Search (221 results, page 1 of 12)

0.094829544 = product of:
  0.18965909 = sum of:
    0.120177045 = weight(_text_:representation in 987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120177045 = score(doc=987,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.6100114 = fieldWeight in 987, 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=987)
    0.069482036 = product of:
      0.10422305 = sum of:
        0.06941512 = weight(_text_:theory in 987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06941512 = score(doc=987,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.3898493 = fieldWeight in 987, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=987)
        0.034807928 = weight(_text_:22 in 987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034807928 = score(doc=987,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 987, 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=987)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Introduction: envisioning semantic information spacesIndexing and knowledge organization -- Semantic technologies for knowledge representation -- Information retrieval and knowledge exploration -- Approaches to handle heterogeneity -- Problems with establishing semantic interoperability -- Formalization in indexing languages -- Typification of semantic relations -- Inferences in retrieval processes -- Semantic interoperability and inferences -- Remaining research questions.

Date

23. 7.2017 13:49:22

LCSH

Knowledge representation (Information theory)

Subject

Knowledge representation (Information theory)

0.09267894 = product of:
  0.18535788 = sum of:
    0.1660759 = weight(_text_:representation in 1529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1660759 = score(doc=1529,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.84299123 = fieldWeight in 1529, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1529)
    0.01928198 = product of:
      0.057845935 = sum of:
        0.057845935 = weight(_text_:theory in 1529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057845935 = score(doc=1529,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.3248744 = fieldWeight in 1529, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1529)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The aim of this book is to highlight the relationship between knowledge representation and language in artificial intelligence, and in particular on the way in which the choice of representation influences the language used to discuss a problem - and vice versa. Opening with a discussion of knowledge representation methods, and following this with a look at reasoning methods, the author begins to make his case for the intimate relationship between language and representation. He shows how each representation method fits particularly well with some reasoning methods and less so with others, using specific languages as examples. The question of representation change, an important and complex issue about which very little is known, is addressed. Dr Hodgson gathers together recent work on problem solving, showing how, in some cases, it has been possible to use representation changes to recast problems into a language that makes them easier to solve. The author maintains throughout that the relationships that this book explores lie at the heart of the construction of large systems, examining a number of the current large AI systems from the viewpoint of representation and language to prove his point.

LCSH

Knowledge / representation (Information theory)

Subject

Knowledge / representation (Information theory)

0.0821951 = product of:
  0.1643902 = sum of:
    0.099141 = weight(_text_:representation in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099141 = score(doc=5095,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = 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)
    0.065249205 = product of:
      0.09787381 = sum of:
        0.057264555 = weight(_text_:theory in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057264555 = score(doc=5095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.32160926 = fieldWeight in 5095, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5095)
        0.04060925 = weight(_text_:22 in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04060925 = score(doc=5095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.0821951 = product of:
  0.1643902 = sum of:
    0.099141 = weight(_text_:representation in 1437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099141 = score(doc=1437,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.50323373 = fieldWeight in 1437, 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=1437)
    0.065249205 = product of:
      0.09787381 = sum of:
        0.057264555 = weight(_text_:theory in 1437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057264555 = score(doc=1437,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.32160926 = fieldWeight in 1437, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1437)
        0.04060925 = weight(_text_:22 in 1437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04060925 = score(doc=1437,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1437, 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=1437)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper describes to construct faceted ontologies for domain modeling. Building upon the faceted theory of S.R. Ranganathan (1967), the paper intends to address the faceted classification approach applied to build domain ontologies. As classificatory ontologies are employed to represent the relationships of entities and objects on the web, the faceted approach helps to analyze domain representation in an effective way for modeling. Based on this perspective, an ontology of the music domain has been analyzed that would serve as a case study.

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

0.080422625 = product of:
  0.16084525 = sum of:
    0.1387685 = weight(_text_:representation in 3671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1387685 = score(doc=3671,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.7043805 = fieldWeight in 3671, 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=3671)
    0.022076748 = product of:
      0.066230245 = sum of:
        0.066230245 = weight(_text_:29 in 3671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.066230245 = score(doc=3671,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.43971092 = fieldWeight in 3671, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3671)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Semantic networks produced from human data have statistical properties that cannot be easily captured by spatial representations. We explore a probabilistic approach to semantic representation that explicitly models the probability with which words occurin diffrent contexts, and hence captures the probabilistic relationships between words. We show that this representation has statistical properties consistent with the large-scale structure of semantic networks constructed by humans, and trace the origins of these properties.

Date

29. 6.2015 14:55:01
29. 6.2015 16:09:05

0.07718956 = product of:
  0.15437911 = sum of:
    0.1387685 = weight(_text_:representation in 3839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1387685 = score(doc=3839,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.7043805 = fieldWeight in 3839, 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=3839)
    0.015610619 = product of:
      0.046831857 = sum of:
        0.046831857 = weight(_text_:29 in 3839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046831857 = score(doc=3839,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 3839, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3839)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Ontologies may be considered knowledge organization systems since the elements interact in a consistent conceptual structure. Theories of the representation of knowledge domains produce models that include definition, representation units, and semantic relationships that are essential for structuring such domain models. A realist viewpoint is proposed to enhance domain ontologies, as definitions provide structure that reveals not only ontological commitment but also relationships between unit representations.

Date

6. 5.2017 19:29:28

0.076871485 = product of:
  0.15374297 = sum of:
    0.14020655 = weight(_text_:representation in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14020655 = score(doc=2654,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = 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)
    0.013536418 = product of:
      0.04060925 = sum of:
        0.04060925 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04060925 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.0643871 = product of:
  0.1287742 = sum of:
    0.113304004 = weight(_text_:representation in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.113304004 = score(doc=318,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.57512426 = fieldWeight in 318, 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=318)
    0.015470191 = product of:
      0.04641057 = sum of:
        0.04641057 = weight(_text_:22 in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04641057 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 318, 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=318)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In der Session "Knowledge Representation" auf der ISI 2021 wurden unter der Moderation von Jürgen Reischer (Uni Regensburg) drei Projekte vorgestellt, in denen Knowledge Representation mit RDF umgesetzt wird. Die Domänen sind erfreulich unterschiedlich, die gemeinsame Klammer indes ist die Absicht, den Zugang zu Forschungsdaten zu verbessern: - Japanese Visual Media Graph - Taxonomy of Digital Research Activities in the Humanities - Forschungsdaten im konzeptuellen Modell von FRBR

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.06306788 = product of:
  0.12613577 = sum of:
    0.099141 = weight(_text_:representation in 3001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099141 = score(doc=3001,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.50323373 = fieldWeight in 3001, 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=3001)
    0.02699477 = product of:
      0.08098431 = sum of:
        0.08098431 = weight(_text_:theory in 3001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08098431 = score(doc=3001,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.45482418 = fieldWeight in 3001, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3001)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

LCSH

Information representation (Information theory)

Subject

Information representation (Information theory)

0.059326146 = product of:
  0.11865229 = sum of:
    0.10515491 = weight(_text_:representation in 4515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10515491 = score(doc=4515,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.53375995 = fieldWeight in 4515, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4515)
    0.013497385 = product of:
      0.040492155 = sum of:
        0.040492155 = weight(_text_:theory in 4515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040492155 = score(doc=4515,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.22741209 = fieldWeight in 4515, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4515)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The main purpose of this book is to sum up the vital and highly topical research issue of knowledge representation on the Web and to discuss novel solutions by combining benefits of folksonomies and Web 2.0 approaches with ontologies and semantic technologies. This book contains an overview of knowledge representation approaches in past, present and future, introduction to ontologies, Web indexing and in first case the novel approaches of developing ontologies. This title combines aspects of knowledge representation for both the Semantic Web (ontologies) and the Web 2.0 (folksonomies). Currently there is no monographic book which provides a combined overview over these topics. focus on the topic of using knowledge representation methods for document indexing purposes. For this purpose, considerations from classical librarian interests in knowledge representation (thesauri, classification schemes etc.) are included, which are not part of most other books which have a stronger background in computer science.

Footnote

Rez. in: iwp 62(2011) H.4, S.205-206 (C. Carstens): "Welche Arten der Wissensrepräsentation existieren im Web, wie ausgeprägt sind semantische Strukturen in diesem Kontext, und wie können soziale Aktivitäten im Sinne des Web 2.0 zur Strukturierung von Wissen im Web beitragen? Diesen Fragen widmet sich Wellers Buch mit dem Titel Knowledge Representation in the Social Semantic Web. Der Begriff Social Semantic Web spielt einerseits auf die semantische Strukturierung von Daten im Sinne des Semantic Web an und deutet andererseits auf die zunehmend kollaborative Inhaltserstellung im Social Web hin. Weller greift die Entwicklungen in diesen beiden Bereichen auf und beleuchtet die Möglichkeiten und Herausforderungen, die aus der Kombination der Aktivitäten im Semantic Web und im Social Web entstehen. Der Fokus des Buches liegt dabei primär auf den konzeptuellen Herausforderungen, die sich in diesem Kontext ergeben. So strebt die originäre Vision des Semantic Web die Annotation aller Webinhalte mit ausdrucksstarken, hochformalisierten Ontologien an. Im Social Web hingegen werden große Mengen an Daten von Nutzern erstellt, die häufig mithilfe von unkontrollierten Tags in Folksonomies annotiert werden. Weller sieht in derartigen kollaborativ erstellten Inhalten und Annotationen großes Potenzial für die semantische Indexierung, eine wichtige Voraussetzung für das Retrieval im Web. Das Hauptinteresse des Buches besteht daher darin, eine Brücke zwischen den Wissensrepräsentations-Methoden im Social Web und im Semantic Web zu schlagen. Um dieser Fragestellung nachzugehen, gliedert sich das Buch in drei Teile. . . .

LCSH

Knowledge representation (Information theory)

Subject

Knowledge representation (Information theory)

0.05789217 = product of:
  0.11578434 = sum of:
    0.10407638 = weight(_text_:representation in 4641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10407638 = score(doc=4641,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.5282854 = fieldWeight in 4641, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4641)
    0.011707964 = product of:
      0.035123892 = sum of:
        0.035123892 = weight(_text_:29 in 4641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035123892 = score(doc=4641,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4641, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4641)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper presents an overview of the work in progress at the W3C to produce a standard conversion of WordNet to the RDF/OWL representation language in use in the SemanticWeb community. Such a standard representation is useful to provide application developers a high-quality resource and to promote interoperability. Important requirements in this conversion process are that it should be complete and should stay close to WordNet's conceptual model. The paper explains the steps taken to produce the conversion and details design decisions such as the composition of the class hierarchy and properties, the addition of suitable OWL semantics and the chosen format of the URIs. Additional topics include a strategy to incorporate OWL and RDFS semantics in one schema such that both RDF(S) infrastructure and OWL infrastructure can interpret the information correctly, problems encountered in understanding the Prolog source files and the description of the two versions that are provided (Basic and Full) to accommodate different usages of WordNet.

Date

29. 7.2011 14:44:56

0.05783951 = product of:
  0.11567902 = sum of:
    0.10407638 = weight(_text_:representation in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10407638 = score(doc=2655,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.5282854 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
    0.011602643 = product of:
      0.034807928 = sum of:
        0.034807928 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034807928 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2655, 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=2655)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The term "facet" was introduced into the field of library classification systems by Ranganathan in the 1930's [Ranganathan, 1962]. A facet is a viewpoint or aspect. In contrast to traditional classification systems, faceted systems are modular in that a domain is analyzed in terms of baseline facets which are then synthesized. In this paper, the term "facet" is used in a broader meaning. Facets can describe different aspects on the same level of abstraction or the same aspect on different levels of abstraction. The notion of facets is related to database views, multicontexts and conceptual scaling in formal concept analysis [Ganter and Wille, 1999], polymorphism in object-oriented design, aspect-oriented programming, views and contexts in description logic and semantic networks. This paper presents a definition of facets in terms of faceted knowledge representation that incorporates the traditional narrower notion of facets and potentially facilitates translation between different knowledge representation formalisms. A goal of this approach is a modular, machine-aided knowledge base design mechanism. A possible application is faceted thesaurus construction for information retrieval and data mining. Reasoning complexity depends on the size of the modules (facets). A more general analysis of complexity will be left for future research.

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31

0.056890983 = product of:
  0.113781966 = sum of:
    0.100147545 = weight(_text_:representation in 3398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100147545 = score(doc=3398,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.50834286 = fieldWeight in 3398, 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=3398)
    0.013634419 = product of:
      0.040903255 = sum of:
        0.040903255 = weight(_text_:theory in 3398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040903255 = score(doc=3398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 3398, 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=3398)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Knowledge representation, which is today used in database applications, artificial intelligence (AI), software engineering and many other disciplines of computer science has deep roots in logic and philosophy. In the beginning, there was Aristotle (384 bc-322 bc) who developed logic as a precise method for reasoning about knowledge. Syllogisms were introduced as formal patterns for representing special figures of logical deductions. According to Aristotle, the subject of ontology is the study of categories of things that exist or may exist in some domain. In modern times, Descartes considered the human brain as a store of knowledge representation. Recognition was made possible by an isomorphic correspondence between internal geometrical representations (ideae) and external situations and events. Leibniz was deeply influenced by these traditions. In his mathesis universalis, he required a universal formal language (lingua universalis) to represent human thinking by calculation procedures and to implement them by means of mechanical calculating machines. An ars iudicandi should allow every problem to be decided by an algorithm after representation in numeric symbols. An ars iveniendi should enable users to seek and enumerate desired data and solutions of problems. In the age of mechanics, knowledge representation was reduced to mechanical calculation procedures. In the twentieth century, computational cognitivism arose in the wake of Turing's theory of computability. In its functionalism, the hardware of a computer is related to the wetware of the human brain. The mind is understood as the software of a computer.

0.056693442 = product of:
  0.113386884 = sum of:
    0.040059015 = weight(_text_:representation in 2659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040059015 = score(doc=2659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.20333713 = fieldWeight in 2659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2659)
    0.07332787 = product of:
      0.109991804 = sum of:
        0.08657587 = weight(_text_:theory in 2659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08657587 = score(doc=2659,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.4862275 = fieldWeight in 2659, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2659)
        0.023415929 = weight(_text_:29 in 2659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023415929 = score(doc=2659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 2659, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2659)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The field of knowledge organization (KO) can be described as composed of the four distinct but connected layers of theory, systems, representation, and application. This paper focuses on the relations between KO theory and KO systems. It is acknowledged how the structure of KO systems is the product of a mixture of ontological, epistemological, and pragmatical factors. However, different systems give different priorities to each factor. A more ontologically-oriented approach, though not offering quick solutions for any particular group of users, will produce systems of wide and long-lasting application as they are based on general, shareable principles. I take the case of the ontological theory of integrative levels, which has been considered as a useful source for general classifications for several decades, and is currently implemented in the Integrative Levels Classification system. The theory produces a sequence of main classes modelling a natural order between phenomena. This order has interesting effects also on other features of the system, like the citation order of concepts within compounds. As it has been shown by facet analytical theory, it is useful that citation order follow a principle of inversion, as compared to the order of the same concepts in the schedules. In the light of integrative levels theory, this principle also acquires an ontological meaning: phenomena of lower level should be cited first, as most often they act as specifications of higher-level ones. This ontological principle should be complemented by consideration of the epistemological treatment of phenomena: in case a lower-level phenomenon is the main theme, it can be promoted to the leading position in the compound subject heading. The integration of these principles is believed to produce optimal results in the ordering of knowledge contents.

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: Ontological foundations in knowledge organization: the theory of integrative levels applied in citation order.

Source

Scire. 17(2011) no.1, S.29-34

0.056400146 = product of:
  0.11280029 = sum of:
    0.099141 = weight(_text_:representation in 1565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099141 = score(doc=1565,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.50323373 = fieldWeight in 1565, 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=1565)
    0.013659291 = product of:
      0.040977873 = sum of:
        0.040977873 = weight(_text_:29 in 1565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040977873 = score(doc=1565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1565, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1565)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Faceted arrangement of entities and typed relations for representing different associations between the entities are established tools in knowledge representation. In this paper, a proposal is being discussed combining both tools to draw inferences along relational paths. This approach may yield new benefit for information retrieval processes, especially when modeled for heterogeneous environments in the Semantic Web. Faceted arrangement can be used as a selection tool for the semantic knowledge modeled within the knowledge representation. Typed relations between the entities of different facets can be used as restrictions for selecting them across the facets.

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 8th Research Conference, MTSR 2014, Karlsruhe, Germany, November 27-29, 2014, Proceedings. Eds.: S. Closs et al

0.04904192 = product of:
  0.09808384 = sum of:
    0.070815004 = weight(_text_:representation in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070815004 = score(doc=1952,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.35945266 = fieldWeight in 1952, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1952)
    0.027268838 = product of:
      0.08180651 = sum of:
        0.08180651 = weight(_text_:theory in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08180651 = score(doc=1952,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.4594418 = fieldWeight in 1952, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1952)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

LCSH

Knowledge representation (Information theory)
Conceptual structures (Information theory)

Subject

Knowledge representation (Information theory)
Conceptual structures (Information theory)

0.04779411 = product of:
  0.09558822 = sum of:
    0.08011803 = weight(_text_:representation in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08011803 = score(doc=4476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 4476, 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=4476)
    0.015470191 = product of:
      0.04641057 = sum of:
        0.04641057 = weight(_text_:22 in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04641057 = score(doc=4476,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4476, 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=4476)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Describes the types of representations used in different theories of abstractions. Shows how the type of mapping between these representations has been increasingly generalised. Discusses desirable properties preserved by such mappings and identifies how these properties are influenced by the mappings and the presentations defined. Surveys programs made in understanding the complexity reduction associated with abstraction. Focuses on formal models of how abstraction reduces the search space. Presents some of the systems that implement abstraction. shows how the efforts in this area have focused on the mechanisation of languages for the declarative representation of abstraction.

Date

1.10.2018 14:13:22

0.04551278 = product of:
  0.09102556 = sum of:
    0.08011803 = weight(_text_:representation in 1004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08011803 = score(doc=1004,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 1004, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1004)
    0.0109075345 = product of:
      0.032722604 = sum of:
        0.032722604 = weight(_text_:theory in 1004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032722604 = score(doc=1004,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.18377672 = fieldWeight in 1004, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1004)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Terminology has evolved from static and prescriptive theories to dynamic and cognitive approaches. Thanks to these approaches, there have been significant advances in the design and elaboration of terminological resources. This has resulted in the creation of tools such as terminological knowledge bases, which are able to show how concepts are interrelated through different semantic or conceptual relations. Of these relations, hyponymy is the most relevant to terminology work because it deals with concept categorization and term hierarchies. This doctoral thesis presents an enhancement of the semantic structure of EcoLexicon, a terminological knowledge base on environmental science. The aim of this research was to improve the description, categorization, and representation of hyponymy in environmental terminology. Therefore, we created HypoLexicon, a new stand-alone module for EcoLexicon in the form of a hyponymy-based terminological resource. This resource contains twelve terminological entries from four specialized domains (Biology, Chemistry, Civil Engineering, and Geology), which consist of 309 concepts and 465 terms associated with those concepts. This research was mainly based on the theoretical premises of Frame-based Terminology. This theory was combined with Cognitive Linguistics, for conceptual description and representation; Corpus Linguistics, for the extraction and processing of linguistic and terminological information; and Ontology, related to hyponymy and relevant for concept categorization. HypoLexicon was constructed from the following materials: (i) the EcoLexicon English Corpus; (ii) other specialized terminological resources, including EcoLexicon; (iii) Sketch Engine; and (iv) Lexonomy. This thesis explains the methodologies applied for corpus extraction and compilation, corpus analysis, the creation of conceptual hierarchies, and the design of the terminological template. The results of the creation of HypoLexicon are discussed by highlighting the information in the hyponymy-based terminological entries: (i) parent concept (hypernym); (ii) child concepts (hyponyms, with various hyponymy levels); (iii) terminological definitions; (iv) conceptual categories; (v) hyponymy subtypes; and (vi) hyponymic contexts. Furthermore, the features and the navigation within HypoLexicon are described from the user interface and the admin interface. In conclusion, this doctoral thesis lays the groundwork for developing a terminological resource that includes definitional, relational, ontological and contextual information about specialized hypernyms and hyponyms. All of this information on specialized knowledge is simple to follow thanks to the hierarchical structure of the terminological template used in HypoLexicon. Therefore, not only does it enhance knowledge representation, but it also facilitates its acquisition.

0.04504849 = product of:
  0.09009698 = sum of:
    0.070815004 = weight(_text_:representation in 776) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070815004 = score(doc=776,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.35945266 = fieldWeight in 776, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=776)
    0.01928198 = product of:
      0.057845935 = sum of:
        0.057845935 = weight(_text_:theory in 776) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057845935 = score(doc=776,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.3248744 = fieldWeight in 776, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=776)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Research in ontology has, in recent years, become widespread in the field of information systems, in various areas of sciences, in business, in economy, and in industry. The importance of ontologies is increasingly recognized in fields diverse as in e-commerce, semantic web, enterprise, information integration, information science, qualitative modeling of physical systems, natural language processing, knowledge engineering, and databases. Ontologies provide formal specifications and harmonized definitions of concepts used to represent knowledge of specific domains. An ontology supplies a unifying framework for communication, it establishes a basis for knowledge organization and knowledge representation and contributes to theory formation and modeling of a specific domain. In the current paper, we present and discuss principles of organization and representation of knowledge that grew out of the use of formal ontology. The core of the discussed ontological framework is a top-level ontology, called GFO (General Formal Ontology), which is being developed at the University of Leipzig. These principles make use of the onto-axiomatic method, of graduated conceptualizations, of levels of reality, and of top-level-supported methods for ontology-development. We explore the interrelations between formal ontology and knowledge organization, and argue for a close interaction between both fields

Footnote

Part of a section "Papers from the 13th Meeting of the German ISKO "Theory, Information, and Organization of Knowledge," Potsdam, 19-20 March 2013"

0.04504849 = product of:
  0.09009698 = sum of:
    0.070815004 = weight(_text_:representation in 3402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070815004 = score(doc=3402,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.35945266 = fieldWeight in 3402, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3402)
    0.01928198 = product of:
      0.057845935 = sum of:
        0.057845935 = weight(_text_:theory in 3402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057845935 = score(doc=3402,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.3248744 = fieldWeight in 3402, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3402)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

There are quite a few success stories illustrating philosophy's relevance to information science. One can cite, for example, Leibniz's work on a characteristica universalis and a corresponding calculus ratiocinator through which he aspired to reduce reasoning to calculating. It goes without saying that formal logic initiated research on decidability and computational complexity. But even beyond the realm of formal logic, philosophy has served as a source of inspiration for developments in information and computer science. At the end of the twentieth century, formal ontology emerged from a quest for a semantic foundation of information systems having a higher reusability than systems being available at the time. A success story that is less well documented is the advent of frame systems in computer science. Minsky is credited with having laid out the foundational ideas of such systems. There, the logic programming approach to knowledge representation is criticized by arguing that one should be more careful about the way human beings recognize objects and situations. Notably, the paper draws heavily on the writings of Kuhn and the Gestalt-theorists. It is not our intent, however, to document the traces of the frame idea in the works of philosophers. What follows is, rather, an exposition of a methodology for representing scientific knowledge that is essentially frame-like. This methodology is labelled as structuralist theory of science or, in short, as structuralism. The frame-like character of its basic meta-theoretical concepts makes structuralism likely to be useful in knowledge representation.