Search (64 results, page 1 of 4)

0.07968613 = product of:
  0.19921531 = sum of:
    0.15811105 = weight(_text_:views in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15811105 = score(doc=2655,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.5414352 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
    0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04110426 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2655, 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=2655)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The term "facet" was introduced into the field of library classification systems by Ranganathan in the 1930's [Ranganathan, 1962]. A facet is a viewpoint or aspect. In contrast to traditional classification systems, faceted systems are modular in that a domain is analyzed in terms of baseline facets which are then synthesized. In this paper, the term "facet" is used in a broader meaning. Facets can describe different aspects on the same level of abstraction or the same aspect on different levels of abstraction. The notion of facets is related to database views, multicontexts and conceptual scaling in formal concept analysis [Ganter and Wille, 1999], polymorphism in object-oriented design, aspect-oriented programming, views and contexts in description logic and semantic networks. This paper presents a definition of facets in terms of faceted knowledge representation that incorporates the traditional narrower notion of facets and potentially facilitates translation between different knowledge representation formalisms. A goal of this approach is a modular, machine-aided knowledge base design mechanism. A possible application is faceted thesaurus construction for information retrieval and data mining. Reasoning complexity depends on the size of the modules (facets). A more general analysis of complexity will be left for future research.

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31

0.061162263 = product of:
  0.15290566 = sum of:
    0.11180139 = weight(_text_:views in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11180139 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 2418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2418)
    0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04110426 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2418, 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=2418)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006

0.048185322 = product of:
  0.24092661 = sum of:
    0.24092661 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24092661 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42868128 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.03212355 = product of:
  0.16061775 = sum of:
    0.16061775 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16061775 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42868128 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F1627&ei=tAtYUYrBNoHKtQb3l4GYBw&usg=AFQjCNHeaxKkKU3-u54LWxMNYGXaaDLCGw&sig2=8WykXWQoDKjDSdGtAakH2Q&bvm=bv.44442042,d.Yms.

0.03212355 = product of:
  0.16061775 = sum of:
    0.16061775 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16061775 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.42868128 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Information Technologies. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.cmu.edu%2F~cx%2Fpapers%2Fknowledge_based_text_representation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0SaTSvhWLTh__Uz_HtOtl3.

0.029813705 = product of:
  0.14906852 = sum of:
    0.14906852 = weight(_text_:views in 6020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14906852 = score(doc=6020,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.51047 = fieldWeight in 6020, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6020)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Object

I-Views

0.022360278 = product of:
  0.11180139 = sum of:
    0.11180139 = weight(_text_:views in 3264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11180139 = score(doc=3264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 3264, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3264)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

We scho how the beenfits of the view-based search method, developed within the information retrieval community, can be extended with ontology-based search, developed within the Semantic Web community, and with semantic recommendations. As a proof of the concept, we have implemented an ontology-and view-based search engine and recommendations system Ontogaotr for RDF(S) repositories. Ontogator is innovative in two ways. Firstly, the RDFS.based ontologies used for annotating metadata are used in the user interface to facilitate view-based information retrieval. The views provide the user with an overview of the repositorys contents and a vocabulary for expressing search queries. Secondlyy, a semantic browsing function is provided by a recommender system. This system enriches instance level metadata by ontologies and provides the user with links to semantically related relevant resources. The semantic linkage is specified in terms of logical rules. To illustrate and discuss the ideas, a deployed application of Ontogator to a photo repository of the Helsinki University Museum is presented.

0.021081474 = product of:
  0.105407365 = sum of:
    0.105407365 = weight(_text_:views in 4040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105407365 = score(doc=4040,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3609568 = fieldWeight in 4040, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4040)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Today's semantic web deals with meaning in a very restricted sense and offers static solutions. This is adequate for many scientific, technical purposes and for business transactions requiring machine-to-machine communication, but does not answer the needs of culture. Science, technology and business are concerned primarily with the latest findings, the state of the art, i.e. the paradigm or dominant world-view of the day. In this context, history is considered non-essential because it deals with things that are out of date. By contrast, culture faces a much larger challenge, namely, to re-present changes in ways of knowing; changing meanings in different places at a given time (synchronically) and over time (diachronically). Culture is about both objects and the commentaries on them; about a cumulative body of knowledge; about collective memory and heritage. Here, history plays a central role and older does not mean less important or less relevant. Hence, a Leonardo painting that is 400 years old, or a Greek statue that is 2500 years old, typically have richer commentaries and are often more valuable than their contemporary equivalents. In this context, the science of meaning (semantics) is necessarily much more complex than semantic primitives. A semantic web in the cultural domain must enable us to trace how meaning and knowledge organisation have evolved historically in different cultures. This paper examines five issues to address this challenge: 1) different world-views (i.e. a shift from substance to function and from ontology to multiple ontologies); 2) developments in definitions and meaning; 3) distinctions between words and concepts; 4) new classes of relations; and 5) dynamic models of knowledge organisation. These issues reveal that historical dimensions of cultural diversity in knowledge organisation are also central to classification of biological diversity. New ways are proposed of visualizing knowledge using a time/space horizon to distinguish between universals and particulars. It is suggested that new visualization methods make possible a history of questions as well as of answers, thus enabling dynamic access to cultural and historical dimensions of knowledge. Unlike earlier media, which were limited to recording factual dimensions of collective memory, digital media enable us to explore theories, ways of perceiving, ways of knowing; to enter into other mindsets and world-views and thus to attain novel insights and new levels of tolerance. Some practical consequences are outlined.

0.018633565 = product of:
  0.09316782 = sum of:
    0.09316782 = weight(_text_:views in 1980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09316782 = score(doc=1980,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 1980, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1980)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate that semantic issues underlie all research questions within Library and Information Science (LIS, or, as hereafter, IS) and, in particular, the subfield known as Knowledge Organization (KO). Further, it seeks to show that semantics is a field influenced by conflicting views and discusses why it is important to argue for the most fruitful one of these. Moreover, the chapter demonstrates that IS has not yet addressed semantic problems in systematic fashion and examines why the field is very fragmented and without a proper theoretical basis. The focus here is on broad interdisciplinary issues and the long-term perspective. The theoretical problems involving semantics and concepts are very complicated. Therefore, this chapter starts by considering tools developed in KO for information retrieval (IR) as basically semantic tools. In this way, it establishes a specific IS focus on the relation between KO and semantics. It is well known that thesauri consist of a selection of concepts supplemented with information about their semantic relations (such as generic relations or "associative relations"). Some words in thesauri are "preferred terms" (descriptors), whereas others are "lead-in terms." The descriptors represent concepts. The difference between "a word" and "a concept" is that different words may have the same meaning and similar words may have different meanings, whereas one concept expresses one meaning.

0.018633565 = product of:
  0.09316782 = sum of:
    0.09316782 = weight(_text_:views in 99) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09316782 = score(doc=99,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 99, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=99)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A new model is proposed to retrieve information by building automatically a semantic metatext structure for texts that allow searching and extracting discourse and semantic information according to certain linguistic categorizations. This paper presents approaches for searching and mining full text with semantic categories. The model is built up from two engines: The first one, called EXCOM (Djioua et al., 2006; Alrahabi, 2010), is an automatic system for text annotation, related to discourse and semantic maps, which are specification of general linguistic ontologies founded on the Applicative and Cognitive Grammar. The annotation layer uses a linguistic method called Contextual Exploration, which handles the polysemic values of a term in texts. Several 'semantic maps' underlying 'point of views' for text mining guide this automatic annotation process. The second engine uses semantic annotated texts, produced previously in order to create a semantic inverted index, which is able to retrieve relevant documents for queries associated with discourse and semantic categories such as definition, quotation, causality, relations between concepts, etc. (Djioua & Desclés, 2007). This semantic indexation process builds a metatext layer for textual contents. Some data and linguistic rules sets as well as the general architecture that extend third-party software are expressed as supplementary information.

0.0149068525 = product of:
  0.07453426 = sum of:
    0.07453426 = weight(_text_:views in 3275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07453426 = score(doc=3275,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.255235 = fieldWeight in 3275, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3275)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 36(2009) no.2/3, S.178-180 (Birger Hjørland): " ... Theories of Geographic Concepts offers, despite such omissions, a rich and valuable overview of a complicated field. The different perspectives it presents are views and concepts that are at the centre of attention in contemporary research. Our field of KO cannot afford to ignore this literature and it is important that we come in closer contact with specific domains, including geography. This book should therefore be included in libraries and collections serving research and teaching in Knowledge Organization."

0.0149068525 = product of:
  0.07453426 = sum of:
    0.07453426 = weight(_text_:views in 771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07453426 = score(doc=771,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.255235 = fieldWeight in 771, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=771)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Research in ontology has in recent years become widespread in the field of information systems, in distinct areas of sciences, in business, in economy, and in industry. The importance of ontologies is increasingly recognized in fields diverse as in e-commerce, semantic web, enterprise, information integration, qualitative modelling of physical systems, natural language processing, knowledge engineering, and databases. Ontologies provide formal specifications and harmonized definitions of concepts used to represent knowledge of specific domains. An ontology supplies a unifying framework for communication and establishes the basis of the knowledge about a specific domain. The term ontology has two meanings, it denotes, on the one hand, a research area, on the other hand, a system of organized knowledge. A system of knowledge may exhibit various degrees of formality; in the strongest sense it is an axiomatized and formally represented theory. which is denoted throughout this paper by the term axiomatized ontology. We use the term formal ontology to name an area of research which is becoming a science similar as formal or mathematical logic. Formal ontology is an evolving science which is concerned with the systematic development of axiomatic theories describing forms, modes, and views of being of the world at different levels of abstraction and granularity. Formal ontology combines the methods of mathematical logic with principles of philosophy, but also with the methods of artificial intelligence and linguistics. At themost general level of abstraction, formal ontology is concerned with those categories that apply to every area of the world. The application of formal ontology to domains at different levels of generality yields knowledge systems which are called, according to the level of abstraction, Top Level Ontologies or Foundational Ontologies, Core Domain or Domain Ontologies. Top level or foundational ontologies apply to every area of the world, in contrast to the various Generic, Domain Core or Domain Ontologies, which are associated to more restricted fields of interest. A foundational ontology can serve as a unifying framework for representation and integration of knowledge and may support the communication and harmonisation of conceptual systems. The current paper presents an overview about the current stage of the foundational ontology GFO.

0.0149068525 = product of:
  0.07453426 = sum of:
    0.07453426 = weight(_text_:views in 2281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07453426 = score(doc=2281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.255235 = fieldWeight in 2281, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2281)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

An information system like the Web is a continuously evolving system consisting of multiple heterogeneous information sources, covering a wide domain of discourse, and a huge number of users (human or software) with diverse characteristics and needs, that produce and consume information. The challenge nowadays is to build a scalable information infrastructure enabling the effective, accurate, content based retrieval of information, in a way that adapts to the characteristics and interests of the users. The aim of this work is to propose formally sound methods for building such an information network based on ontologies which are widely used and are easy to grasp by ordinary Web users. The main results of this work are: - A novel scheme for indexing and retrieving objects according to multiple aspects or facets. The proposed scheme is a faceted scheme enriched with a method for specifying the combinations of terms that are valid. We give a model-theoretic interpretation to this model and we provide mechanisms for inferring the valid combinations of terms. This inference service can be exploited for preventing errors during the indexing process, which is very important especially in the case where the indexing is done collaboratively by many users, and for deriving "complete" navigation trees suitable for browsing through the Web. The proposed scheme has several advantages over the hierarchical classification schemes currently employed by Web catalogs, namely, conceptual clarity (it is easier to understand), compactness (it takes less space), and scalability (the update operations can be formulated more easily and be performed more effciently). - A exible and effecient model for building mediators over ontology based information sources. The proposed mediators support several modes of query translation and evaluation which can accommodate various application needs and levels of answer quality. The proposed model can be used for providing users with customized views of Web catalogs. It can also complement the techniques for building mediators over relational sources so as to support approximate translation of partially ordered domain values.

0.013701421 = product of:
  0.068507105 = sum of:
    0.068507105 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068507105 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Pages

S.11-22

0.013701421 = product of:
  0.068507105 = sum of:
    0.068507105 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068507105 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5576, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5576)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

13.12.2017 14:17:22

0.013701421 = product of:
  0.068507105 = sum of:
    0.068507105 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068507105 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:07

0.013701421 = product of:
  0.068507105 = sum of:
    0.068507105 = weight(_text_:22 in 3406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068507105 = score(doc=3406,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3406, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3406)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

30. 5.2010 16:22:35

0.013701421 = product of:
  0.068507105 = sum of:
    0.068507105 = weight(_text_:22 in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068507105 = score(doc=4523,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4523, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4523)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2018, H.1, S.22-27

0.013043496 = product of:
  0.06521748 = sum of:
    0.06521748 = weight(_text_:views in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06521748 = score(doc=1077,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.22333062 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.0116260415 = product of:
  0.05813021 = sum of:
    0.05813021 = weight(_text_:22 in 3355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05813021 = score(doc=3355,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 3355, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3355)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2017 16:54:03
22. 1.2017 17:10:56