Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0058953795 = product of:
  0.029476898 = sum of:
    0.029476898 = weight(_text_:of in 4964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029476898 = score(doc=4964,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.38787308 = fieldWeight in 4964, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4964)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The ontological approach in the development of KOS is an attempt to overcome the limitations of the traditional epistemological approach. Questions raise about the representation and organization of ontologically-oriented KO units, such as BFO universals or ILC phenomena. The study aims to compare the ontological approaches of BFO and ILC using a hermeneutic approach. We found that the differences between the units of the two systems are primarily due to the formal level of abstraction of BFO and the different organizations, namely the grouping of phenomena into ILC classes that represent complex compounds of entities in the BFO approach. In both systems the use of concepts is considered instrumental, although in the ILC they constitute the intersubjective component of the phenomena whereas in BFO they serve to access the entities of reality but are not part of them.

Source

Knowledge Organization at the Interface. Proceedings of the Sixteenth International ISKO Conference, 2020 Aalborg, Denmark. Ed.: M. Lykke et al

0.0052256957 = product of:
  0.026128478 = sum of:
    0.026128478 = weight(_text_:of in 894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026128478 = score(doc=894,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 894, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=894)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Several authors emphasize the need for a change in classification theory due to the influence of a dogmatic and monistic ontology supported by an outdated essentialism. These claims tend to focus on the fallibility of knowledge, the need for a pluralistic view, and the theoretical burden of observations. Regardless of the legitimacy of these concerns, there is the risk, when not moderate, to fall into the opposite relativistic extreme. Based on a narrative review of the literature, we aim to reflectively discuss the theoretical foundations that can serve as a basis for a realist position supporting pluralistic ontological classifications. The goal is to show that, against rather conventional solutions, objective scientific-based approaches to natural classifications are presented to be viable, allowing a proper distinction between ontological and taxonomic questions. Supported by critical scientific realism, we consider that such an approach is suitable for the development of ontological Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS). We believe that ontological perspectivism can provide the necessary adaptation to the different granularities of reality.

Source

Journal of information science. 54(2023) no.x, S.xx-xx

0.0041686627 = product of:
  0.020843314 = sum of:
    0.020843314 = weight(_text_:of in 832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020843314 = score(doc=832,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 832, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=832)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In the context of Knowledge Organization (KO) the ontological focus is sometimes overlooked in studies related to the nature of the concept. This study presents an analysis with this purpose, questioning possible modes of existence of concepts (such as mental representations, cognitive abilities or abstract objects), framed in four different readings: a linguistic one, the psychological one, the epistemological one, and the ontological one; and focuses on the two first ones. The suitability of using the concept as an elementary unit of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) is analyzed according to the different perspectives. From a mental entity, passing to another one that exists in a non-mental realm, although also non-physical, moving on to another one with an objective linguistic existence.