Search (72 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Begriffstheorie"
  1. Axelos, C.; Flasch, K.; Schepers, H.; Kuhlen, R.; Romberg, R.; Zimmermann, R.: Allgemeines/Besonderes (1971-2007) 0.30 
    0.30455232 = product of:
  0.91365695 = sum of:
    0.30455232 = weight(_text_:2f in 4031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30455232 = score(doc=4031,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32843533 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.92728245 = fieldWeight in 4031, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4031)
    0.30455232 = weight(_text_:2f in 4031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30455232 = score(doc=4031,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32843533 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.92728245 = fieldWeight in 4031, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4031)
    0.30455232 = weight(_text_:2f in 4031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30455232 = score(doc=4031,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32843533 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.92728245 = fieldWeight in 4031, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4031)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Footnote
    DOI: 10.24894/HWPh.5033. Vgl. unter: https://www.schwabeonline.ch/schwabe-xaveropp/elibrary/start.xav#__elibrary__%2F%2F*%5B%40attr_id%3D%27verw.allgemeinesbesonderes%27%5D__1515856414979.
  2. Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory (2009) 0.04 
    0.036141858 = product of:
  0.10842557 = sum of:
    0.017449005 = weight(_text_:information in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017449005 = score(doc=3461,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.256578 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
    0.01958201 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01958201 = score(doc=3461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
    0.071394555 = product of:
      0.14278911 = sum of:
        0.14278911 = weight(_text_:theories in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14278911 = score(doc=3461,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.67476046 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    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
    Theme
    Information
  3. Guarino, N.; Welty, C.: Identity and subsumption (2002) 0.02 
    0.020324344 = product of:
  0.09145955 = sum of:
    0.009233146 = weight(_text_:information in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009233146 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
    0.0822264 = weight(_text_:techniques in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0822264 = score(doc=1195,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.48182213 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    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
  4. Wilbert, R.: Assoziative Begriffsrepräsentation in neuronalen Netzwerken : Zur Problematik eines assoziativen Zugriffs in Information Retrieval Systemen (1991) 0.02 
    0.018614836 = product of:
  0.08376676 = sum of:
    0.021104332 = weight(_text_:information in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021104332 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
    0.06266243 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06266243 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
  5. Conceptual structures : logical, linguistic, and computational issues. 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2000, Darmstadt, Germany, August 14-18, 2000 (2000) 0.02 
    0.018608248 = product of:
  0.05582474 = sum of:
    0.011749206 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011749206 = score(doc=691,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.10026272 = fieldWeight in 691, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=691)
    0.024918362 = weight(_text_:techniques in 691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024918362 = score(doc=691,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.14601415 = fieldWeight in 691, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=691)
    0.01915717 = product of:
      0.03831434 = sum of:
        0.03831434 = weight(_text_:theories in 691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03831434 = score(doc=691,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.18105723 = fieldWeight in 691, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=691)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Computer scientists create models of a perceived reality. Through AI techniques, these models aim at providing the basic support for emulating cognitive behavior such as reasoning and learning, which is one of the main goals of the Al research effort. Such computer models are formed through the interaction of various acquisition and inference mechanisms: perception, concept learning, conceptual clustering, hypothesis testing, probabilistic inference, etc., and are represented using different paradigms tightly linked to the processes that use them. Among these paradigms let us cite: biological models (neural nets, genetic programming), logic-based models (first-order logic, modal logic, rule-based systems), virtual reality models (object systems, agent systems), probabilistic models (Bayesian nets, fuzzy logic), linguistic models (conceptual dependency graphs, language-based rep resentations), etc. One of the strengths of the Conceptual Graph (CG) theory is its versatility in terms of the representation paradigms under which it falls. It can be viewed and therefore used, under different representation paradigms, which makes it a popular choice for a wealth of applications. Its full coupling with different cognitive processes lead to the opening of the field toward related research communities such as the Description Logic, Formal Concept Analysis, and Computational Linguistic communities. We now see more and more research results from one community enrich the other, laying the foundations of common philosophical grounds from which a successful synergy can emerge. ICCS 2000 embodies this spirit of research collaboration. It presents a set of papers that we believe, by their exposure, will benefit the whole community. For instance, the technical program proposes tracks on Conceptual Ontologies, Language, Formal Concept Analysis, Computational Aspects of Conceptual Structures, and Formal Semantics, with some papers on pragmatism and human related aspects of computing. Never before was the program of ICCS formed by so heterogeneously rooted theories of knowledge representation and use. We hope that this swirl of ideas will benefit you as much as it already has benefited us while putting together this program
    Content
    Concepts and Language: The Role of Conceptual Structure in Human Evolution (Keith Devlin) - Concepts in Linguistics - Concepts in Natural Language (Gisela Harras) - Patterns, Schemata, and Types: Author Support through Formalized Experience (Felix H. Gatzemeier) - Conventions and Notations for Knowledge Representation and Retrieval (Philippe Martin) - Conceptual Ontology: Ontology, Metadata, and Semiotics (John F. Sowa) - Pragmatically Yours (Mary Keeler) - Conceptual Modeling for Distributed Ontology Environments (Deborah L. McGuinness) - Discovery of Class Relations in Exception Structured Knowledge Bases (Hendra Suryanto, Paul Compton) - Conceptual Graphs: Perspectives: CGs Applications: Where Are We 7 Years after the First ICCS ? (Michel Chein, David Genest) - The Engineering of a CC-Based System: Fundamental Issues (Guy W. Mineau) - Conceptual Graphs, Metamodeling, and Notation of Concepts (Olivier Gerbé, Guy W. Mineau, Rudolf K. Keller) - Knowledge Representation and Reasonings: Based on Graph Homomorphism (Marie-Laure Mugnier) - User Modeling Using Conceptual Graphs for Intelligent Agents (James F. Baldwin, Trevor P. Martin, Aimilia Tzanavari) - Towards a Unified Querying System of Both Structured and Semi-structured Imprecise Data Using Fuzzy View (Patrice Buche, Ollivier Haemmerlé) - Formal Semantics of Conceptual Structures: The Extensional Semantics of the Conceptual Graph Formalism (Guy W. Mineau) - Semantics of Attribute Relations in Conceptual Graphs (Pavel Kocura) - Nested Concept Graphs and Triadic Power Context Families (Susanne Prediger) - Negations in Simple Concept Graphs (Frithjof Dau) - Extending the CG Model by Simulations (Jean-François Baget) - Contextual Logic and Formal Concept Analysis: Building and Structuring Description Logic Knowledge Bases: Using Least Common Subsumers and Concept Analysis (Franz Baader, Ralf Molitor) - On the Contextual Logic of Ordinal Data (Silke Pollandt, Rudolf Wille) - Boolean Concept Logic (Rudolf Wille) - Lattices of Triadic Concept Graphs (Bernd Groh, Rudolf Wille) - Formalizing Hypotheses with Concepts (Bernhard Ganter, Sergei 0. Kuznetsov) - Generalized Formal Concept Analysis (Laurent Chaudron, Nicolas Maille) - A Logical Generalization of Formal Concept Analysis (Sébastien Ferré, Olivier Ridoux) - On the Treatment of Incomplete Knowledge in Formal Concept Analysis (Peter Burmeister, Richard Holzer) - Conceptual Structures in Practice: Logic-Based Networks: Concept Graphs and Conceptual Structures (Peter W. Eklund) - Conceptual Knowledge Discovery and Data Analysis (Joachim Hereth, Gerd Stumme, Rudolf Wille, Uta Wille) - CEM - A Conceptual Email Manager (Richard Cole, Gerd Stumme) - A Contextual-Logic Extension of TOSCANA (Peter Eklund, Bernd Groh, Gerd Stumme, Rudolf Wille) - A Conceptual Graph Model for W3C Resource Description Framework (Olivier Corby, Rose Dieng, Cédric Hébert) - Computational Aspects of Conceptual Structures: Computing with Conceptual Structures (Bernhard Ganter) - Symmetry and the Computation of Conceptual Structures (Robert Levinson) An Introduction to SNePS 3 (Stuart C. Shapiro) - Composition Norm Dynamics Calculation with Conceptual Graphs (Aldo de Moor) - From PROLOG++ to PROLOG+CG: A CG Object-Oriented Logic Programming Language (Adil Kabbaj, Martin Janta-Polczynski) - A Cost-Bounded Algorithm to Control Events Generalization (Gaël de Chalendar, Brigitte Grau, Olivier Ferret)
  6. Evens, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval (2002) 0.02 
    0.015609016 = product of:
  0.07024057 = sum of:
    0.017696522 = weight(_text_:information in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017696522 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
    0.05254405 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05254405 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Thesaural relations have long been used in information retrieval to enrich queries; they have sometimes been used to cluster documents as well. Sometimes the first query to an information retrieval system yields no results at all, or, what can be even more disconcerting, many thousands of hits. One solution is to rephrase the query, improving the choice of query terms by using related terms of different types. A collection of related terms is often called a thesaurus. This chapter describes the lexical-semantic relations that have been used in building thesauri and summarizes some of the effects of using these relational thesauri in information retrieval experiments
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  7. Khoo, C.; Myaeng, S.H.: Identifying semantic relations in text for information retrieval and information extraction (2002) 0.01 
    0.014018883 = product of:
  0.063084975 = sum of:
    0.022384524 = weight(_text_:information in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022384524 = score(doc=1197,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
    0.040700447 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040700447 = score(doc=1197,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Automatic identification of semantic relations in text is a difficult problem, but is important for many applications. It has been used for relation matching in information retrieval to retrieve documents that contain not only the concepts but also the relations between concepts specified in the user's query. It is an integral part of information extraction-extracting from natural language text, facts or pieces of information related to a particular event or topic. Other potential applications are in the construction of relational thesauri (semantic networks of related concepts) and other kinds of knowledge bases, and in natural language processing applications such as machine translation and computer comprehension of text. This chapter examines the main methods used for identifying semantic relations automatically and their application in information retrieval and information extraction.
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
  8. Hetzler, B.: Visual analysis and exploration of relationships (2002) 0.01 
    0.0136415325 = product of:
  0.061386894 = sum of:
    0.022616494 = weight(_text_:information in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022616494 = score(doc=1189,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.3325631 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
    0.0387704 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0387704 = score(doc=1189,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    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
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  9. Thellefsen, M.M.; Thellefsen, T.; Sørensen, B.: Information as signs : a semiotic analysis of the information concept, determining its ontological and epistemological foundations (2018) 0.01 
    0.013137983 = product of:
  0.059120923 = sum of:
    0.02719231 = weight(_text_:information in 4241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02719231 = score(doc=4241,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.39984792 = fieldWeight in 4241, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4241)
    0.031928614 = product of:
      0.06385723 = sum of:
        0.06385723 = weight(_text_:theories in 4241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06385723 = score(doc=4241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.30176204 = fieldWeight in 4241, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4241)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this paper is to formulate an analytical framework for the information concept based on the semiotic theory. Design/methodology/approach The paper is motivated by the apparent controversy that still surrounds the information concept. Information, being a key concept within LIS, suffers from being anchored in various incompatible theories. The paper suggests that information is signs, and it demonstrates how the concept of information can be understood within C.S. Peirce's phenomenologically rooted semiotic. Hence, from there, certain ontological conditions as well epistemological consequences of the information concept can be deduced. Findings The paper argues that an understanding of information, as either objective or subjective/discursive, leads to either objective reductionism and signal processing, that fails to explain how information becomes meaningful at all, or conversely, information is understood only relative to subjective/discursive intentions, agendas, etc. To overcome the limitations of defining information as either objective or subjective/discursive, a semiotic analysis shows that information understood as signs is consistently sensitive to both objective and subjective/discursive features of information. It is consequently argued that information as concept should be defined in relation to ontological conditions having certain epistemological consequences. Originality/value The paper presents an analytical framework, derived from semiotics, that adds to the developments of the philosophical dimensions of information within LIS.
    Theme
    Information
  10. Bonnevie, E.: Dretske's semantic information theory and meta-theories in library and information science (2001) 0.01 
    0.012379466 = product of:
  0.055707596 = sum of:
    0.023778984 = weight(_text_:information in 4484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023778984 = score(doc=4484,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.34965688 = fieldWeight in 4484, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4484)
    0.031928614 = product of:
      0.06385723 = sum of:
        0.06385723 = weight(_text_:theories in 4484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06385723 = score(doc=4484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.30176204 = fieldWeight in 4484, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4484)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    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.
    Theme
    Information
  11. Casagrande, J.B.; Hale, K.L.: Semantic relations in Papago folk definitions (1967) 0.01 
    0.0116342725 = product of:
  0.052354228 = sum of:
    0.013190207 = weight(_text_:information in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013190207 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
    0.03916402 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03916402 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Footnote
    Zitiert in: Evens, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval. In: The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: R. Green u.a. Dordrecht: Kluwer 2002. S.143-160.
  12. Grolier, E. de: From theories to concepts and from facts to words (1990) 0.01 
    0.011352397 = product of:
  0.10217157 = sum of:
    0.10217157 = product of:
      0.20434314 = sum of:
        0.20434314 = weight(_text_:theories in 3198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20434314 = score(doc=3198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.9656386 = fieldWeight in 3198, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  13. Zawada, B.; Swanepoel, P.: On the empirical adequacy of terminological concept theories : the case for prototype theory (1994) 0.01 
    0.011352397 = product of:
  0.10217157 = sum of:
    0.10217157 = product of:
      0.20434314 = sum of:
        0.20434314 = weight(_text_:theories in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20434314 = score(doc=2004,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.9656386 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  14. ¬The semantics of relationships : an interdisciplinary perspective (2002) 0.01 
    0.010814253 = product of:
  0.048664138 = sum of:
    0.0147471 = weight(_text_:information in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0147471 = score(doc=1430,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
    0.033917036 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033917036 = score(doc=1430,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Work on relationships takes place in many communities, including, among others, data modeling, knowledge representation, natural language processing, linguistics, and information retrieval. Unfortunately, continued disciplinary splintering and specialization keeps any one person from being familiar with the full expanse of that work. By including contributions form experts in a variety of disciplines and backgrounds, this volume demonstrates both the parallels that inform work on relationships across a number of fields and the singular emphases that have yet to be fully embraced, The volume is organized into 3 parts: (1) Types of relationships (2) Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning (3) Applications of relationships
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: Pt.1: Types of relationships: CRUDE, D.A.: Hyponymy and its varieties; FELLBAUM, C.: On the semantics of troponymy; PRIBBENOW, S.: Meronymic relationships: from classical mereology to complex part-whole relations; KHOO, C. u.a.: The many facets of cause-effect relation - Pt.2: Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning: GREEN, R.: Internally-structured conceptual models in cognitive semantics; HOVY, E.: Comparing sets of semantic relations in ontologies; GUARINO, N., C. WELTY: Identity and subsumption; JOUIS; C.: Logic of relationships - Pt.3: Applications of relationships: EVENS, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval; KHOO, C., S.H. MYAENG: Identifying semantic relations in text for information retrieval and information extraction; McCRAY, A.T., O. BODENREICHER: A conceptual framework for the biiomedical domain; HETZLER, B.: Visual analysis and exploration of relationships
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
  15. Stock, W.: Begriffe und semantische Relationen in der Wissensrepräsentation (2009) 0.01 
    0.010430987 = product of:
  0.04693944 = sum of:
    0.013707667 = weight(_text_:information in 3218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013707667 = score(doc=3218,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 3218, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3218)
    0.033231772 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033231772 = score(doc=3218,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 3218, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3218)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Begriffsorientiertes Information Retrieval bedarf einer informationswissenschaftlichen Theorie der Begriffe sowie der semantischen Relationen. Ein Begriff wird durch seine Intension und Extension sowie durch Definitionen bestimmt. Dem Problem der Vagheit begegnen wir durch die Einführung von Prototypen. Wichtige Definitionsarten sind die Begriffserklärung (nach Aristoteles) und die Definition über Familienähnlichkeiten (im Sinne Wittgensteins). Wir modellieren Begriffe als Frames (in der Version von Barsalou). Die zentrale paradigmatische Relation in Wissensordnungen ist die Hierarchie, die in verschiedene Arten zu gliedern ist: Hyponymie zerfällt in die Taxonomie und die einfache Hyponymie, Meronymie in eine ganze Reihe unterschiedlicher Teil-Ganzes-Beziehungen. Wichtig für praktische Anwendungen ist die Transitivität der jeweiligen Relation. Eine unspezifische Assoziationsrelation ist bei den angepeilten Anwendungen wenig hilfreich und wird durch ein Bündel von generalisierbaren und fachspezifischen Relationen ersetzt. Unser Ansatz fundiert neue Optionen der Anwendung von Wissensordnungen in der Informationspraxis neben ihrem "klassischen" Einsatz beim Information Retrieval: Erweiterung von Suchanfragen (Anwendung der semantischen Nähe), automatisches Schlussfolgern (Anwendung der terminologischen Logik in Vorbereitung eines semantischen Web) und automatische Berechnungen (bei Funktionalbegriffen mit numerischen Wertangaben).
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 60(2009) H.8, S.403-420
  16. Hjoerland, B.: Concepts, paradigms and knowledge organization (2010) 0.01 
    0.010427843 = product of:
  0.09385058 = sum of:
    0.09385058 = product of:
      0.18770117 = sum of:
        0.18770117 = weight(_text_:theories in 3512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18770117 = score(doc=3512,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.8869957 = fieldWeight in 3512, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3512)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    It is argued that concepts are the building blocks of knowledge organizing systems (KOS). Objections to this view are considered and answers are provided. By implication the theory of concepts constitutes the foundation for knowledge organization (KO). The theory of concepts is understood as related to and derived from theories of knowledge. Different theories of knowledge such as empiricism, rationalism, historicism and pragmatism imply different theories of concepts. Such different epistemologies and their associated theories of concepts represent different methodological ideals which probably compete in all knowledge domains. Different approaches to KO are also in fundamental ways associated with different theories of concepts. The paper holds that the historicist and pragmatic theory of concept should be considered most valuable. By implication is it is necessary to know about competing theories in the fields being organized. A further implication of the pragmatic view is that the construction of a KOS must be understood as a way of participating in the discourses in the domain that is being represented.
  17. Kageura, K.: Theories of terminology : a quest for a framework for the study of term formation (1999) 0.01 
    0.009933348 = product of:
  0.08940013 = sum of:
    0.08940013 = product of:
      0.17880026 = sum of:
        0.17880026 = weight(_text_:theories in 6290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17880026 = score(doc=6290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.84493375 = fieldWeight in 6290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  18. Campos, L.M.: Princípios teóricos usados na elaboracao de ontologias e sua influência na recuperacao da informacao com uso de de inferências [Theoretical principles used in ontology building and their influence on information retrieval using inferences] (2021) 0.01 
    0.008692489 = product of:
  0.0391162 = sum of:
    0.011423056 = weight(_text_:information in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011423056 = score(doc=826,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 826, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=826)
    0.027693143 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027693143 = score(doc=826,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 826, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=826)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Several instruments of knowledge organization will reflect different possibilities for information retrieval. In this context, ontologies have a different potential because they allow knowledge discovery, which can be used to retrieve information in a more flexible way. However, this potential can be affected by the theoretical principles adopted in ontology building. The aim of this paper is to discuss, in an introductory way, how a (not exhaustive) set of theoretical principles can influence an aspect of ontologies: their use to obtain inferences. In this context, the role of Ingetraut Dahlberg's Theory of Concept is discussed. The methodology is exploratory, qualitative, and from the technical point of view it uses bibliographic research supported by the content analysis method. It also presents a small example of application as a proof of concept. As results, a discussion about the influence of conceptual definition on subsumption inferences is presented, theoretical contributions are suggested that should be used to guide the formation of hierarchical structures on which such inferences are supported, and examples are provided of how the absence of such contributions can lead to erroneous inferences
  19. Thiel, C.: ¬Der klassische und der moderne Begriff des Begriffs : Gedanken zur Geschichte der Begriffsbildung in den exakten Wissenschaften (1994) 0.01 
    0.008560826 = product of:
  0.03852372 = sum of:
    0.0065951035 = weight(_text_:information in 7868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065951035 = score(doc=7868,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 7868, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7868)
    0.031928614 = product of:
      0.06385723 = sum of:
        0.06385723 = weight(_text_:theories in 7868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06385723 = score(doc=7868,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.30176204 = fieldWeight in 7868, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7868)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    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
  20. Nakamura, Y.: Subdivisions vs. conjunctions : a discussion on concept theory (1998) 0.01 
    0.008143991 = product of:
  0.03664796 = sum of:
    0.009233146 = weight(_text_:information in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009233146 = score(doc=69,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
    0.027414814 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027414814 = score(doc=69,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    After studying the relations between two words(nouns) that constitute a compound term, the relation between corresponding concepts discussed. The impossibility of having a conjunction between two concepts that have no common feature causes inconvenience in the application of concept theory to information retrieval problems. Another kind of conjunctions, different from that by co-occurrence, is proposed and characteristics of this conjunction is studied. It revealed that one of new ones has the same character with colon combination in UDC. The possibility of having three kinds of conjunction including Wsterian concept conjunction is presented. It is also discussed that subdivisions can be replaced by new conjunctions

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 50
  • d 19
  • m 1
  • nl 1
  • pt 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 58
  • m 8
  • s 5
  • el 3
  • n 1
  • p 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications