logging in or signing up dependence WoodRock Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINT Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 28 Category: News & Reports.. License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: September 03, 2007 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... Premium member Presentation Transcript 8th ISKO Spain conferenceLeón: 18-20 April 2007 : 8th ISKO Spain conference León: 18-20 April 2007 A new relationship for multidisciplinary knowledge organization systems: dependence Claudio Gnoli (University of Pavia) Mela Bosch (University of La Plata) Fulvio Mazzocchi (Italian National Research Council) all members of ISKO Italia Disciplinarity is a key feature of KOSs: Disciplinarity is a key feature of KOSs special KOSs: MeSH, Agrovoc, AAT, ... general KOSs are like aggregates of special KOSs (meta-classifications): Philosophy Mathematics Physics [etc.] Multidisciplinary searchis problematic: Multidisciplinary search is problematic Each discipline is a separate universe with its own hierarchical structure its own facets its own terminology its own notation So, how to search for a concept across disciplines?! KOSs should allow for better multidisciplinary search: KOSs should allow for better multidisciplinary search International Council for Scientific and Technical Information [1993] Beghtol [1995, 1998a, 1998b] Weinberg [1996] Williamson [1998] McIlwaine [2000] Szostak [2004, 2007, this conference] Classification by integrative levels. 1: Classification by integrative levels. 1 Classes of phenomena instead of classes of disciplines Classification Research Group: Kyle, Foskett, Austin, ... 1958-1970 Integrative Level Classification research project: ISKO Italia 2004- Classification by integrative levels. 2: Classification by integrative levels. 2 'alpine oak-groves' forests : oaks : mountains K landforms Km mountains Mp plants Mpfmyq oaks Ny ecosystems Nyr forests levels levels Integrative levels: Integrative levels D energy E atoms F molecules G bulk matter H rocks L cells M organisms N populations R societies T artifacts W cultures X art works lower higher Structural relationships: Structural relationships K landforms hierarchy Km mountains dependence X art works and leisure hierarchy Xwou alpinism Dependence: Dependence 'A new feature has to be consciously incorporated in the alphabetical index, namely, a system of references from certain combinations of terms to at least the level above. [...] If each level derives its parts from the level below, it seems reasonable to use this as a principle in making upward references.' [Foskett 1961] Relationships in thesauri: Relationships in thesauri hierarchical (BT-NT) generic partitive sub-sub-types? instance associative (RT) sub-types? domain-specific sub-sub-types? ALA 1997; Schmitz-Esser 1999; Tudhope et al. 2001; Soergel et al. 2004; Mazzocchi andamp; Plini 2007 Dependence in thesauri: Dependence in thesauri associative (RT) related dependent term (RDT) mountains RDT alpinism plants RDT forests Dependence in classification: Dependence in classification K landforms in the schedules Km mountains ... X art and leisure works Xw games, sports Xwo open air sports Xwou alpinism « Km in the search interface Km mountains see also: Xwou alpinism Dependence between main classes of phenomena: Dependence between main classes of phenomena F molecules « E G bulk matter « F L cells « F M organisms « L N populations « M O perception « M P consciousness « O Q language « O R communities « Q P M T artifacts « R H U wealth « T V institutions « U R X art works « T Q P Ontologies: Ontologies classes = concepts subclasses slots = roles = properties facets = role restrictions Dependence in ontologies. 1: Dependence in ontologies. 1 Dependence in ontologies. 2: Dependence in ontologies. 2 Can deductive properties be applied? Alpinism dependsOn Mountains Mountains dependsOn Rocks → Alpinism dependsOn Rocks Dependence can be modeled as a restriction of an association: Dependence can be modeled as a restriction of an association Conclusions. 1: Conclusions. 1 Disciplinary KOSs assume users will follow the organization they are familiar with But KO has two functions: representing existing literature suggesting new paths through discovery of relations [Szostak in this conference] Conclusions. 2: Conclusions. 2 So we need: less domain-specific KOSs more interoperable retrieval tools independent from domain Dependence looks as a useful relationship to these purposes. Slide20: thank you! gracias! gràcies! grazie! gnoli@aib.it melaboschit@yahoo.it mazzocchi@iia.cnr.it You do not have the permission to view this presentation. In order to view it, please contact the author of the presentation.
dependence WoodRock Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINT Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 28 Category: News & Reports.. License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: September 03, 2007 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... Premium member Presentation Transcript 8th ISKO Spain conferenceLeón: 18-20 April 2007 : 8th ISKO Spain conference León: 18-20 April 2007 A new relationship for multidisciplinary knowledge organization systems: dependence Claudio Gnoli (University of Pavia) Mela Bosch (University of La Plata) Fulvio Mazzocchi (Italian National Research Council) all members of ISKO Italia Disciplinarity is a key feature of KOSs: Disciplinarity is a key feature of KOSs special KOSs: MeSH, Agrovoc, AAT, ... general KOSs are like aggregates of special KOSs (meta-classifications): Philosophy Mathematics Physics [etc.] Multidisciplinary searchis problematic: Multidisciplinary search is problematic Each discipline is a separate universe with its own hierarchical structure its own facets its own terminology its own notation So, how to search for a concept across disciplines?! KOSs should allow for better multidisciplinary search: KOSs should allow for better multidisciplinary search International Council for Scientific and Technical Information [1993] Beghtol [1995, 1998a, 1998b] Weinberg [1996] Williamson [1998] McIlwaine [2000] Szostak [2004, 2007, this conference] Classification by integrative levels. 1: Classification by integrative levels. 1 Classes of phenomena instead of classes of disciplines Classification Research Group: Kyle, Foskett, Austin, ... 1958-1970 Integrative Level Classification research project: ISKO Italia 2004- Classification by integrative levels. 2: Classification by integrative levels. 2 'alpine oak-groves' forests : oaks : mountains K landforms Km mountains Mp plants Mpfmyq oaks Ny ecosystems Nyr forests levels levels Integrative levels: Integrative levels D energy E atoms F molecules G bulk matter H rocks L cells M organisms N populations R societies T artifacts W cultures X art works lower higher Structural relationships: Structural relationships K landforms hierarchy Km mountains dependence X art works and leisure hierarchy Xwou alpinism Dependence: Dependence 'A new feature has to be consciously incorporated in the alphabetical index, namely, a system of references from certain combinations of terms to at least the level above. [...] If each level derives its parts from the level below, it seems reasonable to use this as a principle in making upward references.' [Foskett 1961] Relationships in thesauri: Relationships in thesauri hierarchical (BT-NT) generic partitive sub-sub-types? instance associative (RT) sub-types? domain-specific sub-sub-types? ALA 1997; Schmitz-Esser 1999; Tudhope et al. 2001; Soergel et al. 2004; Mazzocchi andamp; Plini 2007 Dependence in thesauri: Dependence in thesauri associative (RT) related dependent term (RDT) mountains RDT alpinism plants RDT forests Dependence in classification: Dependence in classification K landforms in the schedules Km mountains ... X art and leisure works Xw games, sports Xwo open air sports Xwou alpinism « Km in the search interface Km mountains see also: Xwou alpinism Dependence between main classes of phenomena: Dependence between main classes of phenomena F molecules « E G bulk matter « F L cells « F M organisms « L N populations « M O perception « M P consciousness « O Q language « O R communities « Q P M T artifacts « R H U wealth « T V institutions « U R X art works « T Q P Ontologies: Ontologies classes = concepts subclasses slots = roles = properties facets = role restrictions Dependence in ontologies. 1: Dependence in ontologies. 1 Dependence in ontologies. 2: Dependence in ontologies. 2 Can deductive properties be applied? Alpinism dependsOn Mountains Mountains dependsOn Rocks → Alpinism dependsOn Rocks Dependence can be modeled as a restriction of an association: Dependence can be modeled as a restriction of an association Conclusions. 1: Conclusions. 1 Disciplinary KOSs assume users will follow the organization they are familiar with But KO has two functions: representing existing literature suggesting new paths through discovery of relations [Szostak in this conference] Conclusions. 2: Conclusions. 2 So we need: less domain-specific KOSs more interoperable retrieval tools independent from domain Dependence looks as a useful relationship to these purposes. Slide20: thank you! gracias! gràcies! grazie! gnoli@aib.it melaboschit@yahoo.it mazzocchi@iia.cnr.it