Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.26575798 = product of:
  0.3189096 = sum of:
    0.017951237 = weight(_text_:und in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017951237 = score(doc=572,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
    0.08565781 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08565781 = score(doc=572,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22876309 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.37443897 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
    0.028025504 = weight(_text_:des in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028025504 = score(doc=572,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.2141777 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
    0.11969343 = weight(_text_:prinzips in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11969343 = score(doc=572,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27041927 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.44262168 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
    0.06758159 = product of:
      0.13516317 = sum of:
        0.13516317 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13516317 = score(doc=572,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.6190234 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8333333 = coord(5/6)

Abstract

We consider use of ontological background knowledge in intelligent information systems and analyze directions of their reduction in compliance with specifics of particular user task. Such reduction is aimed at simplification of knowledge processing without loss of significant information. We propose methods of generation of task thesauri based on domain ontology that contain such subset of ontological concepts and relations that can be used in task solving. Combinatorial optimization is used for minimization of task thesaurus. In this approach, semantic similarity estimates are used for determination of concept significance for user task. Some practical examples of optimized thesauri application for semantic retrieval and competence analysis demonstrate efficiency of proposed approach.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.18982713 = product of:
  0.22779256 = sum of:
    0.012822312 = weight(_text_:und in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012822312 = score(doc=592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 592, 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=592)
    0.061184157 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061184157 = score(doc=592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22876309 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.2674564 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
    0.020018218 = weight(_text_:des in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020018218 = score(doc=592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.15298408 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
    0.08549531 = weight(_text_:prinzips in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08549531 = score(doc=592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27041927 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.31615835 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
    0.048272558 = product of:
      0.096545115 = sum of:
        0.096545115 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096545115 = score(doc=592,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.44215953 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8333333 = coord(5/6)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify the most important factors and features in the evolution of thesauri and ontologies through a dialectic model. This model relies on a dialectic process or idea which could be discovered via a dialectic method. This method has focused on identifying the logical relationship between a beginning proposition, or an idea called a thesis, a negation of that idea called the antithesis, and the result of the conflict between the two ideas, called a synthesis. During the creation of knowl­edge organization systems (KOSs), the identification of logical relations between different ideas has been made possible through the consideration and use of the most influential methods and tools such as dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, thesaurus, micro-, macro- and metathesauri, ontology, lower, middle and upper level ontologies. The analysis process has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a dialectic method and documentary method as the reasoning process. This supports our arguments and synthesizes a method for the analysis of research results. Confirmed by the research results, the principle of unity has shown to be the most important factor in the development and evolution of the structure of knowl­edge organization systems and their types. There are various types of unity when considering the analysis of logical relations. These include the principle of unity of alphabetical order, unity of science, semantic unity, structural unity and conceptual unity. The results have clearly demonstrated a movement from plurality to unity in the assembling of the complex structure of knowl­edge organization systems to increase information and knowl­edge storage and retrieval performance.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.17973499 = product of:
  0.215682 = sum of:
    0.012822312 = weight(_text_:und in 5828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012822312 = score(doc=5828,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 5828, 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=5828)
    0.061184157 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 5828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061184157 = score(doc=5828,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22876309 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.2674564 = fieldWeight in 5828, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5828)
    0.028310036 = weight(_text_:des in 5828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028310036 = score(doc=5828,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.21635216 = fieldWeight in 5828, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5828)
    0.08549531 = weight(_text_:prinzips in 5828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08549531 = score(doc=5828,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27041927 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.31615835 = fieldWeight in 5828, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5828)
    0.027870173 = product of:
      0.055740345 = sum of:
        0.055740345 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 5828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055740345 = score(doc=5828,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.2552809 = fieldWeight in 5828, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5828)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8333333 = coord(5/6)

Footnote

Engl. Übers. des Titels: Taxonomies, ontologies and thesauri: possibilities of contribution to the process of Requirements Engineering.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.018206945 = product of:
  0.054620832 = sum of:
    0.029013582 = weight(_text_:und in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029013582 = score(doc=318,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 318, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=318)
    0.025607252 = product of:
      0.051214505 = sum of:
        0.051214505 = weight(_text_:22 in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051214505 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16546379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 318, 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=318)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.0076933876 = product of:
  0.046160325 = sum of:
    0.046160325 = weight(_text_:und in 551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046160325 = score(doc=551,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.4407773 = fieldWeight in 551, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=551)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Die Weitergabe von Wissen hat sich seit vielen hundert Jahren nicht grundlegend verändert: Sie erfolgt in der Regel dokumentenbasiert - früher als klassischer Aufsatz auf Papier gedruckt, heute als PDF. Bei jährlich rund 2,5 Millionen neuen Forschungsbeiträgen ertrinken die Forschenden in einer Flut pseudodigitalisierter PDF-Publikationen. Die Folge: Die Forschung wird ernsthaft geschwächt. Denn viele Forschungsergebnisse können durch andere nicht reproduziert werden, es gibt mehr und mehr Redundanzen und das Meer von Publikationen ist unübersichtlich. Deshalb denkt die TIB - Leibniz-Informationszentrum Technik und Naturwissenschaften Wissenskommunikation neu: Statt auf statische PDF-Artikel setzt die TIB auf Wissensgraphen. Sie arbeitet daran, Wissen unterschiedlichster Form - Texte, Bilder, Grafiken, Audio- und Video-Dateien, 3D-Modelle und vieles mehr - intuitiv mithilfe dynamischer Wissensgraphen zu vernetzen. Der Wissensgraph soll verschiedene Forschungsideen, -ansätze, -methoden und -ergebnisse maschinenlesbar darstellen, sodass völlig neue Zusammenhänge von Wissen zutage treten und zur Lösung globaler Probleme beitragen könnten. Die großen gesellschaftlichen Herausforderungen verlangen Interdisziplinarität und das Zusammenfügen von Erkenntnis-Einzelteilen. Mit dem Wissensgraphen kann das gelingen und der Fluss wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse revolutioniert werden.

0.0065690633 = product of:
  0.03941438 = sum of:
    0.03941438 = product of:
      0.07882876 = sum of:
        0.07882876 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07882876 = score(doc=593,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.36102176 = fieldWeight in 593, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify the most important factors and features in the evolution of thesauri and ontologies through a dialectic model. This model relies on a dialectic process or idea which could be discovered via a dialectic method. This method has focused on identifying the logical relationship between a beginning proposition, or an idea called a thesis, a negation of that idea called the antithesis, and the result of the conflict between the two ideas, called a synthesis. During the creation of knowl­edge organization systems (KOSs), the identification of logical relations between different ideas has been made possible through the consideration and use of the most influential methods and tools such as dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, thesaurus, micro-, macro- and metathesauri, ontology, lower, middle and upper level ontologies. The analysis process has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a dialectic method and documentary method as the reasoning process. This supports our arguments and synthesizes a method for the analysis of research results. Confirmed by the research results, the principle of unity has shown to be the most important factor in the development and evolution of the structure of knowl­edge organization systems and their types. There are various types of unity when considering the analysis of logical relations. These include the principle of unity of alphabetical order, unity of science, semantic unity, structural unity and conceptual unity. The results have clearly demonstrated a movement from plurality to unity in the assembling of the complex structure of knowl­edge organization systems to increase information and knowl­edge storage and retrieval performance.

0.004645029 = product of:
  0.027870173 = sum of:
    0.027870173 = product of:
      0.055740345 = sum of:
        0.055740345 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055740345 = score(doc=5787,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.2552809 = fieldWeight in 5787, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5787)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study considers the expressiveness (that is the expressive power or expressivity) of different types of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) and discusses its potential to be machine-processable in the context of the Semantic Web. For this purpose, the theoretical foundations of KOS are reviewed based on conceptualizations introduced by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) and the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS); natural language processing techniques are also implemented. Applying a comparative analysis, the dataset comprises a thesaurus (Eurovoc), a subject headings system (LCSH) and a classification scheme (DDC). These are compared with an ontology (CIDOC-CRM) by focusing on how they define and handle concepts and relations. It was observed that LCSH and DDC focus on the formalism of character strings (nomens) rather than on the modelling of semantics; their definition of what constitutes a concept is quite fuzzy, and they comprise a large number of complex concepts. By contrast, thesauri have a coherent definition of what constitutes a concept, and apply a systematic approach to the modelling of relations. Ontologies explicitly define diverse types of relations, and are by their nature machine-processable. The paper concludes that the potential of both the expressiveness and machine processability of each KOS is extensively regulated by its structural rules. It is harder to represent subject headings and classification schemes as semantic networks with nodes and arcs, while thesauri are more suitable for such a representation. In addition, a paradigm shift is revealed which focuses on the modelling of relations between concepts, rather than the concepts themselves.

0.0026674224 = product of:
  0.016004534 = sum of:
    0.016004534 = product of:
      0.03200907 = sum of:
        0.03200907 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03200907 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16546379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 1.2021 14:24:32

0.0021370521 = product of:
  0.012822312 = sum of:
    0.012822312 = weight(_text_:und in 316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012822312 = score(doc=316,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 316, 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=316)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 44(2020) H.3, S.516-529

0.0021339378 = product of:
  0.012803626 = sum of:
    0.012803626 = product of:
      0.025607252 = sum of:
        0.025607252 = weight(_text_:22 in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025607252 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16546379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 179, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=179)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22