Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.22401133 = product of:
  0.44802266 = sum of:
    0.03263587 = product of:
      0.09790761 = sum of:
        0.09790761 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09790761 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26131085 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.13846226 = weight(_text_:2f in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13846226 = score(doc=5820,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.26131085 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030822188 = queryNorm
        0.5298757 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
    0.13846226 = weight(_text_:2f in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13846226 = score(doc=5820,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.26131085 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030822188 = queryNorm
        0.5298757 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
    0.13846226 = weight(_text_:2f in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13846226 = score(doc=5820,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.26131085 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030822188 = queryNorm
        0.5298757 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

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.

0.20908675 = product of:
  0.3345388 = sum of:
    0.03263587 = product of:
      0.09790761 = sum of:
        0.09790761 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09790761 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26131085 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.09790761 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09790761 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26131085 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030822188 = 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)
    0.09790761 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09790761 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26131085 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030822188 = 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)
    0.09790761 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09790761 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26131085 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030822188 = 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)
    0.008180073 = product of:
      0.02454022 = sum of:
        0.02454022 = weight(_text_:problem in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02454022 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.1875815 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.625 = coord(5/8)

Abstract

By the explosion of possibilities for a ubiquitous content production, the information overload problem reaches the level of complexity which cannot be managed by traditional modelling approaches anymore. Due to their pure syntactical nature traditional information retrieval approaches did not succeed in treating content itself (i.e. its meaning, and not its representation). This leads to a very low usefulness of the results of a retrieval process for a user's task at hand. In the last ten years ontologies have been emerged from an interesting conceptualisation paradigm to a very promising (semantic) modelling technology, especially in the context of the Semantic Web. From the information retrieval point of view, ontologies enable a machine-understandable form of content description, such that the retrieval process can be driven by the meaning of the content. However, the very ambiguous nature of the retrieval process in which a user, due to the unfamiliarity with the underlying repository and/or query syntax, just approximates his information need in a query, implies a necessity to include the user in the retrieval process more actively in order to close the gap between the meaning of the content and the meaning of a user's query (i.e. his information need). This thesis lays foundation for such an ontology-based interactive retrieval process, in which the retrieval system interacts with a user in order to conceptually interpret the meaning of his query, whereas the underlying domain ontology drives the conceptualisation process. In that way the retrieval process evolves from a query evaluation process into a highly interactive cooperation between a user and the retrieval system, in which the system tries to anticipate the user's information need and to deliver the relevant content proactively. Moreover, the notion of content relevance for a user's query evolves from a content dependent artefact to the multidimensional context-dependent structure, strongly influenced by the user's preferences. This cooperation process is realized as the so-called Librarian Agent Query Refinement Process. In order to clarify the impact of an ontology on the retrieval process (regarding its complexity and quality), a set of methods and tools for different levels of content and query formalisation is developed, ranging from pure ontology-based inferencing to keyword-based querying in which semantics automatically emerges from the results. Our evaluation studies have shown that the possibilities to conceptualize a user's information need in the right manner and to interpret the retrieval results accordingly are key issues for realizing much more meaningful information retrieval systems.

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.

0.0042840866 = product of:
  0.017136347 = sum of:
    0.011568371 = product of:
      0.034705114 = sum of:
        0.034705114 = weight(_text_:problem in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034705114 = score(doc=4399,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.2652803 = fieldWeight in 4399, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4399)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.005567975 = product of:
      0.016703924 = sum of:
        0.016703924 = weight(_text_:22 in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016703924 = score(doc=4399,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4399, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4399)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Indexing plays a vital role in Information Retrieval. With the availability of huge volume of information, it has become necessary to index the information in such a way to make easier for the end users to find the information they want efficiently and accurately. Keyword-based indexing uses words as indexing terms. It is not capable of capturing the implicit relation among terms or the semantics of the words in the document. To eliminate this limitation, ontology-based indexing came into existence, which allows semantic based indexing to solve complex and indirect user queries. Ontologies are used for document indexing which allows semantic based information retrieval. Existing ontologies or the ones constructed from scratch are used presently for indexing. Constructing ontologies from scratch is a labor-intensive task and requires extensive domain knowledge whereas use of an existing ontology may leave some important concepts in documents un-annotated. Using multiple ontologies can overcome the problem of missing out concepts to a great extent, but it is difficult to manage (changes in ontologies over time by their developers) multiple ontologies and ontology heterogeneity also arises due to ontologies constructed by different ontology developers. One possible solution to managing multiple ontologies and build from scratch is to use modular ontologies for indexing.
Modular ontologies are built in modular manner by combining modules from multiple relevant ontologies. Ontology heterogeneity also arises during modular ontology construction because multiple ontologies are being dealt with, during this process. Ontologies need to be aligned before using them for modular ontology construction. The existing approaches for ontology alignment compare all the concepts of each ontology to be aligned, hence not optimized in terms of time and search space utilization. A new indexing technique is proposed based on modular ontology. An efficient ontology alignment technique is proposed to solve the heterogeneity problem during the construction of modular ontology. Results are satisfactory as Precision and Recall are improved by (8%) and (10%) respectively. The value of Pearsons Correlation Coefficient for degree of similarity, time, search space requirement, precision and recall are close to 1 which shows that the results are significant. Further research can be carried out for using modular ontology based indexing technique for Multimedia Information Retrieval and Bio-Medical information retrieval.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0017399922 = product of:
  0.013919937 = sum of:
    0.013919937 = product of:
      0.04175981 = sum of:
        0.04175981 = weight(_text_:22 in 3406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04175981 = score(doc=3406,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

30. 5.2010 16:22:35

0.0017248237 = product of:
  0.006899295 = sum of:
    0.0040900367 = product of:
      0.01227011 = sum of:
        0.01227011 = weight(_text_:problem in 4472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01227011 = score(doc=4472,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.09379075 = fieldWeight in 4472, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=4472)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0028092582 = product of:
      0.0084277745 = sum of:
        0.0084277745 = weight(_text_:29 in 4472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0084277745 = score(doc=4472,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.07773064 = fieldWeight in 4472, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=4472)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

However, this assumption does not hold in all cases, the needs of the user evolve over time and can move away from his previous interests stored in his profile. In other cases, the user's profile may be misused to extract or infer new information needs. This problem is much more accentuated with ambiguous queries. When multiple POIs linked to a search query are identified in the user's profile, the system is unable to select the relevant data from that profile to respond to that request. This has a direct impact on the quality of the results provided to this user. In order to overcome some of these limitations, in this research thesis, we have been interested in the development of techniques aimed mainly at improving the relevance of the results of current SRIs and facilitating the exploration of major collections of documents. To do this, we propose a solution based on a new concept and model of indexing and information retrieval called multi-spaces projection. This proposal is based on the exploitation of different categories of semantic and social information that enrich the universe of document representation and search queries in several dimensions of interpretations. The originality of this representation is to be able to distinguish between the different interpretations used for the description and the search for documents. This gives a better visibility on the results returned and helps to provide a greater flexibility of search and exploration, giving the user the ability to navigate one or more views of data that interest him the most. In addition, the proposed multidimensional representation universes for document description and search query interpretation help to improve the relevance of the user's results by providing a diversity of research / exploration that helps meet his diverse needs and those of other different users. This study exploits different aspects that are related to the personalized search and aims to solve the problems caused by the evolution of the information needs of the user. Thus, when the profile of this user is used by our system, a technique is proposed and used to identify the interests most representative of his current needs in his profile. This technique is based on the combination of three influential factors, including the contextual, frequency and temporal factor of the data. The ability of users to interact, exchange ideas and opinions, and form social networks on the Web, has led systems to focus on the types of interactions these users have at the level of interaction between them as well as their social roles in the system. This social information is discussed and integrated into this research work. The impact and how they are integrated into the IR process are studied to improve the relevance of the results.

Date

29. 9.2018 18:57:38

0.0014460464 = product of:
  0.011568371 = sum of:
    0.011568371 = product of:
      0.034705114 = sum of:
        0.034705114 = weight(_text_:problem in 4569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034705114 = score(doc=4569,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.2652803 = fieldWeight in 4569, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4569)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The results of this thesis are intended to support the information architect in designing a solution for improved search in a corporate environment. Specifically we have examined the type of search problems that require a domain model to enhance the search process. There are several approaches to modeling a domain. We have considered 3 different types of domain modeling schemes; taxonomy, thesaurus and ontology. The intention is to support the information architect in making an informed choice between one or more of these schemes. In our opinion the main criteria for this choice are the modeling characteristics of a scheme and the suitability for application in the search process. The second chapter is a discussion of modeling characteristics of each scheme, followed by a comparison between them. This should give an information architect an idea of which aspects of a domain can be modeled with each scheme. What is missing here is an indication of the effort required to model a domain with each scheme. There are too many factors that influence the amount of required effort, ranging from measurable factors like domain size and resource characteristics to cultural matters such as the willingness to share knowledge and the existence of a project champion in the team to keep the project running. The third chapter shows what role domain models can play in each part of the search process. This gives an idea of the problems that domain models can solve. We have split the search process into individual parts to show that domain models can be applied very differently in the process. The fourth chapter makes recommendations about the suitability of each individualdomain modeling scheme for improving search. Each scheme has particular characteristics that make it especially suitable for a domain or a search problem. In the appendix each case study is described in detail. These descriptions are intended to serve as a benchmark. The current problem of the enterprise can be compared to those described to see which case study is most similar, which solution was chosen, which problems arose and how they were dealt with. An important issue that we have not touched upon in this thesis is that of maintenance. The real problems of a domain model are revealed when it is applied in a search system and its deficits and wrong assumptions become clear. Adaptation and maintenance are always required. Unfortunately we have not been able to glean sufficient information about maintenance issues from our case studies to draw any meaningful conclusions.

0.0012781365 = product of:
  0.010225092 = sum of:
    0.010225092 = product of:
      0.030675275 = sum of:
        0.030675275 = weight(_text_:problem in 3742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030675275 = score(doc=3742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 3742, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3742)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Es steht uns eine praktisch unbegrenzte Menge an Informationen über das World Wide Web zur Verfügung. Das Problem, das daraus erwächst, ist, diese Menge zu bewältigen und an die Information zu gelangen, die im Augenblick benötigt wird. Das überwältigende Angebot zwingt sowohl professionelle Anwender als auch Laien zu suchen, ungeachtet ihrer Ansprüche an die gewünschten Informationen. Um dieses Suchen effizienter zu gestalten, gibt es einerseits die Möglichkeit, leistungsstärkere Suchmaschinen zu entwickeln. Eine andere Möglichkeit ist, Daten besser zu strukturieren, um an die darin enthaltenen Informationen zu gelangen. Hoch strukturierte Daten sind maschinell verarbeitbar, sodass ein Teil der Sucharbeit automatisiert werden kann. Das Semantic Web ist die Vision eines weiterentwickelten World Wide Web, in dem derart strukturierten Daten von so genannten Softwareagenten verarbeitet werden. Die fortschreitende inhaltliche Strukturierung von Daten wird Semantisierung genannt. Im ersten Teil der Arbeit sollen einige wichtige Methoden der inhaltlichen Strukturierung von Daten skizziert werden, um die Stellung von Ontologien innerhalb der Semantisierung zu klären. Im dritten Kapitel wird der Aufbau und die Aufgabe des CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM), einer Domain Ontologie im Bereich des Kulturerbes dargestellt. Im darauf folgenden praktischen Teil werden verschiedene Ansätze zur Verwendung des CRM diskutiert und umgesetzt. Es wird ein Vorschlag zur Implementierung des Modells in XML erarbeitet. Das ist eine Möglichkeit, die dem Datentransport dient. Außerdem wird der Entwurf einer Klassenbibliothek in Java dargelegt, auf die die Verarbeitung und Nutzung des Modells innerhalb eines Informationssystems aufbauen kann.

0.0012290506 = product of:
  0.009832405 = sum of:
    0.009832405 = product of:
      0.029497212 = sum of:
        0.029497212 = weight(_text_:29 in 4025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029497212 = score(doc=4025,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4025, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4025)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

18.10.2010 21:05:29

0.0010225092 = product of:
  0.008180073 = sum of:
    0.008180073 = product of:
      0.02454022 = sum of:
        0.02454022 = weight(_text_:problem in 694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02454022 = score(doc=694,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.1875815 = fieldWeight in 694, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=694)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

More and more information is available on-line every day. The greater the amount of on-line information, the greater the demand for tools that process and disseminate this information. Processing electronic information in the form of text and answering users' queries about that information intelligently is one of the great challenges in natural language processing and information retrieval. The research presented in this talk is centered on the latter of these two tasks: intelligent information retrieval. In order for information to be retrieved, it first needs to be formalized in a database or knowledge base. The ontology for this formalization and assumptions it is based on are crucial to successful intelligent information retrieval. We have concentrated our effort on developing an ontology for representing knowledge in the domains of experimental sciences, molecular biology in particular. We show that existing ontological models cannot be readily applied to represent this domain adequately. For example, the fundamental notion of ontology design that every "real" object is defined as an instance of a category seems incompatible with the universe where objects can change their category as a result of experimental procedures. Another important problem is representing complex structures such as DNA, mixtures, populations of molecules, etc., that are very common in molecular biology. We present extensions that need to be made to an ontology to cover these issues: the representation of transformations that change the structure and/or category of their participants, and the component relations and spatial structures of complex objects. We demonstrate examples of how the proposed representations can be used to improve the quality and completeness of answers to user queries; discuss techniques for evaluating ontologies and show a prototype of an Information Retrieval System that we developed.

0.0010225092 = product of:
  0.008180073 = sum of:
    0.008180073 = product of:
      0.02454022 = sum of:
        0.02454022 = weight(_text_:problem in 117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02454022 = score(doc=117,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.1875815 = fieldWeight in 117, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=117)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Information management in corporate environments is a growing problem as companies' information assets grow and their need to use them in their operations. Several management models have been practiced with application on the most diverse fronts, practices that integrate the so-called Enterprise Content Management. This study proposes a conceptual model of semantic corporate information ecosystem, based on the Universal Document Model proposed by Dagobert Soergel. It focuses on unstructured information objects, especially multimedia, increasingly used in corporate environments, adding semantics and expanding their recovery potential in the composition and reuse of dynamic documents on demand. The proposed model considers stable elements in the organizational environment, such as actors, processes, business metadata and information objects, as well as some basic infrastructures of the corporate information environment. The main objective is to establish a conceptual model that adds semantic intelligence to information assets, leveraging pre-existing infrastructure in organizations, integrating and relating objects to other objects, actors and business processes. The approach methodology considered the state of the art of Information Organization, Representation and Retrieval, Organizational Content Management and Semantic Web technologies, in the scientific literature, as bases for the establishment of an integrative conceptual model. Therefore, the research will be qualitative and exploratory. The predicted steps of the model are: Environment, Data Type and Source Definition, Data Distillation, Metadata Enrichment, and Storage. As a result, in theoretical terms the extended model allows to process heterogeneous and unstructured data according to the established cut-outs and through the processes listed above, allowing value creation in the composition of dynamic information objects, with semantic aggregations to metadata.

8.946955E-4 = product of:
  0.007157564 = sum of:
    0.007157564 = product of:
      0.021472692 = sum of:
        0.021472692 = weight(_text_:problem in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021472692 = score(doc=1077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.1641338 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

8.699961E-4 = product of:
  0.0069599687 = sum of:
    0.0069599687 = product of:
      0.020879906 = sum of:
        0.020879906 = weight(_text_:22 in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020879906 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1670, 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=1670)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

26. 9.2006 21:00:22