-
¬The role of formal ontology in the information technology (1995)
0.01
0.007189882 = product of:
0.017974705 = sum of:
0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 4746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0068111527 = score(doc=4746,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4746, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4746)
0.011163551 = product of:
0.022327103 = sum of:
0.022327103 = weight(_text_:information in 4746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022327103 = score(doc=4746,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 4746, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4746)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- 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
-
Evens, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval (2002)
0.01
0.0070676133 = product of:
0.017669033 = sum of:
0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007078358 = score(doc=1201,freq=6.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1201, 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=1201)
0.010590675 = product of:
0.02118135 = sum of:
0.02118135 = weight(_text_:information in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02118135 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Thesaural relations have long been used in information retrieval to enrich queries; they have sometimes been used to cluster documents as well. Sometimes the first query to an information retrieval system yields no results at all, or, what can be even more disconcerting, many thousands of hits. One solution is to rephrase the query, improving the choice of query terms by using related terms of different types. A collection of related terms is often called a thesaurus. This chapter describes the lexical-semantic relations that have been used in building thesauri and summarizes some of the effects of using these relational thesauri in information retrieval experiments
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
- Type
- a
-
Dahlberg, I.: On the theory of the concept (1979)
0.01
0.007058388 = product of:
0.01764597 = sum of:
0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 1615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008173384 = score(doc=1615,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1615, 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=1615)
0.009472587 = product of:
0.018945174 = sum of:
0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 1615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018945174 = score(doc=1615,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1615, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1615)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Source
- Ordering systems for global information networks. Proc. of the 3rd Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Bombay 1975
- Type
- a
-
Gödert, W.: Begriffstheorie : Basis einer Theorie von Dokumentationssprachen - Basis zur Erklärung kognitiver Informationsverarbeitung (1996)
0.01
0.007058388 = product of:
0.01764597 = sum of:
0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 3914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008173384 = score(doc=3914,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3914, 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=3914)
0.009472587 = product of:
0.018945174 = sum of:
0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 3914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018945174 = score(doc=3914,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3914, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3914)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Theme
- Information
- Type
- a
-
Atran, S.: Basic conceptual domains (1989)
0.01
0.007058388 = product of:
0.01764597 = sum of:
0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008173384 = score(doc=478,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 478, 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=478)
0.009472587 = product of:
0.018945174 = sum of:
0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018945174 = score(doc=478,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 478, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=478)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Theme
- Information
- Type
- a
-
Pansegrouw, J.G.: ¬Die begrippe spesie, klas en versameling in verhouding tot indekseringteorie (1995)
0.01
0.0068851607 = product of:
0.017212901 = sum of:
0.010897844 = weight(_text_:a in 4447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010897844 = score(doc=4447,freq=8.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4447, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4447)
0.006315058 = product of:
0.012630116 = sum of:
0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 4447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012630116 = score(doc=4447,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4447, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4447)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Analyses the concepts species, class and set to explain the development of generic arrangement beginning with Aristotle's theory of essences. Explains the development from Aristotelian essences to the acceptance of accidental characteristics, culminating in the logical algebra of Boole and in a distinction between classes (as the extension of a concept) and sets (as a grouping of elements). Discusses 2 problems relating to indexing theory, selected from PRECIS and the work of Das Gupta
- Source
- South African journal of library and information science. 63(1995) no.4, S.173-178
- Type
- a
-
Cruse, D.A.: Hyponymy and its varieties (2002)
0.01
0.0068851607 = product of:
0.017212901 = sum of:
0.010897844 = weight(_text_:a in 1186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010897844 = score(doc=1186,freq=8.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1186, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1186)
0.006315058 = product of:
0.012630116 = sum of:
0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 1186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012630116 = score(doc=1186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1186, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1186)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This chapter deals with the paradigmatic sense relation of hyponymy as manifested in nouns. A number of approaches to the definition of the relation are discussed, with particular attention being given to the problems of framing a prototype-theoretical characterization. An account is offered of a number of sub-varieties of hyponymy.
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
- Type
- a
-
McCray, A.T.; Bodenreider, O.: ¬A conceptual framework for the biomedical domain (2002)
0.01
0.0066833766 = product of:
0.016708441 = sum of:
0.0100103095 = weight(_text_:a in 1207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0100103095 = score(doc=1207,freq=12.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 1207, 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=1207)
0.0066981306 = product of:
0.013396261 = sum of:
0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 1207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013396261 = score(doc=1207,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1207, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1207)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Specialized domains often come with an extensive terminology, suitable for storing and exchanging information, but not necessarily for knowledge processing. Knowledge structures such as semantic networks, or ontologies, are required to explore the semantics of a domain. The UMLS project at the National Library of Medicine is a research effort to develop knowledge-based resources for the biomedical domain. The Metathesaurus is a large body of knowledge that defines and inter-relates 730,000 biomedical concepts, and the Semantic Network defines the semantic principles that apply to this domain. This chapter presents these two knowledge sources and illustrates through a research study how they can collaborate to further structure the domain. The limits of the approach are discussed.
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
- Type
- a
-
Dahlberg, I.: Conceptual structures and systematization (1995)
0.01
0.006654713 = product of:
0.016636781 = sum of:
0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00770594 = score(doc=3965,freq=4.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
0.0089308405 = product of:
0.017861681 = sum of:
0.017861681 = weight(_text_:information in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017861681 = score(doc=3965,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Examines the nature of knowledge and the relationship between the transfer of knowledge and information communication. Discusses the 3 kinds of relationships existing between concepts: formal; form-categorical; and material relationships, and characteristics of concepts. Concludes with a discussion of conceptual structures for concept definitions, conceptual systematization , concept systematization and functionality, and the analytical, referent-oriented concept theory
- Source
- International forum on information and documentation. 20(1995) no.3, S.9-24
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory (2009)
0.01
0.006536471 = product of:
0.016341178 = sum of:
0.005898632 = weight(_text_:a in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005898632 = score(doc=3461,freq=6.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
0.010442546 = product of:
0.020885091 = sum of:
0.020885091 = weight(_text_:information in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020885091 = score(doc=3461,freq=14.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.256578 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Concept theory is an extremely broad, interdisciplinary and complex field of research related to many deep fields with very long historical traditions without much consensus. However, information science and knowledge organization cannot avoid relating to theories of concepts. Knowledge organizing systems (e.g., classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies) should be understood as systems basically organizing concepts and their semantic relations. The same is the case with information retrieval systems. Different theories of concepts have different implications for how to construe, evaluate, and use such systems. Based on a post-Kuhnian view of paradigms, this article put forward arguments that the best understanding and classification of theories of concepts is to view and classify them in accordance with epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism). It is also argued that the historicist and pragmatist understandings of concepts are the most fruitful views and that this understanding may be part of a broader paradigm shift that is also beginning to take place in information science. The importance of historicist and pragmatic theories of concepts for information science is outlined.
- Footnote
- Vgl.: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S. 1076-1077 und die Erwiderung darauf von B. Hjoerland (S.1078-1080)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1519-1536
- Theme
- Information
- Type
- a
-
Hjoerland, B.: Are relations in thesauri "context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds"? (2015)
0.01
0.0064942986 = product of:
0.016235746 = sum of:
0.008341924 = weight(_text_:a in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008341924 = score(doc=2033,freq=12.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
0.007893822 = product of:
0.015787644 = sum of:
0.015787644 = weight(_text_:information in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015787644 = score(doc=2033,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- 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
- Type
- a
-
Fellbaum, C.: On the semantics of troponymy (2002)
0.01
0.006474727 = product of:
0.016186817 = sum of:
0.010661141 = weight(_text_:a in 1191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010661141 = score(doc=1191,freq=10.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 1191, 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=1191)
0.005525676 = product of:
0.011051352 = sum of:
0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 1191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011051352 = score(doc=1191,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1191, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1191)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The principal relation linking verbs in a semantic network is the manner relation (or "troponymy"). We examine the nature of troponymy across different semantic domains and verb classes in an attempt to arrive at a more subtle understanding of this intuitive relation. Troponymy is not a semantically homogeneous relation; rather, it is polysemous and encompasses distinct sub-relations. We identify and discuss Manner, Function, and Result. Furthermore, different kinds of troponyms differ from their semantically less elaborated superordinates in their syntactic behavior. In some cases, troponyms exhibit a wider range of syntactic altemations; in other cases, the troponyms are more restricted in their argument-projecting properties.
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
- Type
- a
-
Gemberling, T.: FRSAD, Semiotics, and FRBR-LRM (2016)
0.01
0.006474727 = product of:
0.016186817 = sum of:
0.010661141 = weight(_text_:a in 5118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010661141 = score(doc=5118,freq=10.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 5118, 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=5118)
0.005525676 = product of:
0.011051352 = sum of:
0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 5118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011051352 = score(doc=5118,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5118, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5118)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Philosophy grapples with the deepest and most difficult questions in human life. In a 2012 article, Jonathan Furner raises questions about the "Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data" (FRSAD) model. Can the FRSAD framers really avoid tackling philosophical questions as they attempt to do-the long-running dispute between nominalists and realists, in particular? This article attempts to flesh out a realist position while showing some implications for the new Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records-Library Reference Model. It is not clear that FRSAD really takes a realist view, as Furner claims, and a position on the nominalist-realist debate is not necessary for information professionals.
- Type
- a
-
Campos, L.M.: Princípios teóricos usados na elaboracao de ontologias e sua influência na recuperacao da informacao com uso de de inferências [Theoretical principles used in ontology building and their influence on information retrieval using inferences] (2021)
0.01
0.006338624 = product of:
0.01584656 = sum of:
0.009010308 = weight(_text_:a in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009010308 = score(doc=826,freq=14.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 826, 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=826)
0.006836252 = product of:
0.013672504 = sum of:
0.013672504 = weight(_text_:information in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013672504 = score(doc=826,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 826, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=826)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Several instruments of knowledge organization will reflect different possibilities for information retrieval. In this context, ontologies have a different potential because they allow knowledge discovery, which can be used to retrieve information in a more flexible way. However, this potential can be affected by the theoretical principles adopted in ontology building. The aim of this paper is to discuss, in an introductory way, how a (not exhaustive) set of theoretical principles can influence an aspect of ontologies: their use to obtain inferences. In this context, the role of Ingetraut Dahlberg's Theory of Concept is discussed. The methodology is exploratory, qualitative, and from the technical point of view it uses bibliographic research supported by the content analysis method. It also presents a small example of application as a proof of concept. As results, a discussion about the influence of conceptual definition on subsumption inferences is presented, theoretical contributions are suggested that should be used to guide the formation of hierarchical structures on which such inferences are supported, and examples are provided of how the absence of such contributions can lead to erroneous inferences
- Type
- a
-
Thellefsen, M.: ¬The dynamics of information representation and knowledge mediation (2006)
0.01
0.0063011474 = product of:
0.015752869 = sum of:
0.009437811 = weight(_text_:a in 170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009437811 = score(doc=170,freq=6.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 170, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=170)
0.006315058 = product of:
0.012630116 = sum of:
0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012630116 = score(doc=170,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 170, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=170)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This paper present an alternative approach to knowledge organization based on semiotic reasoning. The semantic distance between domain specific terminology and KOS is analyzed by means of their different sign systems. It is argued that a faceted approach may provide the means needed to minimize the gap between knowledge domains and KOS.
- Source
- Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
- Type
- a
-
ISO/DIS 5127: Information and documentation - foundation and vocabulary (2013)
0.01
0.006098524 = product of:
0.01524631 = sum of:
0.0034055763 = weight(_text_:a in 6070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0034055763 = score(doc=6070,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 6070, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6070)
0.011840734 = product of:
0.023681467 = sum of:
0.023681467 = weight(_text_:information in 6070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023681467 = score(doc=6070,freq=18.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.2909321 = fieldWeight in 6070, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6070)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This standard provides the basic terms and their definitions in the field of information and documentation for the purpose of promoting and facilitating knowledge sharing and information exchange. This International Standard presents terms and definitions of selected concepts relevant to the field of information and documentation. If a definition is from other standards, the priority of selection is TC46 technical standards, then technical standards in relevant field, and then terminology related standards. The scope of this International Standard corresponds to that of ISO/TC46, Standardization of practices relating to libraries, documentation and information centres, publishing, archives, records management, museum documentation, indexing and abstracting services, and information science. ISO 5127 was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and Documentation, WG4, Terminology of information and documentation. This second edition cancels and replaces the first edition (ISO 5127:2001), which has been technically revised to overcome problems in the practical application of ISO 5127:2001 and to take account of the new developments in the field of information and documentation.
-
Szostak, R.: Complex concepts into basic concepts (2011)
0.01
0.0060712704 = product of:
0.015178176 = sum of:
0.008341924 = weight(_text_:a in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008341924 = score(doc=4926,freq=12.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
0.006836252 = product of:
0.013672504 = sum of:
0.013672504 = weight(_text_:information in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013672504 = score(doc=4926,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 4926, 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=4926)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Interdisciplinary communication, and thus the rate of progress in scholarly understanding, would be greatly enhanced if scholars had access to a universal classification of documents or ideas not grounded in particular disciplines or cultures. Such a classification is feasible if complex concepts can be understood as some combination of more basic concepts. There appear to be five main types of concept theory in the philosophical literature. Each provides some support for the idea of breaking complex into basic concepts that can be understood across disciplines or cultures, but each has detractors. None of these criticisms represents a substantive obstacle to breaking complex concepts into basic concepts within information science. Can we take the subject entries in existing universal but discipline-based classifications, and break these into a set of more basic concepts that can be applied across disciplinary classes? The author performs this sort of analysis for Dewey classes 300 to 339.9. This analysis will serve to identify the sort of 'basic concepts' that would lie at the heart of a truly universal classification. There are two key types of basic concept: the things we study (individuals, rocks, trees), and the relationships among these (talking, moving, paying).
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2247-2265
- Theme
- Information
- Type
- a
-
Nakamura, Y.: Subdivisions vs. conjunctions : a discussion on concept theory (1998)
0.01
0.0060245167 = product of:
0.015061291 = sum of:
0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009535614 = score(doc=69,freq=8.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
0.005525676 = product of:
0.011051352 = sum of:
0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011051352 = score(doc=69,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- After studying the relations between two words(nouns) that constitute a compound term, the relation between corresponding concepts discussed. The impossibility of having a conjunction between two concepts that have no common feature causes inconvenience in the application of concept theory to information retrieval problems. Another kind of conjunctions, different from that by co-occurrence, is proposed and characteristics of this conjunction is studied. It revealed that one of new ones has the same character with colon combination in UDC. The possibility of having three kinds of conjunction including Wsterian concept conjunction is presented. It is also discussed that subdivisions can be replaced by new conjunctions
- Type
- a
-
Guarino, N.; Welty, C.: Identity and subsumption (2002)
0.01
0.0060245167 = product of:
0.015061291 = sum of:
0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009535614 = score(doc=1195,freq=8.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
0.005525676 = product of:
0.011051352 = sum of:
0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011051352 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The intuitive simplicity of the so-called is-a (or subsumption) relationship has led to widespread ontological misuse. Where previous work has focused largely an the semantics of the relationship itself, we concentrate here an the ontological nature of its arguments, in Order to tell whether a single is-a link is ontologically well-founded. For this purpose, we introduce some techniques based an the philosophical notions of identity, unity, and essence, which have been adapted to the needs of taxonomy design. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these techniques by taking real examples of poorly structured taxonomies and revealing cases of invalid generalization.
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
- Type
- a
-
¬The semantics of relationships : an interdisciplinary perspective (2002)
0.01
0.005889678 = product of:
0.014724194 = sum of:
0.005898632 = weight(_text_:a in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005898632 = score(doc=1430,freq=6.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
0.008825562 = product of:
0.017651124 = sum of:
0.017651124 = weight(_text_:information in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017651124 = score(doc=1430,freq=10.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Work on relationships takes place in many communities, including, among others, data modeling, knowledge representation, natural language processing, linguistics, and information retrieval. Unfortunately, continued disciplinary splintering and specialization keeps any one person from being familiar with the full expanse of that work. By including contributions form experts in a variety of disciplines and backgrounds, this volume demonstrates both the parallels that inform work on relationships across a number of fields and the singular emphases that have yet to be fully embraced, The volume is organized into 3 parts: (1) Types of relationships (2) Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning (3) Applications of relationships
- Content
- Enthält die Beiträge: Pt.1: Types of relationships: CRUDE, D.A.: Hyponymy and its varieties; FELLBAUM, C.: On the semantics of troponymy; PRIBBENOW, S.: Meronymic relationships: from classical mereology to complex part-whole relations; KHOO, C. u.a.: The many facets of cause-effect relation - Pt.2: Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning: GREEN, R.: Internally-structured conceptual models in cognitive semantics; HOVY, E.: Comparing sets of semantic relations in ontologies; GUARINO, N., C. WELTY: Identity and subsumption; JOUIS; C.: Logic of relationships - Pt.3: Applications of relationships: EVENS, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval; KHOO, C., S.H. MYAENG: Identifying semantic relations in text for information retrieval and information extraction; McCRAY, A.T., O. BODENREICHER: A conceptual framework for the biiomedical domain; HETZLER, B.: Visual analysis and exploration of relationships
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
