Search (185 results, page 1 of 10)

0.14850718 = product of:
  0.37126794 = sum of:
    0.0067426977 = weight(_text_:a in 4031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067426977 = score(doc=4031,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 4031, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4031)
    0.36452526 = weight(_text_:2f in 4031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.36452526 = score(doc=4031,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39311135 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.92728245 = fieldWeight in 4031, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4031)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Als Erfinder des «Allgemeinen» gilt, gemäß dem Bericht des Aristoteles und seit diesem Bericht, Sokrates. Er ist es, der nicht mehr danach suchte, woraus ein Ding zu dem geworden ist, was es ist, oder wie es entstanden ist, sondern danach, «was [ein Ding] ist», und somit ist Sokrates der erste gewesen, der die Herausarbeitung des Allgemeinen (?a?????) forderte und mit seinen Fragen seine Gesprächspartner zu dieser Herausarbeitung trieb bzw. lockte; die Definition (???sµ??) war das Ziel des sokratischen Gesprächs, und die sokratische Aporie war das Vehikel.

Footnote

DOI: 10.24894/HWPh.5033. Vgl. unter: https://www.schwabeonline.ch/schwabe-xaveropp/elibrary/start.xav#__elibrary__%2F%2F*%5B%40attr_id%3D%27verw.allgemeinesbesonderes%27%5D__1515856414979.

Type

a

0.06611215 = product of:
  0.11018691 = sum of:
    0.0100103095 = weight(_text_:a in 2178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0100103095 = score(doc=2178,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2178, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2178)
    0.095440306 = weight(_text_:91 in 2178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095440306 = score(doc=2178,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25837386 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.3693884 = fieldWeight in 2178, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2178)
    0.0047362936 = product of:
      0.009472587 = sum of:
        0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 2178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009472587 = score(doc=2178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

A set of semantic relations is created every time a domain modeler wants to solve some complex problem computationally. These relations are usually organized into ontologies. But three is little standardization of ontologies today, and almost no discussion an ways of comparing relations, of determining a general approach to creating relations, or of modeling in general. This chapter outlines an approach to establishing a general methodology for comparing and justifying sets of relations (and ontologies in general). It first provides several dozen characteristics of ontologies, organized into three taxonomies of increasingly detailed features, by which many essential characteristics of ontologies can be described. These features enable one to compare ontologies at a general level, without studying every concept they contain. But sometimes it is necessary to make detailed comparisons of content. The chapter then illustrates one method for determining salient points for comparison, using algorithms that semi-automatically identify similarities and differences between ontologies.

Pages

S.91-110

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.3

Type

a

0.026540533 = product of:
  0.06635133 = sum of:
    0.002724461 = weight(_text_:a in 3128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002724461 = score(doc=3128,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 3128, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3128)
    0.06362687 = weight(_text_:91 in 3128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06362687 = score(doc=3128,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25837386 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.24625893 = fieldWeight in 3128, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3128)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Aufgrund eines Vortrags über Begriffs- und Definitionstheorie, den ich bei der Tagung über Begriffsanalyse in Darmstadt 1986 gehalten hatte (Dahlberg 1987), wandte sich der damalige Mitherausgeber der Zeitschrift Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften, Dr. Rainer Greshoff, 1990 an mich mit der Bitte, einen ähnlichen Beitrag als Hauptartikel für seine Zeitschrift zu schreiben. Ich sagte zu mit der Absicht im Hinterkopf, dabei auch meine Erfahrungen mit der sozial-wissenschaftlichen Terminologie, die ich bei COCTA, dem Committee for Conceptual and Terminological Analysis (Vorsitz Prof. Dr. Fred Riggs, Hawaii) (Riggs 1982) gemacht hatte, einzubringen. Hinzu kam, dass mir gerade zu diesem Zeitpunkt das Werk von Stefan Andreski in die Hände gefallen war, betitelt: "Die Hexenmeister der Sozialwissenschaften. Missbrauch, Mode und Manipulation einer Wissenschaft", (Andreski 1974) der sozusagen "kein Blatt vor den Mund nimmt" und überaus mutig und an vielen Beispielen die Misere der sozialwissenschaftlichen Terminologie offenbar macht. Ich hoffte daher, in einem entsprechenden Beitrag mehr Bewusstsein für eine begriffsorientierte, systematische Terminologie der Sozialwissenschaften zu wecken. In gewisser Weise war für mich dabei die Lösung von Prof. Riggs mit seiner "Onomantik" (Riggs 1985) vorbildlich. Er ging nämlich davon aus, dass der sog. semasiologische Ansatz, bei dem nach der Bedeutung eines Wortes gefragt wird, unbrauchbar für sein Verständnis sei (und das nicht nur in den Sozialwissenschaften), man müsse vielmehr umgekehrt onomasiologisch vorgehen und sich zunächst über einen Begriff klar werden, der mit einem Wort (oder einem Wort in einem Kontext) verbunden ist und seine mögliche Definition finden und dann erst dafür eine Benennung suchen. Aus Zeitmangel entstand mein Beitrag erst 1995. Herr Dr. Greshoff konnte - entsprechend der Methode seiner Zeitschrift - zu meinem Beitrag eine größere Anzahl von Kritikern finden und diese dann auch noch durch eine Replik der Autorin erwidern lassen und mit einer Metakritik eines Nichtinvolvierten das Ganze beenden. In meinem Fall waren es 27 Persönlichkeiten aus 10 verschiedenen Disziplinen und Herr Prof. Dr. Endruweit als Metakritiker. Der Beitrag umfasste die Seiten 3-91 (DIN A4 Format) in Heft 1-1996 unter dem Titel "Zur Begriffskultur in den Sozialwissenschaften. Lassen sich ihre Probleme lösen?" (Dahlberg 1996). Ich war überzeugt, dass sich ihre Probleme mit meiner vorgeschlagenen Methode lösen lassen. Doch meine Kritiker waren es leider nicht. Und über das Warum - davon wird mein Vortrag heute handeln.

Type

a

0.021637667 = product of:
  0.054094166 = sum of:
    0.009010308 = weight(_text_:a in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009010308 = score(doc=5588,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
    0.045083858 = sum of:
      0.013672504 = weight(_text_:information in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013672504 = score(doc=5588,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
      0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031411353 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

Type

a

0.021404605 = product of:
  0.05351151 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=880,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 880, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=880)
    0.043975897 = product of:
      0.087951794 = sum of:
        0.087951794 = weight(_text_:22 in 880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.087951794 = score(doc=880,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 880, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=880)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Pages

S.9-22

Type

a

0.020997968 = product of:
  0.052494917 = sum of:
    0.013189741 = weight(_text_:a in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013189741 = score(doc=1204,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.24669915 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
    0.039305177 = sum of:
      0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007893822 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
      0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031411353 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.3

Type

a

0.018346803 = product of:
  0.045867007 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 3904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=3904,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3904, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3904)
    0.037693623 = product of:
      0.07538725 = sum of:
        0.07538725 = weight(_text_:22 in 3904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07538725 = score(doc=3904,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3904, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3904)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 22(1971) H.3, S.98-104 (T.1); H.4, S.143-150 (T.2)

Type

a

0.013059636 = product of:
  0.03264909 = sum of:
    0.010661141 = weight(_text_:a in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010661141 = score(doc=2574,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 2574, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2574)
    0.021987949 = product of:
      0.043975897 = sum of:
        0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043975897 = score(doc=2574,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2574, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2574)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A method (HICLAS, DeBoeck & Rosenberg, 1988) for studying the internal structure of semantic concepts is presented. The proposed method reveals the internal structure of the extension as well as the intesion of a concept, together with a correspondence relation that shows the mutual dependence of both structures. Its use is illustrated with the analysis of simple concepts (e.g. sports) and conjunctive concepts (e.g. birds that are also pets). The underlying structure that is revealed can be interpreted as a differentiation of the simple concepts studied and for conjunctive concepts the proposed method is able to extract non-inherited and emergent features (Hampton, 1988)

Date

22. 7.2000 19:17:40

Type

a

0.012231203 = product of:
  0.030578006 = sum of:
    0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005448922 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
    0.025129084 = product of:
      0.050258167 = sum of:
        0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050258167 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

Type

a

0.012220096 = product of:
  0.03055024 = sum of:
    0.014844563 = weight(_text_:a in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014844563 = score(doc=33,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.2776507 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
    0.015705677 = product of:
      0.031411353 = sum of:
        0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031411353 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

Type

a

0.011001176 = product of:
  0.027502941 = sum of:
    0.011797264 = weight(_text_:a in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011797264 = score(doc=1440,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 1440, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1440)
    0.015705677 = product of:
      0.031411353 = sum of:
        0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031411353 = score(doc=1440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

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

Type

a

0.010702303 = product of:
  0.026755756 = sum of:
    0.004767807 = weight(_text_:a in 5710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004767807 = score(doc=5710,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 5710, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5710)
    0.021987949 = product of:
      0.043975897 = sum of:
        0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 5710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043975897 = score(doc=5710,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5710, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5710)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Pages

S.22-33

Type

a

0.009832155 = product of:
  0.024580387 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1319, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1319)
    0.016407004 = product of:
      0.032814007 = sum of:
        0.032814007 = weight(_text_:information in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032814007 = score(doc=1319,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.40312737 = fieldWeight in 1319, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1319)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

Type

a

0.009411185 = product of:
  0.023527961 = sum of:
    0.010897844 = weight(_text_:a in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010897844 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
    0.012630116 = product of:
      0.025260232 = sum of:
        0.025260232 = weight(_text_:information in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025260232 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Type

a

0.009233874 = product of:
  0.023084685 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 4241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=4241,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4241, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4241)
    0.016273532 = product of:
      0.032547064 = sum of:
        0.032547064 = weight(_text_:information in 4241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032547064 = score(doc=4241,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.39984792 = fieldWeight in 4241, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4241)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to formulate an analytical framework for the information concept based on the semiotic theory. Design/methodology/approach The paper is motivated by the apparent controversy that still surrounds the information concept. Information, being a key concept within LIS, suffers from being anchored in various incompatible theories. The paper suggests that information is signs, and it demonstrates how the concept of information can be understood within C.S. Peirce's phenomenologically rooted semiotic. Hence, from there, certain ontological conditions as well epistemological consequences of the information concept can be deduced. Findings The paper argues that an understanding of information, as either objective or subjective/discursive, leads to either objective reductionism and signal processing, that fails to explain how information becomes meaningful at all, or conversely, information is understood only relative to subjective/discursive intentions, agendas, etc. To overcome the limitations of defining information as either objective or subjective/discursive, a semiotic analysis shows that information understood as signs is consistently sensitive to both objective and subjective/discursive features of information. It is consequently argued that information as concept should be defined in relation to ontological conditions having certain epistemological consequences. Originality/value The paper presents an analytical framework, derived from semiotics, that adds to the developments of the philosophical dimensions of information within LIS.

Theme

Information

Type

a

0.009173402 = product of:
  0.022933504 = sum of:
    0.004086692 = weight(_text_:a in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004086692 = score(doc=3060,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3060, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3060)
    0.018846812 = product of:
      0.037693623 = sum of:
        0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037693623 = score(doc=3060,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3060, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3060)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Alon Friedman und Richard P. Smiraglia kündigen in ihrem aktuellen Artikel "Nodes and arcs: concept map, semiotics, and knowledge organization" an, eine "empirical demonstration of how the domain [of knowledge organisation] itself understands the meaning of a concept" durchzuführen. Die Klärung des Konzeptbegriffs ist ein begrüßenswertes Vorhaben, das die Autoren in einer empirischen Untersuchung von concept maps (also Konzeptdiagrammen) aus dem Bereich der Wissensorganisation nachvollziehen wollen. Beschränkte sich Friedman 2011 in seinem Artikel "Concept theory and semiotics in knowledge organization" [Fn 01] noch ausschließlich auf Sprache als Medium im Zeichenprozess, bezieht er sich nun auf Visualisierungen als Repräsentationsform und scheint somit seinen Ansatz um den Aspekt der Bildlichkeit zu erweitern. Zumindest erwartet man dies nach der Lektüre der Beschreibung des aktuellen Vorhabens von Friedman und Smiraglia, das - wie die Autoren verkünden - auf einer semiotischen Grundlage durchgeführt worden sei.

Source

LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.22, 2013, S.xx-xx

0.008738357 = product of:
  0.021845892 = sum of:
    0.0076151006 = weight(_text_:a in 4484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076151006 = score(doc=4484,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4484, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4484)
    0.0142307915 = product of:
      0.028461583 = sum of:
        0.028461583 = weight(_text_:information in 4484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028461583 = score(doc=4484,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.34965688 = fieldWeight in 4484, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4484)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article presents the semantic information theory, formulated by the philosopher Fred I. Dretske, as a contribution to the discussion of metatheories and their practical implications in the field of library and information science. Dretske's theory is described in Knowledge and the flow of information. It is founded on mathematical communication theory but developed and elaborated into a cognitive, functionalistic theory, is individually oriented, and deals with the content of information. The topics are: the information process from perception to cognition, and how concept formation takes place in terms of digitisation. Other important issues are the concepts of information and knowledge, truth and meaning. Semantic information theory can be used as a frame of reference in order to explain, clarify and refute concepts currently used in library and information science, and as the basis for critical reviews of elements of the cognitive viewpoint in IR, primarily the notion of "potential information". The main contribution of the theory lies in a clarification of concepts, but there are still problems regarding the practical applications. More research is needed to combine philosophical discussions with the practice of information and library science.

Theme

Information

Type

a

0.008717269 = product of:
  0.021793172 = sum of:
    0.008258085 = weight(_text_:a in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008258085 = score(doc=1189,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
    0.013535086 = product of:
      0.027070172 = sum of:
        0.027070172 = weight(_text_:information in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027070172 = score(doc=1189,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3325631 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Relationships can provide a rich and powerful set of information and can be used to accomplish application goals, such as information retrieval and natural language processing. A growing trend in the information science community is the use of information visualization-taking advantage of people's natural visual capabilities to perceive and understand complex information. This chapter explores how visualization and visual exploration can help users gain insight from known relationships and discover evidence of new relationships not previously anticipated.

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.3

Type

a

0.008189849 = product of:
  0.02047462 = sum of:
    0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007078358 = score(doc=1197,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
    0.013396261 = product of:
      0.026792523 = sum of:
        0.026792523 = weight(_text_:information in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026792523 = score(doc=1197,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Automatic identification of semantic relations in text is a difficult problem, but is important for many applications. It has been used for relation matching in information retrieval to retrieve documents that contain not only the concepts but also the relations between concepts specified in the user's query. It is an integral part of information extraction-extracting from natural language text, facts or pieces of information related to a particular event or topic. Other potential applications are in the construction of relational thesauri (semantic networks of related concepts) and other kinds of knowledge bases, and in natural language processing applications such as machine translation and computer comprehension of text. This chapter examines the main methods used for identifying semantic relations automatically and their application in information retrieval and information extraction.

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.3

Type

a

0.008185431 = product of:
  0.020463578 = sum of:
    0.012260076 = weight(_text_:a in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012260076 = score(doc=5876,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
    0.008203502 = product of:
      0.016407004 = sum of:
        0.016407004 = weight(_text_:information in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016407004 = score(doc=5876,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Intended is first of all a preliminary review of the implications that the new approaches to the theory of classification, mainly from cognitive psychology and epistemology may have for information work and research. As a secondary topic the scientific relations existing among information science, epistemology and the cognitive sciences are discussed. Classification is seen as a central activity in all daily and scientific activities, and, of course, of knowledge organization in information services. There is a mutual implication between classification and conceptualization, as the former moves in a natural way to the latter and the best result elaborated for classification is the concept. Research in concept theory is a need for a theory of classification. In this direction it is of outstanding importance to integrate the achievements of 'natural concept formation theory' (NCFT) as an alternative approach to conceptualization different from the traditional one of logicians and problem solving researchers. In conclusion both approaches are seen as being complementary: the NCFT approach being closer to the user and the logical one being more suitable for experts, including 'expert systems'

Type

a