Search (95 results, page 1 of 5)

0.057924382 = product of:
  0.08688657 = sum of:
    0.031528432 = weight(_text_:of in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031528432 = score(doc=1204,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = 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)
    0.055358134 = sum of:
      0.020004123 = weight(_text_:science in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020004123 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
      0.03535401 = weight(_text_:22 in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03535401 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.3

Source

The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: Green, R., C.A. Bean u. S.H. Myaeng

0.03858435 = product of:
  0.057876524 = sum of:
    0.023928396 = weight(_text_:of in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023928396 = score(doc=1319,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1319, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1319)
    0.033948127 = product of:
      0.067896254 = sum of:
        0.067896254 = weight(_text_:science in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067896254 = score(doc=1319,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.49389738 = fieldWeight in 1319, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1319)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.036238458 = product of:
  0.054357685 = sum of:
    0.02960988 = weight(_text_:of in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02960988 = score(doc=2574,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = 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)
    0.024747808 = product of:
      0.049495615 = sum of:
        0.049495615 = weight(_text_:22 in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049495615 = score(doc=2574,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.034809783 = product of:
  0.052214675 = sum of:
    0.03453767 = weight(_text_:of in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03453767 = score(doc=1440,freq=48.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = 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)
    0.017677005 = product of:
      0.03535401 = sum of:
        0.03535401 = weight(_text_:22 in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03535401 = score(doc=1440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.031938553 = product of:
  0.04790783 = sum of:
    0.03190453 = weight(_text_:of in 4447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03190453 = score(doc=4447,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 4447, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4447)
    0.0160033 = product of:
      0.0320066 = sum of:
        0.0320066 = weight(_text_:science in 4447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0320066 = score(doc=4447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 4447, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

Source

South African journal of library and information science. 63(1995) no.4, S.173-178

0.031938553 = product of:
  0.04790783 = sum of:
    0.03190453 = weight(_text_:of in 1186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03190453 = score(doc=1186,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 1186, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1186)
    0.0160033 = product of:
      0.0320066 = sum of:
        0.0320066 = weight(_text_:science in 1186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0320066 = score(doc=1186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 1186, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This chapter deals with the paradigmatic sense relation of hyponymy as manifested in nouns. A number of approaches to the definition of the relation are discussed, with particular attention being given to the problems of framing a prototype-theoretical characterization. An account is offered of a number of sub-varieties of hyponymy.

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.3

Source

The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: Green, R., C.A. Bean u. S.H. Myaeng

0.031725004 = product of:
  0.047587503 = sum of:
    0.029910497 = weight(_text_:of in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029910497 = score(doc=33,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = 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)
    0.017677005 = product of:
      0.03535401 = sum of:
        0.03535401 = weight(_text_:22 in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03535401 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.031191409 = product of:
  0.046787113 = sum of:
    0.02442182 = weight(_text_:of in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02442182 = score(doc=3461,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 3461, 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=3461)
    0.022365293 = product of:
      0.044730585 = sum of:
        0.044730585 = weight(_text_:science in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044730585 = score(doc=3461,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Concept theory is an extremely broad, interdisciplinary and complex field of research related to many deep fields with very long historical traditions without much consensus. However, information science and knowledge organization cannot avoid relating to theories of concepts. Knowledge organizing systems (e.g., classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies) should be understood as systems basically organizing concepts and their semantic relations. The same is the case with information retrieval systems. Different theories of concepts have different implications for how to construe, evaluate, and use such systems. Based on a post-Kuhnian view of paradigms, this article put forward arguments that the best understanding and classification of theories of concepts is to view and classify them in accordance with epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism). It is also argued that the historicist and pragmatist understandings of concepts are the most fruitful views and that this understanding may be part of a broader paradigm shift that is also beginning to take place in information science. The importance of historicist and pragmatic theories of concepts for information science is outlined.

Footnote

Vgl.: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S. 1076-1077 und die Erwiderung darauf von B. Hjoerland (S.1078-1080)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1519-1536

0.030921802 = product of:
  0.046382703 = sum of:
    0.02637858 = weight(_text_:of in 4484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02637858 = score(doc=4484,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 4484, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4484)
    0.020004123 = product of:
      0.040008247 = sum of:
        0.040008247 = weight(_text_:science in 4484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040008247 = score(doc=4484,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 4484, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4484)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

Source

Journal of documentation. 57(2001) no.4, S.519-534

0.029319627 = product of:
  0.04397944 = sum of:
    0.024176367 = weight(_text_:of in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024176367 = score(doc=1189,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 1189, 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=1189)
    0.019803073 = product of:
      0.039606147 = sum of:
        0.039606147 = weight(_text_:science in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039606147 = score(doc=1189,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Relationships can provide a rich and powerful set of information and can be used to accomplish application goals, such as information retrieval and natural language processing. A growing trend in the information science community is the use of information visualization-taking advantage of people's natural visual capabilities to perceive and understand complex information. This chapter explores how visualization and visual exploration can help users gain insight from known relationships and discover evidence of new relationships not previously anticipated.

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.3

Source

The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: Green, R., C.A. Bean u. S.H. Myaeng

0.02907518 = product of:
  0.043612767 = sum of:
    0.02960988 = weight(_text_:of in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02960988 = score(doc=1195,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 1195, 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=1195)
    0.0140028875 = product of:
      0.028005775 = sum of:
        0.028005775 = weight(_text_:science in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028005775 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The intuitive simplicity of the so-called is-a (or subsumption) relationship has led to widespread ontological misuse. Where previous work has focused largely an the semantics of the relationship itself, we concentrate here an the ontological nature of its arguments, in Order to tell whether a single is-a link is ontologically well-founded. For this purpose, we introduce some techniques based an the philosophical notions of identity, unity, and essence, which have been adapted to the needs of taxonomy design. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these techniques by taking real examples of poorly structured taxonomies and revealing cases of invalid generalization.

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.3

Source

The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: Green, R., C.A. Bean u. S.H. Myaeng

0.027686996 = product of:
  0.041530494 = sum of:
    0.031528432 = weight(_text_:of in 7868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031528432 = score(doc=7868,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.38633084 = fieldWeight in 7868, 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=7868)
    0.010002062 = product of:
      0.020004123 = sum of:
        0.020004123 = weight(_text_:science in 7868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020004123 = score(doc=7868,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 7868, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7868)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

Source

Information systems and data analysis: prospects - foundations - applications. Proc. of the 17th Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Kaiserslautern, March 3-5, 1993. Ed.: H.-H. Bock et al

0.027539104 = product of:
  0.041308656 = sum of:
    0.029306183 = weight(_text_:of in 2178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029306183 = score(doc=2178,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 2178, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2178)
    0.012002475 = product of:
      0.02400495 = sum of:
        0.02400495 = weight(_text_:science in 2178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02400495 = score(doc=2178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A set of semantic relations is created every time a domain modeler wants to solve some complex problem computationally. These relations are usually organized into ontologies. But three is little standardization of ontologies today, and almost no discussion an ways of comparing relations, of determining a general approach to creating relations, or of modeling in general. This chapter outlines an approach to establishing a general methodology for comparing and justifying sets of relations (and ontologies in general). It first provides several dozen characteristics of ontologies, organized into three taxonomies of increasingly detailed features, by which many essential characteristics of ontologies can be described. These features enable one to compare ontologies at a general level, without studying every concept they contain. But sometimes it is necessary to make detailed comparisons of content. The chapter then illustrates one method for determining salient points for comparison, using algorithms that semi-automatically identify similarities and differences between ontologies.

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.3

Source

The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: Green, R., C.A. Bean u. S.H. Myaeng

0.02670734 = product of:
  0.04006101 = sum of:
    0.028058534 = weight(_text_:of in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028058534 = score(doc=5876,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 5876, 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=5876)
    0.012002475 = product of:
      0.02400495 = sum of:
        0.02400495 = weight(_text_:science in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02400495 = score(doc=5876,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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'

0.02670734 = product of:
  0.04006101 = sum of:
    0.028058534 = weight(_text_:of in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028058534 = score(doc=1202,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 1202, 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=1202)
    0.012002475 = product of:
      0.02400495 = sum of:
        0.02400495 = weight(_text_:science in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02400495 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Meronymic or partonomic relations are ontological relations that are considered as fundamental as the ubiquitous, taxonomic subsumption relationship. While the latter is well-established and thoroughly investigated, there is still much work to be done in the field of meronymic relations. The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview an current research in characterizing, formalizing, classifying, and processing meronymic or partonomic relations (also called part-whole relations in artificial intelligence and application domains). The first part of the chapter investigates the role of knowledge about parts in human cognition, for example, visual perception and conceptual knowledge. The second part describes the classical approach provided by formal mereology and its extensions, which use one single transitive part-of relation, thus focusing an the notion of "part" and neglecting the notion of (something being a) "whole". This limitation leads to classifications of different part-whole relations, one of which is presented in the last part of the chapter.

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.3

Source

The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: Green, R., C.A. Bean u. S.H. Myaeng

0.02571125 = product of:
  0.038566872 = sum of:
    0.02442182 = weight(_text_:of in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02442182 = score(doc=4926,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = 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)
    0.014145052 = product of:
      0.028290104 = sum of:
        0.028290104 = weight(_text_:science in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028290104 = score(doc=4926,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.025708806 = product of:
  0.038563207 = sum of:
    0.02255991 = weight(_text_:of in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02255991 = score(doc=1193,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
    0.0160033 = product of:
      0.0320066 = sum of:
        0.0320066 = weight(_text_:science in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0320066 = score(doc=1193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The basic conceptual units of cognitive semantics-image schemata, basic level concepts, and frames-are intemally structured, with meaningful relationships existing between components of those units. In metonymy, metaphor, and blended spaces, such intemal conceptual structure is complemented by extemal referential structure, based an mappings between elements of underlying conceptualspaces.

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.3

Source

The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: Green, R., C.A. Bean u. S.H. Myaeng

0.025452837 = product of:
  0.038179256 = sum of:
    0.024176367 = weight(_text_:of in 6046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024176367 = score(doc=6046,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = 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)
    0.0140028875 = product of:
      0.028005775 = sum of:
        0.028005775 = weight(_text_:science in 6046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028005775 = score(doc=6046,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 6046, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6046)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.025452837 = product of:
  0.038179256 = sum of:
    0.024176367 = weight(_text_:of in 1191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024176367 = score(doc=1191,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 1191, 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=1191)
    0.0140028875 = product of:
      0.028005775 = sum of:
        0.028005775 = weight(_text_:science in 1191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028005775 = score(doc=1191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 1191, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1191)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The principal relation linking verbs in a semantic network is the manner relation (or "troponymy"). We examine the nature of troponymy across different semantic domains and verb classes in an attempt to arrive at a more subtle understanding of this intuitive relation. Troponymy is not a semantically homogeneous relation; rather, it is polysemous and encompasses distinct sub-relations. We identify and discuss Manner, Function, and Result. Furthermore, different kinds of troponyms differ from their semantically less elaborated superordinates in their syntactic behavior. In some cases, troponyms exhibit a wider range of syntactic altemations; in other cases, the troponyms are more restricted in their argument-projecting properties.

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.3

Source

The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: Green, R., C.A. Bean u. S.H. Myaeng

0.02542156 = product of:
  0.03813234 = sum of:
    0.016919931 = weight(_text_:of in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016919931 = score(doc=3060,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = 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)
    0.021212406 = product of:
      0.042424813 = sum of:
        0.042424813 = weight(_text_:22 in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042424813 = score(doc=3060,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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