Search (41 results, page 1 of 3)

0.082741246 = product of:
  0.16548249 = sum of:
    0.16548249 = sum of:
      0.13050319 = weight(_text_:theory in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13050319 = score(doc=1440,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05163523 = 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)
      0.034979306 = weight(_text_:22 in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034979306 = score(doc=1440,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05163523 = 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)

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

0.050582923 = product of:
  0.101165846 = sum of:
    0.101165846 = sum of:
      0.059190683 = weight(_text_:theory in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059190683 = score(doc=3060,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05163523 = queryNorm
          0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 3060, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3060)
      0.041975167 = weight(_text_:22 in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041975167 = score(doc=3060,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05163523 = 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)

Abstract

Alon Friedman und Richard P. Smiraglia kündigen in ihrem aktuellen Artikel "Nodes and arcs: concept map, semiotics, and knowledge organization" an, eine "empirical demonstration of how the domain [of knowledge organisation] itself understands the meaning of a concept" durchzuführen. Die Klärung des Konzeptbegriffs ist ein begrüßenswertes Vorhaben, das die Autoren in einer empirischen Untersuchung von concept maps (also Konzeptdiagrammen) aus dem Bereich der Wissensorganisation nachvollziehen wollen. Beschränkte sich Friedman 2011 in seinem Artikel "Concept theory and semiotics in knowledge organization" [Fn 01] noch ausschließlich auf Sprache als Medium im Zeichenprozess, bezieht er sich nun auf Visualisierungen als Repräsentationsform und scheint somit seinen Ansatz um den Aspekt der Bildlichkeit zu erweitern. Zumindest erwartet man dies nach der Lektüre der Beschreibung des aktuellen Vorhabens von Friedman und Smiraglia, das - wie die Autoren verkünden - auf einer semiotischen Grundlage durchgeführt worden sei.

Source

LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.22, 2013, S.xx-xx

0.048829824 = product of:
  0.09765965 = sum of:
    0.09765965 = product of:
      0.1953193 = sum of:
        0.1953193 = weight(_text_:theory in 962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1953193 = score(doc=962,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.90964836 = fieldWeight in 962, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=962)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Classification theory in the computer age: conversations across the disciplines. Proc. from the Conf. 18.-19.11.1988, Albany, NY

0.039460458 = product of:
  0.078920916 = sum of:
    0.078920916 = product of:
      0.15784183 = sum of:
        0.15784183 = weight(_text_:theory in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15784183 = score(doc=2004,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.7351069 = fieldWeight in 2004, 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=2004)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.039460458 = product of:
  0.078920916 = sum of:
    0.078920916 = product of:
      0.15784183 = sum of:
        0.15784183 = weight(_text_:theory in 4632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15784183 = score(doc=4632,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.7351069 = fieldWeight in 4632, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4632)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This dissertation from the University of Vienna contains the following chapters: (1) Conceptological aspects in terminology theory. Post-Wüsterian sign models and the four-field model. Vagueness, prototypes, and the four-field model. Morphological aspects of terminology and prototype theory. Word-formation and its role in terminology theory and conceptology. (2) A morpho-conceptual classification system of the English baseball terminology. The classification system. Statistical results. Conclusions

0.039460458 = product of:
  0.078920916 = sum of:
    0.078920916 = product of:
      0.15784183 = sum of:
        0.15784183 = weight(_text_:theory in 6289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15784183 = score(doc=6289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0345279 = product of:
  0.0690558 = sum of:
    0.0690558 = product of:
      0.1381116 = sum of:
        0.1381116 = weight(_text_:theory in 6288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1381116 = score(doc=6288,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.6432185 = fieldWeight in 6288, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0345279 = product of:
  0.0690558 = sum of:
    0.0690558 = product of:
      0.1381116 = sum of:
        0.1381116 = weight(_text_:theory in 6291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1381116 = score(doc=6291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.6432185 = fieldWeight in 6291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0345279 = product of:
  0.0690558 = sum of:
    0.0690558 = product of:
      0.1381116 = sum of:
        0.1381116 = weight(_text_:theory in 6292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1381116 = score(doc=6292,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.6432185 = fieldWeight in 6292, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6292)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.034173757 = product of:
  0.06834751 = sum of:
    0.06834751 = product of:
      0.13669503 = sum of:
        0.13669503 = weight(_text_:theory in 4447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13669503 = score(doc=4447,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.63662124 = fieldWeight in 4447, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Analyses the concepts species, class and set to explain the development of generic arrangement beginning with Aristotle's theory of essences. Explains the development from Aristotelian essences to the acceptance of accidental characteristics, culminating in the logical algebra of Boole and in a distinction between classes (as the extension of a concept) and sets (as a grouping of elements). Discusses 2 problems relating to indexing theory, selected from PRECIS and the work of Das Gupta

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: The concepts species, class and set in relation to indexing theory

0.0330886 = product of:
  0.0661772 = sum of:
    0.0661772 = product of:
      0.1323544 = sum of:
        0.1323544 = weight(_text_:theory in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1323544 = score(doc=5876,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.61640584 = fieldWeight in 5876, 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=5876)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Intended is first of all a preliminary review of the implications that the new approaches to the theory of classification, mainly from cognitive psychology and epistemology may have for information work and research. As a secondary topic the scientific relations existing among information science, epistemology and the cognitive sciences are discussed. Classification is seen as a central activity in all daily and scientific activities, and, of course, of knowledge organization in information services. There is a mutual implication between classification and conceptualization, as the former moves in a natural way to the latter and the best result elaborated for classification is the concept. Research in concept theory is a need for a theory of classification. In this direction it is of outstanding importance to integrate the achievements of 'natural concept formation theory' (NCFT) as an alternative approach to conceptualization different from the traditional one of logicians and problem solving researchers. In conclusion both approaches are seen as being complementary: the NCFT approach being closer to the user and the logical one being more suitable for experts, including 'expert systems'

0.0330886 = product of:
  0.0661772 = sum of:
    0.0661772 = product of:
      0.1323544 = sum of:
        0.1323544 = weight(_text_:theory in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1323544 = score(doc=292,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.032625798 = product of:
  0.065251596 = sum of:
    0.065251596 = product of:
      0.13050319 = sum of:
        0.13050319 = weight(_text_:theory in 4484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13050319 = score(doc=4484,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.6077844 = fieldWeight in 4484, 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=4484)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents the semantic information theory, formulated by the philosopher Fred I. Dretske, as a contribution to the discussion of metatheories and their practical implications in the field of library and information science. Dretske's theory is described in Knowledge and the flow of information. It is founded on mathematical communication theory but developed and elaborated into a cognitive, functionalistic theory, is individually oriented, and deals with the content of information. The topics are: the information process from perception to cognition, and how concept formation takes place in terms of digitisation. Other important issues are the concepts of information and knowledge, truth and meaning. Semantic information theory can be used as a frame of reference in order to explain, clarify and refute concepts currently used in library and information science, and as the basis for critical reviews of elements of the cognitive viewpoint in IR, primarily the notion of "potential information". The main contribution of the theory lies in a clarification of concepts, but there are still problems regarding the practical applications. More research is needed to combine philosophical discussions with the practice of information and library science.

0.030205619 = product of:
  0.060411237 = sum of:
    0.060411237 = product of:
      0.120822474 = sum of:
        0.120822474 = weight(_text_:theory in 5457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.120822474 = score(doc=5457,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.56269896 = fieldWeight in 5457, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5457)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the literature on concept theory in library and information science (LIS) from an epistemological perspective, ascribing each paper to an epistemological family and discussing their relevance in the context of the knowledge organization (KO) domain. Design/methodology/approach This paper adopts a hermeneutic approach for the analysis of the texts that compose the corpus of study following contingency and categorical analyses. More specifically, the paper works with Bardin's contingency analysis and follows Hjørland's families of epistemologies for the categorization. Findings The analysis corroborates the observations made for the last ten years about the scarcity of studies on concept theory in LIS and KO. However, the study also reveals an epistemological turn on concept theory since 2009 that could be considered a departure from the rationalist views that dominated the field and a continuation of a broader paradigm shift in LIS and KO. All analyzed papers except two follow pragmatist or historicist approaches. Originality/value This paper follows-up and systematizes the contributions to the LIS and KO fields on concept theory mainly during the last decade. The epistemological analysis reveals the dominant views in this paradigm shift and the main authors and trends that are present in the LIS literature on concept theory.

0.029595342 = product of:
  0.059190683 = sum of:
    0.059190683 = product of:
      0.118381366 = sum of:
        0.118381366 = weight(_text_:theory in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.118381366 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.55133015 = fieldWeight in 1319, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1319)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Theory and application of information research. Proc. of the 2nd Int. Research Forum on Information Science, 3.-6.8.1977, Copenhagen. Ed.: O. Harbo u. L. Kajberg

0.029595342 = product of:
  0.059190683 = sum of:
    0.059190683 = product of:
      0.118381366 = sum of:
        0.118381366 = weight(_text_:theory in 1615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.118381366 = score(doc=1615,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.55133015 = fieldWeight in 1615, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1615)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.02563032 = product of:
  0.05126064 = sum of:
    0.05126064 = product of:
      0.10252128 = sum of:
        0.10252128 = weight(_text_:theory in 3512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10252128 = score(doc=3512,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.47746593 = fieldWeight in 3512, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, 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.

0.024485514 = product of:
  0.048971027 = sum of:
    0.048971027 = product of:
      0.097942054 = sum of:
        0.097942054 = weight(_text_:22 in 880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097942054 = score(doc=880,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = 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

0.024414912 = product of:
  0.048829824 = sum of:
    0.048829824 = product of:
      0.09765965 = sum of:
        0.09765965 = weight(_text_:theory in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09765965 = score(doc=69,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.45482418 = fieldWeight in 69, 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=69)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

After studying the relations between two words(nouns) that constitute a compound term, the relation between corresponding concepts discussed. The impossibility of having a conjunction between two concepts that have no common feature causes inconvenience in the application of concept theory to information retrieval problems. Another kind of conjunctions, different from that by co-occurrence, is proposed and characteristics of this conjunction is studied. It revealed that one of new ones has the same character with colon combination in UDC. The possibility of having three kinds of conjunction including Wsterian concept conjunction is presented. It is also discussed that subdivisions can be replaced by new conjunctions

0.0213586 = product of:
  0.0427172 = sum of:
    0.0427172 = product of:
      0.0854344 = sum of:
        0.0854344 = weight(_text_:theory in 7868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0854344 = score(doc=7868,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.39788827 = fieldWeight in 7868, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7868)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Up to the present day, difficulties have confronted all attempts at establishing a theory of concepts that would comprise the various kinds of concept-formation in the disciplines of the spectrum of sciences. Not a few philosophical dictionaries, under the entry 'concept', still offer doctrinies which were current far back in the history of philosophy and have little in coomon with concept-formations in the sciences today. The paper aims at an improvement in this situation. After a sketch of the 'classical' notion of concept, already developed in antiquity (essentially a logic of 'classification', although 'class-formation' in tis present understanding had not yet been conceived), the canonical modern doctrine of concepts is outlined. With an eye to application in the exact sciences, it is shown how in the nineteenth century the view of concept as an additive complex of characteristics yields to a functional approach systematized, in the last quarter of the century, by classical quantificational logic. Almost simultaneously, Mach, Frege, Peano, Weyl and others set out to shape the modern theory of abstraction. It is these two theories that today permit philosophers of science not only to deal with functional processes of concept-formation but also to represent in a formally coorect manner metalinguistic propositions about concepts and their properties. Thus it seems that the fundamental tasks of a modern theory of concept have finally been taken care of