Search (45 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Begriffstheorie"
  1. Friedman, A.; Thellefsen, M.: Concept theory and semiotics in knowledge organization (2011) 0.02 
    0.021451002 = product of:
  0.064353004 = sum of:
    0.064353004 = product of:
      0.12870601 = sum of:
        0.12870601 = weight(_text_:demand in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12870601 = score(doc=292,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.4134786 = fieldWeight in 292, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=292)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the basics of semiotic analysis and concept theory that represent two dominant approaches to knowledge representation, and explore how these approaches are fruitful for knowledge organization. Design/methodology/approach - In particular the semiotic theory formulated by the American philosopher C.S. Peirce and the concept theory formulated by Ingetraut Dahlberg are investigated. The paper compares the differences and similarities between these two theories of knowledge representation. Findings - The semiotic model is a general and unrestricted model of signs and Dahlberg's model is thought from the perspective and demand of better knowledge organization system (KOS) development. It is found that Dahlberg's concept model provides a detailed method for analyzing and representing concepts in a KOS, where semiotics provides the philosophical context for representation. Originality/value - This paper is the first to combine theories of knowledge representation, semiotic and concept theory, within the context of knowledge organization.
  2. Olson, H.A.: How we construct subjects : a feminist analysis (2007) 0.02 
    0.020160122 = product of:
  0.030240182 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
    0.01690379 = product of:
      0.03380758 = sum of:
        0.03380758 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03380758 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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
  3. Dahlberg, I.: ¬Die gegenstandsbezogene, analytische Begriffstheorie und ihre Definitionsarten (1987) 0.02 
    0.01577687 = product of:
  0.04733061 = sum of:
    0.04733061 = product of:
      0.09466122 = sum of:
        0.09466122 = weight(_text_:22 in 880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09466122 = score(doc=880,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Pages
    S.9-22
  4. Dahlberg, I.: On the theory of the concept (1979) 0.02 
    0.015088407 = product of:
  0.04526522 = sum of:
    0.04526522 = weight(_text_:on in 1615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04526522 = score(doc=1615,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.4123903 = fieldWeight in 1615, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1615)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Ordering systems for global information networks. Proc. of the 3rd Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Bombay 1975
  5. Deese, J.E.: On the structure of associative meaning (1962) 0.01 
    0.014225486 = product of:
  0.042676456 = sum of:
    0.042676456 = weight(_text_:on in 7867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042676456 = score(doc=7867,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.3888053 = fieldWeight in 7867, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7867)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  6. Zawada, B.; Swanepoel, P.: On the empirical adequacy of terminological concept theories : the case for prototype theory (1994) 0.01 
    0.014225486 = product of:
  0.042676456 = sum of:
    0.042676456 = weight(_text_:on in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042676456 = score(doc=2004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.3888053 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  7. Wüster, E.: Begriffs- und Themaklassifikation : Unterschiede in ihrem Wesen und in ihrer Anwendung (1971) 0.01 
    0.013523031 = product of:
  0.040569093 = sum of:
    0.040569093 = product of:
      0.081138186 = sum of:
        0.081138186 = weight(_text_:22 in 3904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081138186 = score(doc=3904,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 22(1971) H.3, S.98-104 (T.1); H.4, S.143-150 (T.2)
  8. Sager, J.C.; Ndi-Kimbi, A.: ¬The conceptual structure of terminological definitions and their realisations : a report on research in progress (1995) 0.01 
    0.0124473 = product of:
  0.0373419 = sum of:
    0.0373419 = weight(_text_:on in 7579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0373419 = score(doc=7579,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.34020463 = fieldWeight in 7579, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7579)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  9. Harras, G.: Concepts in linguistics : concepts in natural language (2000) 0.01 
    0.0124473 = product of:
  0.0373419 = sum of:
    0.0373419 = weight(_text_:on in 5068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0373419 = score(doc=5068,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.34020463 = fieldWeight in 5068, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5068)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This paper deals with different views of lexical semantics. The focus is on the relationship between lexical expressions and conceptual components. First the assumptions about lexicalization and decompositionality of concepts shared by the most semanticists are presented, followed by a discussion of the differences between two-level-semants and one-level-semantics. The final part is concentrated on the interpretation of conceptual components in situations of communication
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; vol.1867: Lecture notes on artificial intelligence
    Source
    Conceptual structures: logical, linguistic, and computational issues. 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2000, Darmstadt, Germany, August 14-18, 2000. Ed.: B. Ganter et al
  10. Conceptual structures : theory, tools and applications. 6th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS'98, Montpellier, France, August, 10-12, 1998, Proceedings (1998) 0.01 
    0.012319634 = product of:
  0.0369589 = sum of:
    0.0369589 = weight(_text_:on in 1378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0369589 = score(doc=1378,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.33671528 = fieldWeight in 1378, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1378)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS'98, held in Montpellier, France, in August 1998. The 20 revised full papers and 10 research reports presented were carefully selected from a total of 66 submissions; also included are three invited contributions. The volume is divided in topical sections on knowledge representation and knowledge engineering, tools, conceptual graphs and other models, relationships with logics, algorithms and complexity, natural language processing, and applications.
  11. Bivins, K.T.: Concept formation : the evidence from experimental psychology and linguistics and its relationship to information science (1980) 0.01 
    0.010669115 = product of:
  0.032007344 = sum of:
    0.032007344 = weight(_text_:on in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032007344 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 1319, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1319)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  12. Nelson, S.J.: From meaning to term : semantic locality in the UMLS metathesaurus (1992) 0.01 
    0.010669115 = product of:
  0.032007344 = sum of:
    0.032007344 = weight(_text_:on in 5611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032007344 = score(doc=5611,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 5611, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5611)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Assessing the value of medical informatics: Proc. of the 15th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, Washington, DC, Nov.1991
  13. Svenonius, E.: Indexical contents (1982) 0.01 
    0.010669115 = product of:
  0.032007344 = sum of:
    0.032007344 = weight(_text_:on in 27) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032007344 = score(doc=27,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 27, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=27)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  14. Machado, L.M.O.; Martínez-Ávila, D.; Simões, M.da Graça de Melo: Concept theory in library and information science : an epistemological analysis (2019) 0.01 
    0.009940362 = product of:
  0.029821085 = sum of:
    0.029821085 = weight(_text_:on in 5457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029821085 = score(doc=5457,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.271686 = fieldWeight in 5457, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5457)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the literature on concept theory in library and information science (LIS) from an epistemological perspective, ascribing each paper to an epistemological family and discussing their relevance in the context of the knowledge organization (KO) domain. Design/methodology/approach This paper adopts a hermeneutic approach for the analysis of the texts that compose the corpus of study following contingency and categorical analyses. More specifically, the paper works with Bardin's contingency analysis and follows Hjørland's families of epistemologies for the categorization. Findings The analysis corroborates the observations made for the last ten years about the scarcity of studies on concept theory in LIS and KO. However, the study also reveals an epistemological turn on concept theory since 2009 that could be considered a departure from the rationalist views that dominated the field and a continuation of a broader paradigm shift in LIS and KO. All analyzed papers except two follow pragmatist or historicist approaches. Originality/value This paper follows-up and systematizes the contributions to the LIS and KO fields on concept theory mainly during the last decade. The epistemological analysis reveals the dominant views in this paradigm shift and the main authors and trends that are present in the LIS literature on concept theory.
  15. Dahlberg, I.: Zur Theorie des Begriffs (1974) 0.01 
    0.009239726 = product of:
  0.027719175 = sum of:
    0.027719175 = weight(_text_:on in 1617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027719175 = score(doc=1617,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 1617, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1617)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  16. Dahlberg, I.: Begriffsarbeit in der Wissensorganisation (2010) 0.01 
    0.009015355 = product of:
  0.027046064 = sum of:
    0.027046064 = product of:
      0.054092128 = sum of:
        0.054092128 = weight(_text_:22 in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054092128 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  17. Gilreath, C.T.: Merons, taxons, and qualities : a taxonomy of aspects (1995) 0.01 
    0.008890929 = product of:
  0.026672786 = sum of:
    0.026672786 = weight(_text_:on in 2944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026672786 = score(doc=2944,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 2944, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2944)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    A new comprehensive taxonomy of all kinds of aspects (such as attribute, characteristic, feature, property and quality) is proposed, and concise, uniform names are suggested for the respective concepts. Based on this taxonomy, a new semantic network notation called ETA is briefly introduced
  18. ¬The role of formal ontology in the information technology (1995) 0.01 
    0.008890929 = product of:
  0.026672786 = sum of:
    0.026672786 = weight(_text_:on in 4746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026672786 = score(doc=4746,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 4746, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4746)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    A special issue devoted to the role of formal ontology in information technology. Papers were given at the International Workshop on Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation, held in Padova, Iatly, Mar 95
  19. Kolmayer, E.; Lavandier, J.; Roger, D.: Conceptual maps : users navigation through paradigmatic and syntagmatic links (1998) 0.01 
    0.008801571 = product of:
  0.026404712 = sum of:
    0.026404712 = weight(_text_:on in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026404712 = score(doc=58,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This experiment, focused on the users behaviour, aims to study the search topic representation they build and to highlight the role of a graphical thesaurus on their mental models and searching behaviour. The users expertise in the field is considered. The results show how difficult it is to structure a field; they also point out how much a graphical thesaurus could contribute to such a task, but also its restricted role in the query task. They urge us to think over which shape is proper to the conceptual interface and the variety of links that have to be taken into account
  20. Storms, G.; VanMechelen, I.; DeBoeck, P.: Structural-analysis of the intension and extension of semantic concepts (1994) 0.01 
    0.007888435 = product of:
  0.023665305 = sum of:
    0.023665305 = product of:
      0.04733061 = sum of:
        0.04733061 = weight(_text_:22 in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04733061 = score(doc=2574,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 7.2000 19:17:40

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 38
  • d 6
  • pt 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 38
  • s 5
  • m 3
  • el 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes