Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Priss, U."
  1. Priss, U.; Jacob, E.: Utilizing faceted structures for information systems design (1999) 0.03 
    0.028717762 = product of:
  0.057435524 = sum of:
    0.051468004 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 2470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051468004 = score(doc=2470,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.23028374 = fieldWeight in 2470, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2470)
    0.00596752 = product of:
      0.01790256 = sum of:
        0.01790256 = weight(_text_:systems in 2470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01790256 = score(doc=2470,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 2470, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2470)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The writers show that a faceted navigation structure makes web sites easier to use. They begin by analyzing the web sites of three library and information science faculties, and seeing if the sites easily provide the answers to five specific questions, e.g., how the school ranks in national evaluations. (It is worth noting that the web site of the Faculty of Information Studies and the University of Toronto, where this bibliography is being written, would fail on four of the five questions.) Using examples from LIS web site content, they show how facets can be related and constructed, and use concept diagrams for illustration. They briefly discuss constraints necessary when joining facets: for example, enrolled students can be full- or part-time, but prospective and alumni students cannot. It should not be possible to construct terms such as "part-time alumni" (see Yannis Tzitzikas et al, below in Background). They conclude that a faceted approach is best for web site navigation, because it can clearly show where the user is in the site, what the related pages are, and how to get to them. There is a short discussion of user interfaces, and the diagrams in the paper will be of interest to anyone making a facet-based web site. This paper is clearly written, informative, and thought-provoking. Uta Priss's web site lists her other publications, many of which are related and some of which are online: http://www.upriss.org.uk/top/research.html.
  2. Priss, U.: Description logic and faceted knowledge representation (1999) 0.01 
    0.013563303 = product of:
  0.054253213 = sum of:
    0.054253213 = product of:
      0.081379816 = sum of:
        0.04651222 = weight(_text_:systems in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04651222 = score(doc=2655,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
        0.0348676 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0348676 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  3. Priss, U.: Alternatives to the "Semantic Web" : multi-strategy knowledge representation (2003) 0.01 
    0.012867001 = product of:
  0.051468004 = sum of:
    0.051468004 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 2733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051468004 = score(doc=2733,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.23028374 = fieldWeight in 2733, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2733)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper argues that the Semantic Web needs to incorporate both formal and associative structures (and possibly a multitude of other structures and strategies) to be successful. The arguments for this claim are based on an observation of successes and failures in the areas of artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP). 1. Introduction The WWW provides numerous challenges for information and knowledge processing activities. Information may be available but not accessible or retrievable because of language barriers or insufficient search strategies. Data mining techniques may discover implicit information in explicit data but these techniques do not necessarily guarantee that the discovered information is relevant, significant and trustworthy. During the last several decades hundreds or thousands of computer and information scientists have developed probably thousands of natural language processing and artificial intelligence techniques that were aimed at solving problems related to intelligent information processing only to encounter more and more new obstacles along the way. The latest solution, the Semantic Web, appears as an open declaration of defeat: since natural language processing and AI techniques did not provide sufficient results, it is now proposed to put the burden an the shoulder of the authors of webpages who are expected to populate their pages with metadata and additional markup. Metadata is essentially a new form of controlled vocabulary; markup - at least in the form of XML, XSL, etc - is essentially a programming language. Existing studies of the use of controlled vocabularies and indexing practices in information science and studies of teaching programming languages to "everybody" (Python, 2002) have shown that both are difficult and full of unsolved problems. This can further dampen the expectations of the success of the Semantic Web. In contrast to machines and despite numerous inter-cultural conflicts around the world, humans do communicate surprisingly successfully even across national, linguistic and cultural boundaries. The question then arises: why are humans successful at information processing tasks such as information integration, translation and communication, which computers find so difficult? One obvious answer is that human cognition is embodied and grounded in our shared experiences of living in the same world. AI researchers have theoretically explored the idea of symbol grounding in the early 1990's but so far, connectionist artificial agents with perceptual interfaces have not been integrated with a large-scale capability of symbolic representations.
  4. Priss, U.: Faceted information representation (2000) 0.01 
    0.0120013915 = product of:
  0.048005566 = sum of:
    0.048005566 = product of:
      0.07200835 = sum of:
        0.031329483 = weight(_text_:systems in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031329483 = score(doc=5095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 5095, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5095)
        0.040678866 = weight(_text_:22 in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040678866 = score(doc=5095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  5. Priss, U.: Faceted knowledge representation (1999) 0.01 
    0.0120013915 = product of:
  0.048005566 = sum of:
    0.048005566 = product of:
      0.07200835 = sum of:
        0.031329483 = weight(_text_:systems in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031329483 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
        0.040678866 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040678866 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  6. Priss, U.: Formal concept analysis in information science (2006) 0.01 
    0.0078186905 = product of:
  0.031274762 = sum of:
    0.031274762 = product of:
      0.09382428 = sum of:
        0.09382428 = weight(_text_:29 in 4305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09382428 = score(doc=4305,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.6218451 = fieldWeight in 4305, 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=4305)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:29:59
  7. Priss, U.; Old, L.J.: Concept neighbourhoods in knowledge organisation systems (2010) 0.01 
    0.0051680245 = product of:
  0.020672098 = sum of:
    0.020672098 = product of:
      0.062016293 = sum of:
        0.062016293 = weight(_text_:systems in 3527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062016293 = score(doc=3527,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.4704818 = fieldWeight in 3527, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3527)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the application of concept neighbourhoods (in the sense of formal concept analysis) to knowledge organisation systems. Examples are provided using Roget's Thesaurus, WordNet and Wikipedia categories.
    Source
    Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO Conference, 23-26 February 2010 Rome, Italy. Edited by Claudio Gnoli and Fulvio Mazzocchi
  8. Priss, U.: ¬A semiotic-conceptual framework for knowledge representation (2004) 0.00 
    0.0039093453 = product of:
  0.015637381 = sum of:
    0.015637381 = product of:
      0.04691214 = sum of:
        0.04691214 = weight(_text_:29 in 2630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04691214 = score(doc=2630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2630, 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=2630)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    29. 8.2004 10:12:21
  9. Jacob, E.K.; Priss, U.: Nontraditional indexing structures for the management of electronic resources (2001) 0.00 
    0.003692215 = product of:
  0.01476886 = sum of:
    0.01476886 = product of:
      0.04430658 = sum of:
        0.04430658 = weight(_text_:systems in 2253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04430658 = score(doc=2253,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 2253, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2253)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Controlled vocabulary and fixed citation order are two of the mechanisms used to effect collocation in traditional bibliographic classification schemes. Analysis of the rationale underlying application of each of these mechanisms provides a framework for the development of nontraditional approaches to the organization of resources available an the World Wide Web. When supported by an extralinguistic faceted vocabulary of concepts, this framework facilitates construction and implementation of flexible, dynamic indexing systems that can be applied in the design of electronic information systems and the organization of Web-based knowledge resources.
  10. Priss, U.: Comparing classification systems using facets (2000) 0.00 
    0.00298376 = product of:
  0.01193504 = sum of:
    0.01193504 = product of:
      0.03580512 = sum of:
        0.03580512 = weight(_text_:systems in 6485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03580512 = score(doc=6485,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 6485, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6485)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  11. Priss, U.: Facet-like structures in computer science (2008) 0.00 
    0.00298376 = product of:
  0.01193504 = sum of:
    0.01193504 = product of:
      0.03580512 = sum of:
        0.03580512 = weight(_text_:systems in 4178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03580512 = score(doc=4178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 4178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4178)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses how facet-like structures occur as a commonplace feature in a variety of computer science disciplines as a means for structuring class hierarchies. The paper then focuses on a mathematical model for facets (and class hierarchies in general), called formal concept analysis, and discusses graphical representations of faceted systems based on this model.

Authors

Years

Types

Themes