0.09639919 = sum of:
    0.08673032 = weight(_text_:representation in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08673032 = score(doc=1204,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.44023782 = fieldWeight in 1204, 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=1204)
    0.00966887 = product of:
      0.02900661 = sum of:
        0.02900661 = weight(_text_:22 in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02900661 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    A main goal of recent studies in semantics is to integrate into conceptual structures the models of representation used in linguistics, logic, and/or artificial intelligence. A fundamental problem resides in the need to structure knowledge and then to check the validity of constructed representations. We propose associating logical properties with relationships by introducing the relationships into a typed and functional system of specifcations. This makes it possible to compare conceptual representations against the relationships established between the concepts. The mandatory condition to validate such a conceptual representation is consistency. The semantic system proposed is based an a structured set of semantic primitives-types, relations, and properties-based an a global model of language processing, Applicative and Cognitive Grammar (ACG) (Desc16s, 1990), and an extension of this model to terminology (Jouis & Mustafa 1995, 1996, 1997). The ACG postulates three levels of representation of languages, including a cognitive level. At this level, the meanings of lexical predicates are represented by semantic cognitive schemes. From this perspective, we propose a set of semantic concepts, which defines an organized system of meanings. Relations are part of a specification network based an a general terminological scheure (i.e., a coherent system of meanings of relations). In such a system, a specific relation may be characterized as to its: (1) functional type (the semantic type of arguments of the relation); (2) algebraic properties (reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, etc.); and (3) combinatorial relations with other entities in the same context (for instance, the part of the text where a concept is defined).
    Date
    1.12.2002 11:12:22
  4. Principles of semantic networks : explorations in the representation of knowledge (1991) 0.04 
    0.04336516 = product of:
  0.17346063 = sum of:
    0.17346063 = weight(_text_:representation in 1677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17346063 = score(doc=1677,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.88047564 = fieldWeight in 1677, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1677)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Enthält 3 thematische Sektionen: (1) Issues in knowledge representation; (2) formal analyses; (3) systems for knowledge representation
  5. Conceptual structures : logical, linguistic, and computational issues. 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2000, Darmstadt, Germany, August 14-18, 2000 (2000) 0.04 
    0.037680827 = product of:
  0.075361654 = sum of:
    0.067181006 = weight(_text_:representation in 691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067181006 = score(doc=691,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.34100673 = fieldWeight in 691, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=691)
    0.008180651 = product of:
      0.024541952 = sum of:
        0.024541952 = weight(_text_:theory in 691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024541952 = score(doc=691,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.13783254 = fieldWeight in 691, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=691)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Computer scientists create models of a perceived reality. Through AI techniques, these models aim at providing the basic support for emulating cognitive behavior such as reasoning and learning, which is one of the main goals of the Al research effort. Such computer models are formed through the interaction of various acquisition and inference mechanisms: perception, concept learning, conceptual clustering, hypothesis testing, probabilistic inference, etc., and are represented using different paradigms tightly linked to the processes that use them. Among these paradigms let us cite: biological models (neural nets, genetic programming), logic-based models (first-order logic, modal logic, rule-based systems), virtual reality models (object systems, agent systems), probabilistic models (Bayesian nets, fuzzy logic), linguistic models (conceptual dependency graphs, language-based rep resentations), etc. One of the strengths of the Conceptual Graph (CG) theory is its versatility in terms of the representation paradigms under which it falls. It can be viewed and therefore used, under different representation paradigms, which makes it a popular choice for a wealth of applications. Its full coupling with different cognitive processes lead to the opening of the field toward related research communities such as the Description Logic, Formal Concept Analysis, and Computational Linguistic communities. We now see more and more research results from one community enrich the other, laying the foundations of common philosophical grounds from which a successful synergy can emerge. ICCS 2000 embodies this spirit of research collaboration. It presents a set of papers that we believe, by their exposure, will benefit the whole community. For instance, the technical program proposes tracks on Conceptual Ontologies, Language, Formal Concept Analysis, Computational Aspects of Conceptual Structures, and Formal Semantics, with some papers on pragmatism and human related aspects of computing. Never before was the program of ICCS formed by so heterogeneously rooted theories of knowledge representation and use. We hope that this swirl of ideas will benefit you as much as it already has benefited us while putting together this program
    Content
    Concepts and Language: The Role of Conceptual Structure in Human Evolution (Keith Devlin) - Concepts in Linguistics - Concepts in Natural Language (Gisela Harras) - Patterns, Schemata, and Types: Author Support through Formalized Experience (Felix H. Gatzemeier) - Conventions and Notations for Knowledge Representation and Retrieval (Philippe Martin) - Conceptual Ontology: Ontology, Metadata, and Semiotics (John F. Sowa) - Pragmatically Yours (Mary Keeler) - Conceptual Modeling for Distributed Ontology Environments (Deborah L. McGuinness) - Discovery of Class Relations in Exception Structured Knowledge Bases (Hendra Suryanto, Paul Compton) - Conceptual Graphs: Perspectives: CGs Applications: Where Are We 7 Years after the First ICCS ? (Michel Chein, David Genest) - The Engineering of a CC-Based System: Fundamental Issues (Guy W. Mineau) - Conceptual Graphs, Metamodeling, and Notation of Concepts (Olivier Gerbé, Guy W. Mineau, Rudolf K. Keller) - Knowledge Representation and Reasonings: Based on Graph Homomorphism (Marie-Laure Mugnier) - User Modeling Using Conceptual Graphs for Intelligent Agents (James F. Baldwin, Trevor P. Martin, Aimilia Tzanavari) - Towards a Unified Querying System of Both Structured and Semi-structured Imprecise Data Using Fuzzy View (Patrice Buche, Ollivier Haemmerlé) - Formal Semantics of Conceptual Structures: The Extensional Semantics of the Conceptual Graph Formalism (Guy W. Mineau) - Semantics of Attribute Relations in Conceptual Graphs (Pavel Kocura) - Nested Concept Graphs and Triadic Power Context Families (Susanne Prediger) - Negations in Simple Concept Graphs (Frithjof Dau) - Extending the CG Model by Simulations (Jean-François Baget) - Contextual Logic and Formal Concept Analysis: Building and Structuring Description Logic Knowledge Bases: Using Least Common Subsumers and Concept Analysis (Franz Baader, Ralf Molitor) - On the Contextual Logic of Ordinal Data (Silke Pollandt, Rudolf Wille) - Boolean Concept Logic (Rudolf Wille) - Lattices of Triadic Concept Graphs (Bernd Groh, Rudolf Wille) - Formalizing Hypotheses with Concepts (Bernhard Ganter, Sergei 0. Kuznetsov) - Generalized Formal Concept Analysis (Laurent Chaudron, Nicolas Maille) - A Logical Generalization of Formal Concept Analysis (Sébastien Ferré, Olivier Ridoux) - On the Treatment of Incomplete Knowledge in Formal Concept Analysis (Peter Burmeister, Richard Holzer) - Conceptual Structures in Practice: Logic-Based Networks: Concept Graphs and Conceptual Structures (Peter W. Eklund) - Conceptual Knowledge Discovery and Data Analysis (Joachim Hereth, Gerd Stumme, Rudolf Wille, Uta Wille) - CEM - A Conceptual Email Manager (Richard Cole, Gerd Stumme) - A Contextual-Logic Extension of TOSCANA (Peter Eklund, Bernd Groh, Gerd Stumme, Rudolf Wille) - A Conceptual Graph Model for W3C Resource Description Framework (Olivier Corby, Rose Dieng, Cédric Hébert) - Computational Aspects of Conceptual Structures: Computing with Conceptual Structures (Bernhard Ganter) - Symmetry and the Computation of Conceptual Structures (Robert Levinson) An Introduction to SNePS 3 (Stuart C. Shapiro) - Composition Norm Dynamics Calculation with Conceptual Graphs (Aldo de Moor) - From PROLOG++ to PROLOG+CG: A CG Object-Oriented Logic Programming Language (Adil Kabbaj, Martin Janta-Polczynski) - A Cost-Bounded Algorithm to Control Events Generalization (Gaël de Chalendar, Brigitte Grau, Olivier Ferret)
  6. Cabré, M.T.: Do we need an autonomous theory of terms? (1999) 0.04 
    0.03742569 = product of:
  0.14970276 = sum of:
    0.14970276 = product of:
      0.22455412 = sum of:
        0.13089041 = weight(_text_:theory in 6289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13089041 = score(doc=6289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.7351069 = fieldWeight in 6289, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6289)
        0.093663715 = weight(_text_:29 in 6289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.093663715 = score(doc=6289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.6218451 = fieldWeight in 6289, 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=6289)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    5. 8.2001 13:29:43
  7. Jorna, R.J.: Knowledge representation and symbols in the mind : an analysis in cognitive psychology (1990) 0.04 
    0.035051636 = product of:
  0.14020655 = sum of:
    0.14020655 = weight(_text_:representation in 7305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14020655 = score(doc=7305,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.71167994 = fieldWeight in 7305, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7305)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  8. Sowa, J.F.: Knowledge representation : logical, philosophical, and computational foundations (2000) 0.04 
    0.035051636 = product of:
  0.14020655 = sum of:
    0.14020655 = weight(_text_:representation in 4360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14020655 = score(doc=4360,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.71167994 = fieldWeight in 4360, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4360)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  9. Guarino, N.: Formal ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation (1995) 0.03 
    0.034692124 = product of:
  0.1387685 = sum of:
    0.1387685 = weight(_text_:representation in 4745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1387685 = score(doc=4745,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.7043805 = fieldWeight in 4745, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4745)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Defends the systematic introduction of formal ontological principles in the current practice of knowledge engineering, and explores the various relationships between ontology and knowledge representatiom. Presents recent trends in this research area. Compares the dichotomy between reasoning and representation to the philosophical distinction between epistemology and ontology. Introduces the notion of the ontological level, intermediate between the epistemological and conceptual levels as a way to characterize a knowledge representation formalism taking into account the intended meaning of its primitives
  10. Barsalou, L.W.: Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields (1992) 0.03 
    0.031854097 = product of:
  0.06370819 = sum of:
    0.050073773 = weight(_text_:representation in 3217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050073773 = score(doc=3217,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 3217, 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=3217)
    0.013634419 = product of:
      0.040903255 = sum of:
        0.040903255 = weight(_text_:theory in 3217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040903255 = score(doc=3217,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 3217, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3217)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In this chapter I propose that frames provide the fundamental representation of knowledge in human cognition. In the first section, I raise problems with the feature list representations often found in theories of knowledge, and I sketch the solutions that frames provide to them. In the second section, I examine the three fundamental concepts of frames: attribute-value sets, structural invariants, and constraints. Because frames also represents the attributes, values, structural invariants, and constraints within a frame, the mechanism that constructs frames builds them recursively. The frame theory I propose borrows heavily from previous frame theories, although its collection of representational components is somewhat unique. Furthermore, frame theorists generally assume that frames are rigid configurations of independent attributes, whereas I propose that frames are dynamic relational structures whose form is flexible and context dependent. In the third section, I illustrate how frames support a wide variety of representational tasks central to conceptual processing in natural and artificial intelligence. Frames can represent exemplars and propositions, prototypes and membership, subordinates and taxonomies. Frames can also represent conceptual combinations, event sequences, rules, and plans. In the fourth section, I show how frames define the extent of conceptual fields and how they provide a powerful productive mechanism for generating specific concepts within a field.
  11. Eckes, T.: Knowledge structures and knowledge representation : psychological models of conceptual order (1990) 0.03 
    0.030044261 = product of:
  0.120177045 = sum of:
    0.120177045 = weight(_text_:representation in 861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120177045 = score(doc=861,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.6100114 = fieldWeight in 861, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=861)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  12. ¬The role of formal ontology in the information technology (1995) 0.03 
    0.025036886 = product of:
  0.100147545 = sum of:
    0.100147545 = weight(_text_:representation in 4746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100147545 = score(doc=4746,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.50834286 = fieldWeight in 4746, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4746)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    A special issue devoted to the role of formal ontology in information technology. Papers were given at the International Workshop on Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation, held in Padova, Iatly, Mar 95
  13. ¬The semantics of relationships : an interdisciplinary perspective (2002) 0.03 
    0.025036886 = product of:
  0.100147545 = sum of:
    0.100147545 = weight(_text_:representation in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100147545 = score(doc=1430,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.50834286 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Work on relationships takes place in many communities, including, among others, data modeling, knowledge representation, natural language processing, linguistics, and information retrieval. Unfortunately, continued disciplinary splintering and specialization keeps any one person from being familiar with the full expanse of that work. By including contributions form experts in a variety of disciplines and backgrounds, this volume demonstrates both the parallels that inform work on relationships across a number of fields and the singular emphases that have yet to be fully embraced, The volume is organized into 3 parts: (1) Types of relationships (2) Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning (3) Applications of relationships
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: Pt.1: Types of relationships: CRUDE, D.A.: Hyponymy and its varieties; FELLBAUM, C.: On the semantics of troponymy; PRIBBENOW, S.: Meronymic relationships: from classical mereology to complex part-whole relations; KHOO, C. u.a.: The many facets of cause-effect relation - Pt.2: Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning: GREEN, R.: Internally-structured conceptual models in cognitive semantics; HOVY, E.: Comparing sets of semantic relations in ontologies; GUARINO, N., C. WELTY: Identity and subsumption; JOUIS; C.: Logic of relationships - Pt.3: Applications of relationships: EVENS, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval; KHOO, C., S.H. MYAENG: Identifying semantic relations in text for information retrieval and information extraction; McCRAY, A.T., O. BODENREICHER: A conceptual framework for the biiomedical domain; HETZLER, B.: Visual analysis and exploration of relationships
    Footnote
    Mit ausführlicher Einleitung der Herausgeber zu den Themen: Types of relationships - Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning - Applications of relationships
  14. Rahmstorf, G.: ¬An integrated conceptual representation for words and phrases (1992) 0.03 
    0.025036886 = product of:
  0.100147545 = sum of:
    0.100147545 = weight(_text_:representation in 2415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100147545 = score(doc=2415,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.50834286 = fieldWeight in 2415, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2415)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  15. Besler, G.; Szulc, J.: Gottlob Frege's theory of definition as useful tool for knowledge organization : definition of 'context' - case study (2014) 0.02 
    0.022871075 = product of:
  0.0914843 = sum of:
    0.0914843 = product of:
      0.13722645 = sum of:
        0.10821984 = weight(_text_:theory in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10821984 = score(doc=1440,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.6077844 = fieldWeight in 1440, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1440)
        0.02900661 = weight(_text_:22 in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02900661 = score(doc=1440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The aim of this paper is to analyze the Gottlob Frege's (1848-1925) theory of definition as a tool for knowledge organization. The objective was achieved by discussing the theory of definition including: the aims of definition, kinds of definition, condition of correct definition, what is undefinable. Frege indicated the following aims of a defining: (1) to introduce a new word, which has had no precise meaning until then (2) to explain the meaning of a word; (3) to catch a thought. We would like to present three kinds of definitions used by Frege: a contextual definition, a stipulative definition and a piecemeal definition. In the history of theory of definition Frege was the first to have formulated the condition of a correct definition. According to Frege not everything can be defined, what is logically simple cannot have a proper definition Usability of Frege's theory of definition is referred in the case study. Definitions that serve as an example are definitions of 'context'. The term 'context' is used in different situations and meanings in the field of knowledge organization. The paper is rounded by a discussion of how Frege's theory of definition can be useful for knowledge organization. To present G. Frege's theory of definition in view of the need for knowledge organization we shall start with different ranges of knowledge organization.
    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
  16. Thellefsen, M.: ¬The dynamics of information representation and knowledge mediation (2006) 0.02 
    0.020029508 = product of:
  0.08011803 = sum of:
    0.08011803 = weight(_text_:representation in 170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08011803 = score(doc=170,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 170, 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=170)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  17. Working with conceptual structures : contributions to ICCS 2000. 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures: Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues. Darmstadt, August 14-18, 2000 (2000) 0.02 
    0.017525818 = product of:
  0.07010327 = sum of:
    0.07010327 = weight(_text_:representation in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07010327 = score(doc=5089,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.35583997 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Concepts & Language: Knowledge organization by procedures of natural language processing. A case study using the method GABEK (J. Zelger, J. Gadner) - Computer aided narrative analysis using conceptual graphs (H. Schärfe, P. 0hrstrom) - Pragmatic representation of argumentative text: a challenge for the conceptual graph approach (H. Irandoust, B. Moulin) - Conceptual graphs as a knowledge representation core in a complex language learning environment (G. Angelova, A. Nenkova, S. Boycheva, T. Nikolov) - Conceptual Modeling and Ontologies: Relationships and actions in conceptual categories (Ch. Landauer, K.L. Bellman) - Concept approximations for formal concept analysis (J. Saquer, J.S. Deogun) - Faceted information representation (U. Priß) - Simple concept graphs with universal quantifiers (J. Tappe) - A framework for comparing methods for using or reusing multiple ontologies in an application (J. van ZyI, D. Corbett) - Designing task/method knowledge-based systems with conceptual graphs (M. Leclère, F.Trichet, Ch. Choquet) - A logical ontology (J. Farkas, J. Sarbo) - Algorithms and Tools: Fast concept analysis (Ch. Lindig) - A framework for conceptual graph unification (D. Corbett) - Visual CP representation of knowledge (H.D. Pfeiffer, R.T. Hartley) - Maximal isojoin for representing software textual specifications and detecting semantic anomalies (Th. Charnois) - Troika: using grids, lattices and graphs in knowledge acquisition (H.S. Delugach, B.E. Lampkin) - Open world theorem prover for conceptual graphs (J.E. Heaton, P. Kocura) - NetCare: a practical conceptual graphs software tool (S. Polovina, D. Strang) - CGWorld - a web based workbench for conceptual graphs management and applications (P. Dobrev, K. Toutanova) - Position papers: The edition project: Peirce's existential graphs (R. Mülller) - Mining association rules using formal concept analysis (N. Pasquier) - Contextual logic summary (R Wille) - Information channels and conceptual scaling (K.E. Wolff) - Spatial concepts - a rule exploration (S. Rudolph) - The TEXT-TO-ONTO learning environment (A. Mädche, St. Staab) - Controlling the semantics of metadata on audio-visual documents using ontologies (Th. Dechilly, B. Bachimont) - Building the ontological foundations of a terminology from natural language to conceptual graphs with Ribosome, a knowledge extraction system (Ch. Jacquelinet, A. Burgun) - CharGer: some lessons learned and new directions (H.S. Delugach) - Knowledge management using conceptual graphs (W.K. Pun)
  18. Kolmayer, E.; Lavandier, J.; Roger, D.: Conceptual maps : users navigation through paradigmatic and syntagmatic links (1998) 0.02 
    0.017525818 = product of:
  0.07010327 = sum of:
    0.07010327 = weight(_text_:representation in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07010327 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.35583997 = fieldWeight in 58, 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=58)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This experiment, focused on the users behaviour, aims to study the search topic representation they build and to highlight the role of a graphical thesaurus on their mental models and searching behaviour. The users expertise in the field is considered. The results show how difficult it is to structure a field; they also point out how much a graphical thesaurus could contribute to such a task, but also its restricted role in the query task. They urge us to think over which shape is proper to the conceptual interface and the variety of links that have to be taken into account
  19. Gerbé, O.; Mineau, G.W.; Keller, R.K.: Conceptual graphs, metamodelling, and notation of concepts : fundamental issues (2000) 0.02 
    0.015022131 = product of:
  0.060088523 = sum of:
    0.060088523 = weight(_text_:representation in 5078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060088523 = score(doc=5078,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 5078, 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=5078)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Knowledge management, in particular corporate knowledge management, is a challenge companies and researchers have to meet. The conceptual graph formalism is a good candidate for the representation of corporate knowledge, and for the development of knowledge management systems. But many of the issues concerning the use of conceptual graphs as a metalanguage have not been worked out in detail. By introducing a function that maps higher level to lower level, this paper clarifies the metalevel semantics, notation and manipulation of concepts in the conceptual graph formalism. In addition, this function allows metamodeling activities to take place using the CG notation
  20. Simoes, G.; Machado, L.; Gnoli, C.; Souza, R.: Can an ontologically-oriented KO do without concepts? (2020) 0.02 
    0.015022131 = product of:
  0.060088523 = sum of:
    0.060088523 = weight(_text_:representation in 4964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060088523 = score(doc=4964,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 4964, 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=4964)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 43
  • d 11
  • m 5
  • nl 1
  • pt 1
  • ru 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 49
  • m 9
  • s 5
  • el 3
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications