Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Begriffstheorie"
  1. Jouis, C.: Logic of relationships (2002) 0.02
    0.019452445 = product of:
      0.068083555 = sum of:
        0.054684345 = weight(_text_:global in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054684345 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19788647 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.002325 = idf(docFreq=807, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0395589 = queryNorm
            0.276342 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.002325 = idf(docFreq=807, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
        0.013399213 = product of:
          0.026798425 = sum of:
            0.026798425 = weight(_text_:22 in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026798425 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13852853 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0395589 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    
    Abstract
    A main goal of recent studies in semantics is to integrate into conceptual structures the models of representation used in linguistics, logic, and/or artificial intelligence. A fundamental problem resides in the need to structure knowledge and then to check the validity of constructed representations. We propose associating logical properties with relationships by introducing the relationships into a typed and functional system of specifcations. This makes it possible to compare conceptual representations against the relationships established between the concepts. The mandatory condition to validate such a conceptual representation is consistency. The semantic system proposed is based an a structured set of semantic primitives-types, relations, and properties-based an a global model of language processing, Applicative and Cognitive Grammar (ACG) (Desc16s, 1990), and an extension of this model to terminology (Jouis & Mustafa 1995, 1996, 1997). The ACG postulates three levels of representation of languages, including a cognitive level. At this level, the meanings of lexical predicates are represented by semantic cognitive schemes. From this perspective, we propose a set of semantic concepts, which defines an organized system of meanings. Relations are part of a specification network based an a general terminological scheure (i.e., a coherent system of meanings of relations). In such a system, a specific relation may be characterized as to its: (1) functional type (the semantic type of arguments of the relation); (2) algebraic properties (reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, etc.); and (3) combinatorial relations with other entities in the same context (for instance, the part of the text where a concept is defined).
    Date
    1.12.2002 11:12:22
  2. Thellefsen, M.: ¬The dynamics of information representation and knowledge mediation (2006) 0.01
    0.012499279 = product of:
      0.087494954 = sum of:
        0.087494954 = weight(_text_:global in 170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.087494954 = score(doc=170,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19788647 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.002325 = idf(docFreq=807, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0395589 = queryNorm
            0.44214723 = fieldWeight in 170, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.002325 = idf(docFreq=807, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=170)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
  3. Dahlberg, I.: Zur Begriffskultur in den Sozialwissenschaften : Evaluation einer Herausforderung (2006) 0.01
    0.0106430715 = product of:
      0.0745015 = sum of:
        0.0745015 = product of:
          0.149003 = sum of:
            0.149003 = weight(_text_:prof in 3128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.149003 = score(doc=3128,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.27749604 = queryWeight, product of:
                  7.014756 = idf(docFreq=107, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0395589 = queryNorm
                0.5369554 = fieldWeight in 3128, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  7.014756 = idf(docFreq=107, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3128)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    Aufgrund eines Vortrags über Begriffs- und Definitionstheorie, den ich bei der Tagung über Begriffsanalyse in Darmstadt 1986 gehalten hatte (Dahlberg 1987), wandte sich der damalige Mitherausgeber der Zeitschrift Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften, Dr. Rainer Greshoff, 1990 an mich mit der Bitte, einen ähnlichen Beitrag als Hauptartikel für seine Zeitschrift zu schreiben. Ich sagte zu mit der Absicht im Hinterkopf, dabei auch meine Erfahrungen mit der sozial-wissenschaftlichen Terminologie, die ich bei COCTA, dem Committee for Conceptual and Terminological Analysis (Vorsitz Prof. Dr. Fred Riggs, Hawaii) (Riggs 1982) gemacht hatte, einzubringen. Hinzu kam, dass mir gerade zu diesem Zeitpunkt das Werk von Stefan Andreski in die Hände gefallen war, betitelt: "Die Hexenmeister der Sozialwissenschaften. Missbrauch, Mode und Manipulation einer Wissenschaft", (Andreski 1974) der sozusagen "kein Blatt vor den Mund nimmt" und überaus mutig und an vielen Beispielen die Misere der sozialwissenschaftlichen Terminologie offenbar macht. Ich hoffte daher, in einem entsprechenden Beitrag mehr Bewusstsein für eine begriffsorientierte, systematische Terminologie der Sozialwissenschaften zu wecken. In gewisser Weise war für mich dabei die Lösung von Prof. Riggs mit seiner "Onomantik" (Riggs 1985) vorbildlich. Er ging nämlich davon aus, dass der sog. semasiologische Ansatz, bei dem nach der Bedeutung eines Wortes gefragt wird, unbrauchbar für sein Verständnis sei (und das nicht nur in den Sozialwissenschaften), man müsse vielmehr umgekehrt onomasiologisch vorgehen und sich zunächst über einen Begriff klar werden, der mit einem Wort (oder einem Wort in einem Kontext) verbunden ist und seine mögliche Definition finden und dann erst dafür eine Benennung suchen. Aus Zeitmangel entstand mein Beitrag erst 1995. Herr Dr. Greshoff konnte - entsprechend der Methode seiner Zeitschrift - zu meinem Beitrag eine größere Anzahl von Kritikern finden und diese dann auch noch durch eine Replik der Autorin erwidern lassen und mit einer Metakritik eines Nichtinvolvierten das Ganze beenden. In meinem Fall waren es 27 Persönlichkeiten aus 10 verschiedenen Disziplinen und Herr Prof. Dr. Endruweit als Metakritiker. Der Beitrag umfasste die Seiten 3-91 (DIN A4 Format) in Heft 1-1996 unter dem Titel "Zur Begriffskultur in den Sozialwissenschaften. Lassen sich ihre Probleme lösen?" (Dahlberg 1996). Ich war überzeugt, dass sich ihre Probleme mit meiner vorgeschlagenen Methode lösen lassen. Doch meine Kritiker waren es leider nicht. Und über das Warum - davon wird mein Vortrag heute handeln.
  4. Gnoli, C.: Progress in synthetic classification : towards unique definition of concepts (2007) 0.01
    0.0078120497 = product of:
      0.054684345 = sum of:
        0.054684345 = weight(_text_:global in 2527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054684345 = score(doc=2527,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19788647 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.002325 = idf(docFreq=807, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0395589 = queryNorm
            0.276342 = fieldWeight in 2527, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.002325 = idf(docFreq=807, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2527)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Content
    Beitrag anlässlich: Proceedings of the International Seminar "Information access for the global community", 4-5 June 2007, The Hague. - Vgl.: http://www.udcc.org/seminar07/presentations/gnoli.pdf.
  5. Harras, G.: Concepts in linguistics : concepts in natural language (2000) 0.01
    0.005526752 = product of:
      0.038687263 = sum of:
        0.038687263 = weight(_text_:ed in 5068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038687263 = score(doc=5068,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.140671 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0395589 = queryNorm
            0.27501947 = fieldWeight in 5068, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5068)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Source
    Conceptual structures: logical, linguistic, and computational issues. 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2000, Darmstadt, Germany, August 14-18, 2000. Ed.: B. Ganter et al
  6. Gerbé, O.; Mineau, G.W.; Keller, R.K.: Conceptual graphs, metamodelling, and notation of concepts : fundamental issues (2000) 0.00
    0.004737216 = product of:
      0.03316051 = sum of:
        0.03316051 = weight(_text_:ed in 5078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03316051 = score(doc=5078,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.140671 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0395589 = queryNorm
            0.23573098 = fieldWeight in 5078, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5078)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Source
    Conceptual structures: logical, linguistic, and computational issues. 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2000, Darmstadt, Germany, August 14-18, 2000. Ed.: B. Ganter et al
  7. Sowa, J.F.: Ontology, metadata, and semiotics (2000) 0.00
    0.00394768 = product of:
      0.027633758 = sum of:
        0.027633758 = weight(_text_:ed in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027633758 = score(doc=5071,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.140671 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0395589 = queryNorm
            0.19644247 = fieldWeight in 5071, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5071)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Source
    Conceptual structures: logical, linguistic, and computational issues. 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2000, Darmstadt, Germany, August 14-18, 2000. Ed.: B. Ganter et al
  8. Bauer, G.: ¬Die vielseitigen Anwendungsmöglichkeiten des Kategorienprinzips bei der Wissensorganisation (2006) 0.00
    0.0026798425 = product of:
      0.018758897 = sum of:
        0.018758897 = product of:
          0.037517793 = sum of:
            0.037517793 = weight(_text_:22 in 5710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037517793 = score(doc=5710,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13852853 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0395589 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5710, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5710)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Pages
    S.22-33
  9. Olson, H.A.: How we construct subjects : a feminist analysis (2007) 0.00
    0.0019141734 = product of:
      0.013399213 = sum of:
        0.013399213 = product of:
          0.026798425 = sum of:
            0.026798425 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026798425 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13852853 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0395589 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5588, 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=5588)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Date
    11.12.2019 19:00:22