-
Olson, H.A.: How we construct subjects : a feminist analysis (2007)
0.11
0.10999586 = product of:
0.18332642 = sum of:
0.0185687 = weight(_text_:of in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0185687 = score(doc=5588,freq=16.0), product of:
0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
0.068685904 = weight(_text_:subject in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.068685904 = score(doc=5588,freq=8.0), product of:
0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
0.096071824 = sum of:
0.0631497 = weight(_text_:headings in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0631497 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
0.032922123 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032922123 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = 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)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- To organize information, librarians create structures. These structures grow from a logic that goes back at least as far as Aristotle. It is the basis of classification as we practice it, and thesauri and subject headings have developed from it. Feminist critiques of logic suggest that logic is gendered in nature. This article will explore how these critiques play out in contemporary standards for the organization of information. Our widely used classification schemes embody principles such as hierarchical force that conform to traditional/Aristotelian logic. Our subject heading strings follow a linear path of subdivision. Our thesauri break down subjects into discrete concepts. In thesauri and subject heading lists we privilege hierarchical relationships, reflected in the syndetic structure of broader and narrower terms, over all other relationships. Are our classificatory and syndetic structures gendered? Are there other options? Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice (1982), Women's Ways of Knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986), and more recent related research suggest a different type of structure for women's knowledge grounded in "connected knowing." This article explores current and potential elements of connected knowing in subject access with a focus on the relationships, both paradigmatic and syntagmatic, between concepts.
- Date
- 11.12.2019 19:00:22
-
Svenonius, E.: Indexical contents (1982)
0.04
0.039271656 = product of:
0.09817914 = sum of:
0.015756065 = weight(_text_:of in 27) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015756065 = score(doc=27,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 27, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=27)
0.082423076 = weight(_text_:subject in 27) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.082423076 = score(doc=27,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 27, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=27)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Source
- Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg
-
Barsalou, L.W.: Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields (1992)
0.04
0.03580339 = product of:
0.089508474 = sum of:
0.07213905 = weight(_text_:list in 3217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07213905 = score(doc=3217,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.2863593 = fieldWeight in 3217, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3217)
0.017369429 = weight(_text_:of in 3217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017369429 = score(doc=3217,freq=14.0), product of:
0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 3217, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3217)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- In this chapter I propose that frames provide the fundamental representation of knowledge in human cognition. In the first section, I raise problems with the feature list representations often found in theories of knowledge, and I sketch the solutions that frames provide to them. In the second section, I examine the three fundamental concepts of frames: attribute-value sets, structural invariants, and constraints. Because frames also represents the attributes, values, structural invariants, and constraints within a frame, the mechanism that constructs frames builds them recursively. The frame theory I propose borrows heavily from previous frame theories, although its collection of representational components is somewhat unique. Furthermore, frame theorists generally assume that frames are rigid configurations of independent attributes, whereas I propose that frames are dynamic relational structures whose form is flexible and context dependent. In the third section, I illustrate how frames support a wide variety of representational tasks central to conceptual processing in natural and artificial intelligence. Frames can represent exemplars and propositions, prototypes and membership, subordinates and taxonomies. Frames can also represent conceptual combinations, event sequences, rules, and plans. In the fourth section, I show how frames define the extent of conceptual fields and how they provide a powerful productive mechanism for generating specific concepts within a field.
-
Barite, M.G.: ¬The notion of "category" : its implications in subject analysis and in the construction and evaluation of indexing languages (2000)
0.03
0.03196753 = product of:
0.07991882 = sum of:
0.03183869 = weight(_text_:of in 6036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03183869 = score(doc=6036,freq=24.0), product of:
0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.41895083 = fieldWeight in 6036, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6036)
0.04808013 = weight(_text_:subject in 6036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04808013 = score(doc=6036,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 6036, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6036)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The notion of category, from Aristotle and Kant to the present time, has been used as a basic intellectual tool for the analysis of the existence and changeableness of things. Ranganathan was the first to extrapolate the concept into the Theory of Classification, placing it as an essential axis for the logical organization of knowledge and the construction of indexing languages. This paper proposes a conceptual and methodological reexamination of the notion of category from a functional and instrumental perspective, and tries to clarify the essential characters of categories in that context, and their present implications regarding the construction and evaluation of indexing languages
-
Pathak, L.P.: Concept-term relationship and a classified schedule of isolates for the term 'concept' (2000)
0.03
0.026687255 = product of:
0.06671814 = sum of:
0.02251335 = weight(_text_:of in 6046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02251335 = score(doc=6046,freq=12.0), product of:
0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 6046, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6046)
0.04420479 = product of:
0.08840958 = sum of:
0.08840958 = weight(_text_:headings in 6046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08840958 = score(doc=6046,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.37509373 = fieldWeight in 6046, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6046)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Draws attention to the efforts to define the terms 'concept' and 'term' and suggests a schedule of isolates for the term 'concept' under eight headings: 0. Concept; 1. Theoretical aspects; 2. Learning theory and Psychological aspects; 3. Origin, evolution, formation, construction; 4. Semantic aspects; 5.Terms and Terminology; 6. Usage and discipline-specific applications; and 7. Concepts and ISAR systems. The schedule also includes about 150 aspects/isolate terms related to 'concept' along with the name of the authors who have used them. The schedule is intended to help in identifying the various aspects of a concept with the help of the terms used for them. These aspects may guide to some extent, in dissecting and seeing the social science concepts from various point of views
-
Dahlberg, I.: Zur Theorie des Begriffs (1974)
0.03
0.026449626 = product of:
0.06612407 = sum of:
0.024912525 = weight(_text_:of in 1617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024912525 = score(doc=1617,freq=20.0), product of:
0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 1617, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1617)
0.041211538 = weight(_text_:subject in 1617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041211538 = score(doc=1617,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 1617, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1617)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- A concept is regarded as the common element of both classification systems and thesauri. Reality and knowledge are not represented by words or terms but by the meanings "behind" these tokens. A concept of, say, an object, a property of an object, a process, etc. is derived from verbal statements on these as subjects and may therefore be defined as the whole of true and possible predicates that can be collected on a given subject. It is from these predicates that the characteristics of the corresponding concepts can be derived. Common characteristics in different concepts lead to relationsbetween concepts, which relations in turn are factors for the formation of concept systems. Different kinds of relationships as well as different kinds of concepts are distinguished. It is pointed out that an orderly supply of the elements for propositions (informative statements) on new knowledge requires the construction and availability of such concept systems
-
Hjoerland, B.: Are relations in thesauri "context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds"? (2015)
0.03
0.025299245 = product of:
0.06324811 = sum of:
0.014679846 = weight(_text_:of in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014679846 = score(doc=2033,freq=10.0), product of:
0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
0.048568267 = weight(_text_:subject in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048568267 = score(doc=2033,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Much of the literature of information science and knowledge organization has accepted and built upon Elaine Svenonius's (2004) claim that "paradigmatic relationships are those that are context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds" (p. 583). At the same time, the literature demonstrates a common understanding that paradigmatic relations are the kinds of semantic relations used in thesauri and other knowledge organization systems (including equivalence relations, hierarchical relations, and associative relations). This understanding is problematic and harmful because it directs attention away from the empirical and contextual basis for knowledge-organizing systems. Whether A is a kind of X is certainly not context-free and definitional in empirical sciences or in much everyday information. Semantic relations are theory-dependent and, in biology, for example, a scientific revolution has taken place in which many relations have changed following the new taxonomic paradigm named "cladism." This biological example is not an exception, but the norm. Semantic relations including paradigmatic relations are not a priori but are dependent on subject knowledge, scientific findings, and paradigms. As long as information scientists and knowledge organizers isolate themselves from subject knowledge, knowledge organization cannot possibly progress.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.7, S.1367-1373
-
O'Neill, E.T.; Kammerer, K.A.; Bennett, R.: ¬The aboutness of words (2017)
0.02
0.02482194 = product of:
0.06205485 = sum of:
0.020843314 = weight(_text_:of in 3835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020843314 = score(doc=3835,freq=14.0), product of:
0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 3835, 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=3835)
0.041211538 = weight(_text_:subject in 3835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041211538 = score(doc=3835,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 3835, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3835)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Word aboutness is defined as the relationship between words and subjects associated with them. An aboutness coefficient is developed to estimate the strength of the aboutness relationship. Words that are randomly distributed across subjects are assumed to lack aboutness and the degree to which their usage deviates from a random pattern indicates the strength of the aboutness. To estimate aboutness, title words and their associated subjects are extracted from the titles of non-fiction English language books in the OCLC WorldCat database. The usage patterns of the title words are analyzed and used to compute aboutness coefficients for each of the common title words. Words with low aboutness coefficients (An and In) are commonly found in stop word lists, whereas words with high aboutness coefficients (Carbonate, Autism) are unambiguous and have a strong subject association. The aboutness coefficient potentially can enhance indexing, advance authority control, and improve retrieval.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.10, S.2471-2483
-
ISO/DIS 5127: Information and documentation - foundation and vocabulary (2013)
0.02
0.022833949 = product of:
0.057084873 = sum of:
0.022741921 = weight(_text_:of in 6070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022741921 = score(doc=6070,freq=24.0), product of:
0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 6070, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6070)
0.034342952 = weight(_text_:subject in 6070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034342952 = score(doc=6070,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 6070, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6070)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This standard provides the basic terms and their definitions in the field of information and documentation for the purpose of promoting and facilitating knowledge sharing and information exchange. This International Standard presents terms and definitions of selected concepts relevant to the field of information and documentation. If a definition is from other standards, the priority of selection is TC46 technical standards, then technical standards in relevant field, and then terminology related standards. The scope of this International Standard corresponds to that of ISO/TC46, Standardization of practices relating to libraries, documentation and information centres, publishing, archives, records management, museum documentation, indexing and abstracting services, and information science. ISO 5127 was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and Documentation, WG4, Terminology of information and documentation. This second edition cancels and replaces the first edition (ISO 5127:2001), which has been technically revised to overcome problems in the practical application of ISO 5127:2001 and to take account of the new developments in the field of information and documentation.
- Content
- This document is not an ISO International Standard. It is distributed for review and comment. It is subject to change without notice and may not be referred to as an International Standard.
-
Szostak, R.: Complex concepts into basic concepts (2011)
0.02
0.022833949 = product of:
0.057084873 = sum of:
0.022741921 = weight(_text_:of in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022741921 = score(doc=4926,freq=24.0), product of:
0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
0.034342952 = weight(_text_:subject in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034342952 = score(doc=4926,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Interdisciplinary communication, and thus the rate of progress in scholarly understanding, would be greatly enhanced if scholars had access to a universal classification of documents or ideas not grounded in particular disciplines or cultures. Such a classification is feasible if complex concepts can be understood as some combination of more basic concepts. There appear to be five main types of concept theory in the philosophical literature. Each provides some support for the idea of breaking complex into basic concepts that can be understood across disciplines or cultures, but each has detractors. None of these criticisms represents a substantive obstacle to breaking complex concepts into basic concepts within information science. Can we take the subject entries in existing universal but discipline-based classifications, and break these into a set of more basic concepts that can be applied across disciplinary classes? The author performs this sort of analysis for Dewey classes 300 to 339.9. This analysis will serve to identify the sort of 'basic concepts' that would lie at the heart of a truly universal classification. There are two key types of basic concept: the things we study (individuals, rocks, trees), and the relationships among these (talking, moving, paying).
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2247-2265
-
Onofri, A.: Concepts in context (2013)
0.02
0.02117824 = product of:
0.0529456 = sum of:
0.018947808 = weight(_text_:of in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018947808 = score(doc=1077,freq=34.0), product of:
0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.2493256 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
34.0 = termFreq=34.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
0.03399779 = weight(_text_:subject in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03399779 = score(doc=1077,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.1955951 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- My thesis discusses two related problems that have taken center stage in the recent literature on concepts: 1) What are the individuation conditions of concepts? Under what conditions is a concept Cv(1) the same concept as a concept Cv(2)? 2) What are the possession conditions of concepts? What conditions must be satisfied for a thinker to have a concept C? The thesis defends a novel account of concepts, which I call "pluralist-contextualist": 1) Pluralism: Different concepts have different kinds of individuation and possession conditions: some concepts are individuated more "coarsely", have less demanding possession conditions and are widely shared, while other concepts are individuated more "finely" and not shared. 2) Contextualism: When a speaker ascribes a propositional attitude to a subject S, or uses his ascription to explain/predict S's behavior, the speaker's intentions in the relevant context determine the correct individuation conditions for the concepts involved in his report. In chapters 1-3 I defend a contextualist, non-Millian theory of propositional attitude ascriptions. Then, I show how contextualism can be used to offer a novel perspective on the problem of concept individuation/possession. More specifically, I employ contextualism to provide a new, more effective argument for Fodor's "publicity principle": if contextualism is true, then certain specific concepts must be shared in order for interpersonally applicable psychological generalizations to be possible. In chapters 4-5 I raise a tension between publicity and another widely endorsed principle, the "Fregean constraint" (FC): subjects who are unaware of certain identity facts and find themselves in so-called "Frege cases" must have distinct concepts for the relevant object x. For instance: the ancient astronomers had distinct concepts (HESPERUS/PHOSPHORUS) for the same object (the planet Venus). First, I examine some leading theories of concepts and argue that they cannot meet both of our constraints at the same time. Then, I offer principled reasons to think that no theory can satisfy (FC) while also respecting publicity. (FC) appears to require a form of holism, on which a concept is individuated by its global inferential role in a subject S and can thus only be shared by someone who has exactly the same inferential dispositions as S. This explains the tension between publicity and (FC), since holism is clearly incompatible with concept shareability. To solve the tension, I suggest adopting my pluralist-contextualist proposal: concepts involved in Frege cases are holistically individuated and not public, while other concepts are more coarsely individuated and widely shared; given this "plurality" of concepts, we will then need contextual factors (speakers' intentions) to "select" the specific concepts to be employed in our intentional generalizations in the relevant contexts. In chapter 6 I develop the view further by contrasting it with some rival accounts. First, I examine a very different kind of pluralism about concepts, which has been recently defended by Daniel Weiskopf, and argue that it is insufficiently radical. Then, I consider the inferentialist accounts defended by authors like Peacocke, Rey and Jackson. Such views, I argue, are committed to an implausible picture of reference determination, on which our inferential dispositions fix the reference of our concepts: this leads to wrong predictions in all those cases of scientific disagreement where two parties have very different inferential dispositions and yet seem to refer to the same natural kind.
- Imprint
- St Andrews : University of St Andrews, School of Philosophical and Anthropological Studies
-
Storms, G.; VanMechelen, I.; DeBoeck, P.: Structural-analysis of the intension and extension of semantic concepts (1994)
0.02
0.020247439 = product of:
0.050618596 = sum of:
0.02757311 = weight(_text_:of in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02757311 = score(doc=2574,freq=18.0), product of:
0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 2574, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2574)
0.023045486 = product of:
0.04609097 = sum of:
0.04609097 = weight(_text_:22 in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04609097 = score(doc=2574,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2574, 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=2574)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- A method (HICLAS, DeBoeck & Rosenberg, 1988) for studying the internal structure of semantic concepts is presented. The proposed method reveals the internal structure of the extension as well as the intesion of a concept, together with a correspondence relation that shows the mutual dependence of both structures. Its use is illustrated with the analysis of simple concepts (e.g. sports) and conjunctive concepts (e.g. birds that are also pets). The underlying structure that is revealed can be interpreted as a differentiation of the simple concepts studied and for conjunctive concepts the proposed method is able to extract non-inherited and emergent features (Hampton, 1988)
- Date
- 22. 7.2000 19:17:40
- Source
- European journal of cognitive psychology. 6(1994) no.1, S.43-75
-
Besler, G.; Szulc, J.: Gottlob Frege's theory of definition as useful tool for knowledge organization : definition of 'context' - case study (2014)
0.02
0.019449199 = product of:
0.048622996 = sum of:
0.032161932 = weight(_text_:of in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032161932 = score(doc=1440,freq=48.0), product of:
0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.42320424 = fieldWeight in 1440, product of:
6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
48.0 = termFreq=48.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1440)
0.016461061 = product of:
0.032922123 = sum of:
0.032922123 = weight(_text_:22 in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032922123 = score(doc=1440,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = 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)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- 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
-
Jouis, C.: Logic of relationships (2002)
0.02
0.018328302 = product of:
0.045820754 = sum of:
0.029359693 = weight(_text_:of in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029359693 = score(doc=1204,freq=40.0), product of:
0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.38633084 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
40.0 = termFreq=40.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
0.016461061 = product of:
0.032922123 = sum of:
0.032922123 = weight(_text_:22 in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032922123 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = 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)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- 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
- Source
- The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: Green, R., C.A. Bean u. S.H. Myaeng
-
Marradi, A.: ¬The concept of concept : concepts and terms (2012)
0.02
0.017725645 = product of:
0.04431411 = sum of:
0.02785305 = weight(_text_:of in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02785305 = score(doc=33,freq=36.0), product of:
0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.36650562 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
36.0 = termFreq=36.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
0.016461061 = product of:
0.032922123 = sum of:
0.032922123 = weight(_text_:22 in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032922123 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 33, 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=33)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The concept of concept has seldom been examined in its entirety, and the term very seldom defined. The rigidity, or lack thereof, and the homogeneity, or lack thereof, of concepts, are only two of their characteristics that have been debated. These issues are reviewed in this paper, namely: 1) does a concept represent its referent(s), or is it a free creation of the mind?; 2) can a concept be analyzed in parts or elements?; 3) must a concept be general, i.e., refer to a category or a type, or can it refer to a single object, physical or mental?; 4) are concepts as clearly delimited as terms are? Are concepts voiceless terms?; and, 5) what do terms contribute to an individual's and a community's conceptual richness? As regards the relationship of concepts with their referents in the stage of formation, it seems reasonable to conclude that said relationship may be close in some concepts, less close in others, and lacking altogether in some cases. The set of elements of a concept, which varies from individual to individual and across time inside the same individual, is called the intension of a concept. The set of referents of a concept is called the extension of that concept. Most concepts don't have a clearly delimited extension: their referents form a fuzzy set. The aspects of a concept's intension form a scale of generality. A concept is not equal to the term that describes it; rather, many terms are joined to concepts. Language, therefore, renders a gamut of services to the development, consolidation, and communication of conceptual richness.
- Date
- 22. 1.2012 13:11:25
- Series
- Forum: The philosophy of classification
-
Treude, L.: ¬Das Problem der Konzeptdefinition in der Wissensorganisation : über einen missglückten Versuch der Klärung (2013)
0.01
0.014203735 = product of:
0.035509337 = sum of:
0.015756065 = weight(_text_:of in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015756065 = score(doc=3060,freq=8.0), product of:
0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 3060, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3060)
0.019753272 = product of:
0.039506543 = sum of:
0.039506543 = weight(_text_:22 in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039506543 = score(doc=3060,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = 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)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- 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.
- Content
- Vgl.: http://www.libreas.eu/09treude.htm. Bezug zu: Alon Friedman, Richard P. Smiraglia, (2013): Nodes and arcs: concept map, semiotics, and knowledge organization. In: Journal of Documentation, Vol. 69/1, S.27-48.
- Source
- LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.22, 2013, S.xx-xx
-
Gemberling, T.: FRSAD, Semiotics, and FRBR-LRM (2016)
0.01
0.009616027 = product of:
0.04808013 = sum of:
0.04808013 = weight(_text_:subject in 5118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04808013 = score(doc=5118,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 5118, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5118)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- Philosophy grapples with the deepest and most difficult questions in human life. In a 2012 article, Jonathan Furner raises questions about the "Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data" (FRSAD) model. Can the FRSAD framers really avoid tackling philosophical questions as they attempt to do-the long-running dispute between nominalists and realists, in particular? This article attempts to flesh out a realist position while showing some implications for the new Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records-Library Reference Model. It is not clear that FRSAD really takes a realist view, as Furner claims, and a position on the nominalist-realist debate is not necessary for information professionals.
-
Dahlberg, I.: ¬Die gegenstandsbezogene, analytische Begriffstheorie und ihre Definitionsarten (1987)
0.01
0.0092181945 = product of:
0.04609097 = sum of:
0.04609097 = product of:
0.09218194 = sum of:
0.09218194 = weight(_text_:22 in 880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09218194 = score(doc=880,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = 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)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Pages
- S.9-22
-
Wüster, E.: Begriffs- und Themaklassifikation : Unterschiede in ihrem Wesen und in ihrer Anwendung (1971)
0.01
0.007901309 = product of:
0.039506543 = sum of:
0.039506543 = product of:
0.07901309 = sum of:
0.07901309 = weight(_text_:22 in 3904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07901309 = score(doc=3904,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3904, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3904)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Source
- Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 22(1971) H.3, S.98-104 (T.1); H.4, S.143-150 (T.2)
-
Kageura, K.: Terminological semantics : an examination of 'concept' and 'meaning' in the study of terms (1995)
0.01
0.007277415 = product of:
0.036387075 = sum of:
0.036387075 = weight(_text_:of in 4561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036387075 = score(doc=4561,freq=24.0), product of:
0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04859849 = queryNorm
0.47880095 = fieldWeight in 4561, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4561)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- The importance of 'concept' in the study of terms is recognized by most researchers in the field of terminological research. However, the theoretical status of 'concept' in the study of terms has not been clarified so far. Against this background, the status of 'concept' in the study of terms is theoretically examined in comparison with the status of 'meaning' in the semantic study of general languages. Sketches a possible scheme by which 'concept' and 'meaning' are properly plyced in the theoretical study of terms
