Search (84 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Begriffstheorie"
  • × language_ss:"e"
  1. Machado, L.M.O.; Martínez-Ávila, D.; Simões, M.da Graça de Melo: Concept theory in library and information science : an epistemological analysis (2019) 0.02
    0.01812311 = product of:
      0.09061555 = sum of:
        0.0118387835 = product of:
          0.023677567 = sum of:
            0.023677567 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 5457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.023677567 = score(doc=5457,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.09615103 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.021569785 = queryNorm
                0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 5457, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5457)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.024179846 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 5457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024179846 = score(doc=5457,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09716552 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 5457, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5457)
        0.023677567 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 5457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023677567 = score(doc=5457,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09615103 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 5457, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5457)
        0.023677567 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 5457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023677567 = score(doc=5457,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09615103 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 5457, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5457)
        0.005833246 = weight(_text_:in in 5457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005833246 = score(doc=5457,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 5457, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5457)
        0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 5457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0014085418 = score(doc=5457,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 5457, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5457)
      0.2 = coord(6/30)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the literature on concept theory in library and information science (LIS) from an epistemological perspective, ascribing each paper to an epistemological family and discussing their relevance in the context of the knowledge organization (KO) domain. Design/methodology/approach This paper adopts a hermeneutic approach for the analysis of the texts that compose the corpus of study following contingency and categorical analyses. More specifically, the paper works with Bardin's contingency analysis and follows Hjørland's families of epistemologies for the categorization. Findings The analysis corroborates the observations made for the last ten years about the scarcity of studies on concept theory in LIS and KO. However, the study also reveals an epistemological turn on concept theory since 2009 that could be considered a departure from the rationalist views that dominated the field and a continuation of a broader paradigm shift in LIS and KO. All analyzed papers except two follow pragmatist or historicist approaches. Originality/value This paper follows-up and systematizes the contributions to the LIS and KO fields on concept theory mainly during the last decade. The epistemological analysis reveals the dominant views in this paradigm shift and the main authors and trends that are present in the LIS literature on concept theory.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 75(2019) no.4, S.876-891
  2. Principles of semantic networks : explorations in the representation of knowledge (1991) 0.01
    0.007936895 = product of:
      0.07936895 = sum of:
        0.008819038 = weight(_text_:in in 1677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008819038 = score(doc=1677,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.30057663 = fieldWeight in 1677, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1677)
        0.06656595 = weight(_text_:einzelnen in 1677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06656595 = score(doc=1677,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1139978 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.285069 = idf(docFreq=608, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.5839231 = fieldWeight in 1677, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.285069 = idf(docFreq=608, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1677)
        0.003983958 = weight(_text_:s in 1677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003983958 = score(doc=1677,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.16988087 = fieldWeight in 1677, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1677)
      0.1 = coord(3/30)
    
    Abstract
    Enthält 3 thematische Sektionen: (1) Issues in knowledge representation; (2) formal analyses; (3) systems for knowledge representation
    Content
    Vgl. für die einzelnen Beiträge: IC 19(1992) no.4, S. 244 (4-330)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Knowledge organization. 20(1993) no.1, S.60-61 (O. Sechser)
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  3. Rahmstorf, G.: ¬An integrated conceptual representation for words and phrases (1992) 0.01
    0.005669364 = product of:
      0.08504045 = sum of:
        0.0028170836 = weight(_text_:s in 2415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0028170836 = score(doc=2415,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.120123915 = fieldWeight in 2415, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2415)
        0.08222336 = weight(_text_:stuttgart in 2415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08222336 = score(doc=2415,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1266975 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8738413 = idf(docFreq=337, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.6489739 = fieldWeight in 2415, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.8738413 = idf(docFreq=337, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2415)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    Pages
    S.161-176
    Source
    Discourse and lexical meaning. Proceedings of a Workshop of the DFG Sonderforschungsbereich 340, Stuttgart, 30.11.-1.12.1992. Ed.: P. Bosch u. P. Gerstl
  4. Hjoerland, B.: Are relations in thesauri "context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds"? (2015) 0.00
    0.0025801647 = product of:
      0.019351235 = sum of:
        0.0058533465 = weight(_text_:und in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0058533465 = score(doc=2033,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
        0.006236001 = weight(_text_:in in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006236001 = score(doc=2033,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
        0.0058533465 = weight(_text_:und in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0058533465 = score(doc=2033,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
        0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0014085418 = score(doc=2033,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
      0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
    
    Abstract
    Much of the literature of information science and knowledge organization has accepted and built upon Elaine Svenonius's (2004) claim that "paradigmatic relationships are those that are context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds" (p. 583). At the same time, the literature demonstrates a common understanding that paradigmatic relations are the kinds of semantic relations used in thesauri and other knowledge organization systems (including equivalence relations, hierarchical relations, and associative relations). This understanding is problematic and harmful because it directs attention away from the empirical and contextual basis for knowledge-organizing systems. Whether A is a kind of X is certainly not context-free and definitional in empirical sciences or in much everyday information. Semantic relations are theory-dependent and, in biology, for example, a scientific revolution has taken place in which many relations have changed following the new taxonomic paradigm named "cladism." This biological example is not an exception, but the norm. Semantic relations including paradigmatic relations are not a priori but are dependent on subject knowledge, scientific findings, and paradigms. As long as information scientists and knowledge organizers isolate themselves from subject knowledge, knowledge organization cannot possibly progress.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.7, S.1367-1373
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  5. Working with conceptual structures : contributions to ICCS 2000. 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures: Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues. Darmstadt, August 14-18, 2000 (2000) 0.00
    0.0024889403 = product of:
      0.024889402 = sum of:
        0.0040832716 = weight(_text_:in in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040832716 = score(doc=5089,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.13916893 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
        0.018601414 = weight(_text_:deutsche in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018601414 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10186133 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.18261507 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
        0.002204717 = weight(_text_:s in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.002204717 = score(doc=5089,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.09401184 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
      0.1 = coord(3/30)
    
    Abstract
    The 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures - Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues (ICCS 2000) brings together a wide range of researchers and practitioners working with conceptual structures. During the last few years, the ICCS conference series has considerably widened its scope on different kinds of conceptual structures, stimulating research across domain boundaries. We hope that this stimulation is further enhanced by ICCS 2000 joining the long tradition of conferences in Darmstadt with extensive, lively discussions. This volume consists of contributions presented at ICCS 2000, complementing the volume "Conceptual Structures: Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues" (B. Ganter, G.W. Mineau (Eds.), LNAI 1867, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg 2000). It contains submissions reviewed by the program committee, and position papers. We wish to express our appreciation to all the authors of submitted papers, to the general chair, the program chair, the editorial board, the program committee, and to the additional reviewers for making ICCS 2000 a valuable contribution in the knowledge processing research field. Special thanks go to the local organizers for making the conference an enjoyable and inspiring event. We are grateful to Darmstadt University of Technology, the Ernst Schröder Center for Conceptual Knowledge Processing, the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Technology, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Land Hessen, and NaviCon GmbH for their generous support
    Content
    Concepts & Language: Knowledge organization by procedures of natural language processing. A case study using the method GABEK (J. Zelger, J. Gadner) - Computer aided narrative analysis using conceptual graphs (H. Schärfe, P. 0hrstrom) - Pragmatic representation of argumentative text: a challenge for the conceptual graph approach (H. Irandoust, B. Moulin) - Conceptual graphs as a knowledge representation core in a complex language learning environment (G. Angelova, A. Nenkova, S. Boycheva, T. Nikolov) - Conceptual Modeling and Ontologies: Relationships and actions in conceptual categories (Ch. Landauer, K.L. Bellman) - Concept approximations for formal concept analysis (J. Saquer, J.S. Deogun) - Faceted information representation (U. Priß) - Simple concept graphs with universal quantifiers (J. Tappe) - A framework for comparing methods for using or reusing multiple ontologies in an application (J. van ZyI, D. Corbett) - Designing task/method knowledge-based systems with conceptual graphs (M. Leclère, F.Trichet, Ch. Choquet) - A logical ontology (J. Farkas, J. Sarbo) - Algorithms and Tools: Fast concept analysis (Ch. Lindig) - A framework for conceptual graph unification (D. Corbett) - Visual CP representation of knowledge (H.D. Pfeiffer, R.T. Hartley) - Maximal isojoin for representing software textual specifications and detecting semantic anomalies (Th. Charnois) - Troika: using grids, lattices and graphs in knowledge acquisition (H.S. Delugach, B.E. Lampkin) - Open world theorem prover for conceptual graphs (J.E. Heaton, P. Kocura) - NetCare: a practical conceptual graphs software tool (S. Polovina, D. Strang) - CGWorld - a web based workbench for conceptual graphs management and applications (P. Dobrev, K. Toutanova) - Position papers: The edition project: Peirce's existential graphs (R. Mülller) - Mining association rules using formal concept analysis (N. Pasquier) - Contextual logic summary (R Wille) - Information channels and conceptual scaling (K.E. Wolff) - Spatial concepts - a rule exploration (S. Rudolph) - The TEXT-TO-ONTO learning environment (A. Mädche, St. Staab) - Controlling the semantics of metadata on audio-visual documents using ontologies (Th. Dechilly, B. Bachimont) - Building the ontological foundations of a terminology from natural language to conceptual graphs with Ribosome, a knowledge extraction system (Ch. Jacquelinet, A. Burgun) - CharGer: some lessons learned and new directions (H.S. Delugach) - Knowledge management using conceptual graphs (W.K. Pun)
    Pages
    315 S
    Type
    s
  6. Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory (2009) 0.00
    0.0023953489 = product of:
      0.017965116 = sum of:
        0.0058533465 = weight(_text_:und in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0058533465 = score(doc=3461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
        0.0038187557 = weight(_text_:in in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0038187557 = score(doc=3461,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
        0.0058533465 = weight(_text_:und in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0058533465 = score(doc=3461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
        0.0024396663 = weight(_text_:s in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0024396663 = score(doc=3461,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.10403037 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
      0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
    
    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
  7. Nedobity, W.: Concepts versus meaning as reflected by the works of E. Wüster and L. Wittgenstein (1989) 0.00
    0.0023507085 = product of:
      0.023507085 = sum of:
        0.00705523 = weight(_text_:in in 791) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00705523 = score(doc=791,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 791, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=791)
        0.014198188 = product of:
          0.042594563 = sum of:
            0.042594563 = weight(_text_:l in 791) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042594563 = score(doc=791,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.021569785 = queryNorm
                0.49683157 = fieldWeight in 791, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=791)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
        0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 791) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.002253667 = score(doc=791,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 791, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=791)
      0.1 = coord(3/30)
    
    Abstract
    Attempts at evaluating the different methods of investigating the meaning of a term in the writings of L. Wittgenstein and E. Wüster. It is shown that Wittgenstein's view of meaning is in contrast to conceptual thinking. The differences in approach and result are pointed out. Parallels of semantic methods to the ones in conceptology are shown
    Source
    International classification. 16(1989), S.24-26
  8. Brooks, L.: Nonanalytic concept formation and memory for instances (1978) 0.00
    0.001639107 = product of:
      0.024586603 = sum of:
        0.02007927 = product of:
          0.060237806 = sum of:
            0.060237806 = weight(_text_:l in 794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.060237806 = score(doc=794,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.021569785 = queryNorm
                0.70262593 = fieldWeight in 794, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=794)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
        0.004507334 = weight(_text_:s in 794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004507334 = score(doc=794,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.19219826 = fieldWeight in 794, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=794)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    Pages
    S.169-211
  9. Simoes, G.; Machado, L.; Gnoli, C.; Souza, R.: Can an ontologically-oriented KO do without concepts? (2020) 0.00
    0.0015700618 = product of:
      0.015700618 = sum of:
        0.0064806426 = weight(_text_:in in 4964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0064806426 = score(doc=4964,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 4964, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4964)
        0.007529726 = product of:
          0.022589177 = sum of:
            0.022589177 = weight(_text_:l in 4964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022589177 = score(doc=4964,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.021569785 = queryNorm
                0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 4964, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4964)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
        0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 4964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0016902501 = score(doc=4964,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4964, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4964)
      0.1 = coord(3/30)
    
    Abstract
    The ontological approach in the development of KOS is an attempt to overcome the limitations of the traditional epistemological approach. Questions raise about the representation and organization of ontologically-oriented KO units, such as BFO universals or ILC phenomena. The study aims to compare the ontological approaches of BFO and ILC using a hermeneutic approach. We found that the differences between the units of the two systems are primarily due to the formal level of abstraction of BFO and the different organizations, namely the grouping of phenomena into ILC classes that represent complex compounds of entities in the BFO approach. In both systems the use of concepts is considered instrumental, although in the ILC they constitute the intersubjective component of the phenomena whereas in BFO they serve to access the entities of reality but are not part of them.
    Pages
    S.502-506
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.17
  10. Olson, H.A.: How we construct subjects : a feminist analysis (2007) 0.00
    0.001532884 = product of:
      0.015328839 = sum of:
        0.006614278 = weight(_text_:in in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006614278 = score(doc=5588,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
        0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0014085418 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
        0.0073060202 = product of:
          0.0146120405 = sum of:
            0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0146120405 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.021569785 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.1 = coord(3/30)
    
    Abstract
    To organize information, librarians create structures. These structures grow from a logic that goes back at least as far as Aristotle. It is the basis of classification as we practice it, and thesauri and subject headings have developed from it. Feminist critiques of logic suggest that logic is gendered in nature. This article will explore how these critiques play out in contemporary standards for the organization of information. Our widely used classification schemes embody principles such as hierarchical force that conform to traditional/Aristotelian logic. Our subject heading strings follow a linear path of subdivision. Our thesauri break down subjects into discrete concepts. In thesauri and subject heading lists we privilege hierarchical relationships, reflected in the syndetic structure of broader and narrower terms, over all other relationships. Are our classificatory and syndetic structures gendered? Are there other options? Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice (1982), Women's Ways of Knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986), and more recent related research suggest a different type of structure for women's knowledge grounded in "connected knowing." This article explores current and potential elements of connected knowing in subject access with a focus on the relationships, both paradigmatic and syntagmatic, between concepts.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft 'Gender Issues in Information Needs and Services'.
    Date
    11.12.2019 19:00:22
    Source
    Library trends. 56(2007) no.2, S.509-541
  11. Marradi, A.: ¬The concept of concept : concepts and terms (2012) 0.00
    0.0015131244 = product of:
      0.015131244 = sum of:
        0.005833246 = weight(_text_:in in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005833246 = score(doc=33,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
        0.001991979 = weight(_text_:s in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.001991979 = score(doc=33,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
        0.0073060202 = product of:
          0.0146120405 = sum of:
            0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0146120405 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.021569785 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.1 = coord(3/30)
    
    Abstract
    The concept of concept has seldom been examined in its entirety, and the term very seldom defined. The rigidity, or lack thereof, and the homogeneity, or lack thereof, of concepts, are only two of their characteristics that have been debated. These issues are reviewed in this paper, namely: 1) does a concept represent its referent(s), or is it a free creation of the mind?; 2) can a concept be analyzed in parts or elements?; 3) must a concept be general, i.e., refer to a category or a type, or can it refer to a single object, physical or mental?; 4) are concepts as clearly delimited as terms are? Are concepts voiceless terms?; and, 5) what do terms contribute to an individual's and a community's conceptual richness? As regards the relationship of concepts with their referents in the stage of formation, it seems reasonable to conclude that said relationship may be close in some concepts, less close in others, and lacking altogether in some cases. The set of elements of a concept, which varies from individual to individual and across time inside the same individual, is called the intension of a concept. The set of referents of a concept is called the extension of that concept. Most concepts don't have a clearly delimited extension: their referents form a fuzzy set. The aspects of a concept's intension form a scale of generality. A concept is not equal to the term that describes it; rather, many terms are joined to concepts. Language, therefore, renders a gamut of services to the development, consolidation, and communication of conceptual richness.
    Date
    22. 1.2012 13:11:25
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.1, S.29-54
  12. Besler, G.; Szulc, J.: Gottlob Frege's theory of definition as useful tool for knowledge organization : definition of 'context' - case study (2014) 0.00
    0.0014547808 = product of:
      0.014547808 = sum of:
        0.005833246 = weight(_text_:in in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005833246 = score(doc=1440,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 1440, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1440)
        0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0014085418 = score(doc=1440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1440, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1440)
        0.0073060202 = product of:
          0.0146120405 = sum of:
            0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0146120405 = score(doc=1440,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.021569785 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1440, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1440)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.1 = coord(3/30)
    
    Abstract
    The aim of this paper is to analyze the Gottlob Frege's (1848-1925) theory of definition as a tool for knowledge organization. The objective was achieved by discussing the theory of definition including: the aims of definition, kinds of definition, condition of correct definition, what is undefinable. Frege indicated the following aims of a defining: (1) to introduce a new word, which has had no precise meaning until then (2) to explain the meaning of a word; (3) to catch a thought. We would like to present three kinds of definitions used by Frege: a contextual definition, a stipulative definition and a piecemeal definition. In the history of theory of definition Frege was the first to have formulated the condition of a correct definition. According to Frege not everything can be defined, what is logically simple cannot have a proper definition Usability of Frege's theory of definition is referred in the case study. Definitions that serve as an example are definitions of 'context'. The term 'context' is used in different situations and meanings in the field of knowledge organization. The paper is rounded by a discussion of how Frege's theory of definition can be useful for knowledge organization. To present G. Frege's theory of definition in view of the need for knowledge organization we shall start with different ranges of knowledge organization.
    Pages
    S.312-319
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  13. Jouis, C.: Logic of relationships (2002) 0.00
    0.0013644554 = product of:
      0.013644554 = sum of:
        0.004929992 = weight(_text_:in in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004929992 = score(doc=1204,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
        0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0014085418 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
        0.0073060202 = product of:
          0.0146120405 = sum of:
            0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0146120405 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.021569785 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.1 = coord(3/30)
    
    Abstract
    A main goal of recent studies in semantics is to integrate into conceptual structures the models of representation used in linguistics, logic, and/or artificial intelligence. A fundamental problem resides in the need to structure knowledge and then to check the validity of constructed representations. We propose associating logical properties with relationships by introducing the relationships into a typed and functional system of specifcations. This makes it possible to compare conceptual representations against the relationships established between the concepts. The mandatory condition to validate such a conceptual representation is consistency. The semantic system proposed is based an a structured set of semantic primitives-types, relations, and properties-based an a global model of language processing, Applicative and Cognitive Grammar (ACG) (Desc16s, 1990), and an extension of this model to terminology (Jouis & Mustafa 1995, 1996, 1997). The ACG postulates three levels of representation of languages, including a cognitive level. At this level, the meanings of lexical predicates are represented by semantic cognitive schemes. From this perspective, we propose a set of semantic concepts, which defines an organized system of meanings. Relations are part of a specification network based an a general terminological scheure (i.e., a coherent system of meanings of relations). In such a system, a specific relation may be characterized as to its: (1) functional type (the semantic type of arguments of the relation); (2) algebraic properties (reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, etc.); and (3) combinatorial relations with other entities in the same context (for instance, the part of the text where a concept is defined).
    Date
    1.12.2002 11:12:22
    Pages
    S.127-140
  14. Bivins, K.T.: Concept formation : the evidence from experimental psychology and linguistics and its relationship to information science (1980) 0.00
    0.0012293302 = product of:
      0.018439952 = sum of:
        0.015059452 = product of:
          0.045178354 = sum of:
            0.045178354 = weight(_text_:l in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.045178354 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.021569785 = queryNorm
                0.52696943 = fieldWeight in 1319, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1319)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
        0.0033805002 = weight(_text_:s in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033805002 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 1319, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1319)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    Pages
    S.62-74
    Source
    Theory and application of information research. Proc. of the 2nd Int. Research Forum on Information Science, 3.-6.8.1977, Copenhagen. Ed.: O. Harbo u. L. Kajberg
  15. Mental images in human cognition (1991) 0.00
    0.0010846704 = product of:
      0.016270056 = sum of:
        0.010692515 = weight(_text_:in in 4085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010692515 = score(doc=4085,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.3644298 = fieldWeight in 4085, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4085)
        0.0055775414 = weight(_text_:s in 4085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0055775414 = score(doc=4085,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.23783323 = fieldWeight in 4085, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4085)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Library quarterly 63(1993) no.1, S.108-110.
    Series
    Advances in psychology; no.80
    Type
    s
  16. Casagrande, J.B.; Hale, K.L.: Semantic relations in Papago folk definitions (1967) 0.00
    9.2292955E-4 = product of:
      0.013843942 = sum of:
        0.009859984 = weight(_text_:in in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009859984 = score(doc=1194,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.3360549 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
        0.003983958 = weight(_text_:s in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003983958 = score(doc=1194,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.16988087 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    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.
    Pages
    S.165-196
    Source
    Studies in southwestern ethnolinguistics. Eds.: D. Hymes u. W.E. Bittle
  17. Conceptual structures : logical, linguistic, and computational issues. 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2000, Darmstadt, Germany, August 14-18, 2000 (2000) 0.00
    9.1432873E-4 = product of:
      0.009143287 = sum of:
        0.004183237 = weight(_text_:in in 691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004183237 = score(doc=691,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.14257601 = fieldWeight in 691, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=691)
        0.003764863 = product of:
          0.011294588 = sum of:
            0.011294588 = weight(_text_:l in 691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011294588 = score(doc=691,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.021569785 = queryNorm
                0.13174236 = fieldWeight in 691, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=691)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
        0.0011951874 = weight(_text_:s in 691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0011951874 = score(doc=691,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.050964262 = fieldWeight in 691, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=691)
      0.1 = coord(3/30)
    
    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)
    Pages
    XI,568 S
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; vol.1867: Lecture notes on artificial intelligence
    Type
    s
  18. ¬The role of formal ontology in the information technology (1995) 0.00
    8.535331E-4 = product of:
      0.012802996 = sum of:
        0.008819038 = weight(_text_:in in 4746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008819038 = score(doc=4746,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.30057663 = fieldWeight in 4746, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4746)
        0.003983958 = weight(_text_:s in 4746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003983958 = score(doc=4746,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.16988087 = fieldWeight in 4746, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4746)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    Abstract
    A special issue devoted to the role of formal ontology in information technology. Papers were given at the International Workshop on Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation, held in Padova, Iatly, Mar 95
    Source
    International journal of human-computer studies. 43(1995) nos.5/6, S.623-965
    Type
    s
  19. Jorna, R.J.: Knowledge representation and symbols in the mind : an analysis in cognitive psychology (1990) 0.00
    8.4495463E-4 = product of:
      0.012674319 = sum of:
        0.008730402 = weight(_text_:in in 7305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008730402 = score(doc=7305,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.29755569 = fieldWeight in 7305, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7305)
        0.003943917 = weight(_text_:s in 7305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003943917 = score(doc=7305,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.16817348 = fieldWeight in 7305, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7305)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    Pages
    VIII,237 S
  20. Dahlberg, I.: On the theory of the concept (1979) 0.00
    8.1759685E-4 = product of:
      0.012263952 = sum of:
        0.007483202 = weight(_text_:in in 1615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007483202 = score(doc=1615,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 1615, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1615)
        0.00478075 = weight(_text_:s in 1615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00478075 = score(doc=1615,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.20385705 = fieldWeight in 1615, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1615)
      0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    
    Footnote
    In deutsch auch in: International classification 1(1974) S.12-19.
    Pages
    S.54-63

Authors

Types

  • a 71
  • m 8
  • s 6
  • el 2
  • n 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…