• Refine Query
  • Source
  • Publication year
  • to
  • Language
  • 3
  • 2
  • Tagged with
  • 5
  • 4
  • 4
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • About
  • The Global ETD Search service is a free service for researchers to find electronic theses and dissertations. This service is provided by the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations.
    Our metadata is collected from universities around the world. If you manage a university/consortium/country archive and want to be added, details can be found on the NDLTD website.
1

Referenz, Quantifikation und ontologische Festlegung /

Reicher, Maria E. January 2005 (has links)
Univ., Habil--Graz, 2003.
2

Trustworthiness of voice-based assistants: Integrating interlocutor and intermediary predictors

Weidmüller, Lisa, Etzrodt, Katrin, Engesser, Sven 01 March 2024 (has links)
When intelligent voice-based assistants (VBAs) present news, they simultaneously act as interlocutors and intermediaries, enabling direct and mediated communication. Hence, this study discusses and investigates empirically how interlocutor and intermediary predictors affect an assessment that is relevant for both: trustworthiness. We conducted a secondary analysis using data from two online surveys in which participants (N = 1288) had seven quasi-interactions with either Alexa or Google Assistant and calculated hierarchical regression analyses. Results show that (1) interlocutor and intermediary predictors influence people’s trustworthiness assessments when VBAs act as news presenters, and (2) that different trustworthiness dimensions are affected differently: The intermediary predictors (information credibility; company reputation) were more important for the cognition-based trustworthiness dimensions integrity and competence. In contrast, intermediary and interlocutor predictors (ontological classification; source attribution) were almost equally important for the affect-based trustworthiness dimension benevolence.
3

Ontological Semantics

Loebe, Frank 06 May 2015 (has links) (PDF)
The original and still a major purpose of ontologies in computer and information sciences is to serve for the semantic integration of represented content, facilitating information system interoperability. Content can be data, information, and knowledge, and it can be distributed within or across these categories. A myriad of languages is available for representation. Ontologies themselves are artifacts which are expressed in various languages. Different such languages are utilized today, including, as well-known representatives, predicate logic, subsuming first-order (predicate) logic (FOL), in particular, and higher-order (predicate) logic (HOL); the Web Ontology Language (OWL) on the basis of description logics (DL); and the Unified Modeling Language (UML). We focus primarily on languages with formally defined syntax and semantics. This overall picture immediately suggests questions of the following kinds: What is the relationship between an ontology and the language in which it is formalized? Especially, what is the impact of the formal semantics of the language on the formalized ontology? How well understood is the role of ontologies in semantic integration? Can the same ontology be represented in multiple languages and/or in distinct ways within one language? Is there an adequate understanding of whether two expressions are intensionally/conceptually equivalent and whether two ontologies furnish the same ontological commitments? One may assume that these questions are resolved. Indeed, the development and adoption of ontologies is widespread today. Ontologies are authored in a broad range of different languages, including offering equally named ontologies in distinct languages. Much research is devoted to techniques and technologies that orbit ontologies, for example, ontology matching, modularization, learning, and evolution, to name a few. Ontologies have found numerous beneficial applications, and hundreds of ontologies have been created, considering solely the context of biomedical research. For us, these observations increase the relevance of the stated questions and close relatives thereof, and raise the desire for solid theoretical underpinnings. In the literature of computer and information sciences, we have found only few approaches that tackle the foundations of ontologies and their representation to allow for answering such questions or that actually answer them. We elaborate an analysis of the subject as the first item of central contributions within this thesis. It mainly results in the identification of a vicious circularity in (i) the intended use of ontologies to mediate between formal representations and (ii) solely exploiting formal semantic notions in representing ontologies and defining ontology-based equivalence as a form of intensional/conceptual equivalence. On this basis and in order to overcome its identified limitations, we contribute a general model-theoretic semantic account, named \\\"ontological semantics\\\". This kind of semantics takes the approach of assigning arbitrary entities as referents of atomic symbols and to link syntactic constructions with corresponding ontological claims and commitments. In particular, ontological semantics targets the avoidance of encoding effects in its definition. Therefore we argue that this semantic account is well suited for interpreting formalized ontologies and for defining languages for the representation of ontologies. It is further proposed as a fundament for envisioned novel definitions of the intensional equivalence of expressions, in potential deviation from only being formally equivalent under set-theoretic semantics. The thesis is defended that a particular usage of a formalism and its respective vocabulary should be accompanied by establishing an ontological semantics that is tailored to that use of the formalism, in parallel to the formal semantics of the language, in order to capture the ontological content of the formal representation for adequate reuse in other formalisms. Accordingly, we advocate ontological semantics as a useful framework for justifying translations on an intensional basis. Despite all deviations of ontological semantics from its set-theoretic blueprint, close relationships between the two can be shown, which allow for using established FOL and DL reasoners while assuming ontological semantics.
4

Ontological Semantics: An Attempt at Foundations of Ontology Representation

Loebe, Frank 26 March 2015 (has links)
The original and still a major purpose of ontologies in computer and information sciences is to serve for the semantic integration of represented content, facilitating information system interoperability. Content can be data, information, and knowledge, and it can be distributed within or across these categories. A myriad of languages is available for representation. Ontologies themselves are artifacts which are expressed in various languages. Different such languages are utilized today, including, as well-known representatives, predicate logic, subsuming first-order (predicate) logic (FOL), in particular, and higher-order (predicate) logic (HOL); the Web Ontology Language (OWL) on the basis of description logics (DL); and the Unified Modeling Language (UML). We focus primarily on languages with formally defined syntax and semantics. This overall picture immediately suggests questions of the following kinds: What is the relationship between an ontology and the language in which it is formalized? Especially, what is the impact of the formal semantics of the language on the formalized ontology? How well understood is the role of ontologies in semantic integration? Can the same ontology be represented in multiple languages and/or in distinct ways within one language? Is there an adequate understanding of whether two expressions are intensionally/conceptually equivalent and whether two ontologies furnish the same ontological commitments? One may assume that these questions are resolved. Indeed, the development and adoption of ontologies is widespread today. Ontologies are authored in a broad range of different languages, including offering equally named ontologies in distinct languages. Much research is devoted to techniques and technologies that orbit ontologies, for example, ontology matching, modularization, learning, and evolution, to name a few. Ontologies have found numerous beneficial applications, and hundreds of ontologies have been created, considering solely the context of biomedical research. For us, these observations increase the relevance of the stated questions and close relatives thereof, and raise the desire for solid theoretical underpinnings. In the literature of computer and information sciences, we have found only few approaches that tackle the foundations of ontologies and their representation to allow for answering such questions or that actually answer them. We elaborate an analysis of the subject as the first item of central contributions within this thesis. It mainly results in the identification of a vicious circularity in (i) the intended use of ontologies to mediate between formal representations and (ii) solely exploiting formal semantic notions in representing ontologies and defining ontology-based equivalence as a form of intensional/conceptual equivalence. On this basis and in order to overcome its identified limitations, we contribute a general model-theoretic semantic account, named \\\"ontological semantics\\\". This kind of semantics takes the approach of assigning arbitrary entities as referents of atomic symbols and to link syntactic constructions with corresponding ontological claims and commitments. In particular, ontological semantics targets the avoidance of encoding effects in its definition. Therefore we argue that this semantic account is well suited for interpreting formalized ontologies and for defining languages for the representation of ontologies. It is further proposed as a fundament for envisioned novel definitions of the intensional equivalence of expressions, in potential deviation from only being formally equivalent under set-theoretic semantics. The thesis is defended that a particular usage of a formalism and its respective vocabulary should be accompanied by establishing an ontological semantics that is tailored to that use of the formalism, in parallel to the formal semantics of the language, in order to capture the ontological content of the formal representation for adequate reuse in other formalisms. Accordingly, we advocate ontological semantics as a useful framework for justifying translations on an intensional basis. Despite all deviations of ontological semantics from its set-theoretic blueprint, close relationships between the two can be shown, which allow for using established FOL and DL reasoners while assuming ontological semantics.:* Preface ** Abstract ** Contents ** Acknowledgments ** Foreword 1 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Motivations 1.3 Theses, Objectives and Scope 1.4 Outline and Contributions 1.5 Formal Preliminaries 2 Foundations on Languages, Semantics, and Ontology 2.1 Formal Syntax and Formal Semantics 2.2 The Role of Ontologies in Semantic Integration 2.3 Ontological Analysis and Meta-Ontological Architecture 2.4 Conceptualization of Categories and Relations - CR 2.5 Summary of the Analysis and Next Steps 3 Views on Set-Theoretic Semantics of Classical Predicate Logics 3.1 Tarskian Model Theory and Set-Theoretic Superstructure 3.2 Formal Semantics and Choices for Entity Postulation 3.3 Theory View of Semantics 3.4 Aims for an Ontologically Neutral Semantic Account 4 Ontological Semantics 4.1 Definition of Ontological Structures by Analogy to the Set-Theoretic Approach 4.2 Properties and Further Background for Ontological Structures in General 4.3 Ontological Models & Signature Aspects 4.4 Semantics of Predication 4.5 Semantics of Connectives and Quantifiers & Semantic Notions 4.6 Relations between Ontological and Set-Theoretic Semantics 4.7 Ontological Neutrality 5 Ontological Engineering and Applications 5.1 Formalization Method for Ontology Representation in FOL 5.2 Ontological Usage Schemes 5.3 Glimpse on Characterizing Modular Representation 5.4 Applications in the Biomedical Domain 6 Contributions to Ontologies 6.1 Formalizations of Categories and Relations - CR 6.2 Remarks on Further Contributions 6.3 Ontologies of Time 7 Conclusion and Continuation 7.1 Resume 7.2 Related Work 7.3 Conclusions 7.4 Beginnings of Future Work Appendix A Additional Preliminaries A.1 Logical Notions A.2 Axiomatic Systems of Set and Number Theory B Axioms of the CR Taxonomy in OWL B.1 Asserted OWL Class Axioms B.2 Asserted OWL Object Property Axioms C Lists of Figures and Tables C.1 List of Figures C.2 List of Tables D Abbreviations, Acronyms and Names D.1 Abbreviations D.2 Acronyms and Names E References E.1 Literature References E.2 Web References/List of URLs F Work and Author Information ** Selbständigkeitserklärung (Declaration of Authorship) ** Bibliographic Data ** Scientific Record
5

Technik und Bildung in der verwissenschaftlichten Lebenswelt

Lumila, Minna 02 June 2023 (has links)
Die Studie versucht, Husserls Modell einer nicht-wissenschaftlichen Lebenswelt für pädagogische Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis von Technik und Bildung in der verwissenschaftlichen Welt zu öffnen. Sie diskutiert Entwicklungsprobleme der Spätmoderne unter pluralen Fragestellungen und führt Ansätze und Traditionen zusammen, die unterschiedliche Wege zur Weiterentwicklung der modernen Bildungstheorie beschritten haben. Im Zentrum steht die Frage, wie moderne Technik einerseits als lebensweltliche Entfremdung des Menschen problematisiert und andererseits als Produkt menschlicher Freiheit und Weltgestaltung gewürdigt werden kann. In vier Kapiteln werden die methodischen Ansätze und Antworten vorgestellt, die der Philosoph und Pädagoge Eugen Fink (1905–1975), der Philosoph Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), der Philosoph und Erziehungswissenschaftler Theodor Litt (1880–1962) und der Soziologe Helmut Schelsky (1912–1984) auf die Frage nach dem Verhältnis von Bildung und Technik gegeben haben. Im Durchgang durch ihre Positionen wird ein Konzert erarbeitet, dessen Originalität darin liegt, Abstimmungsprobleme von Bildung, Technik und Lebenswelt aus postdualistischer, praxistheoretischer sowie posthumanistischer Perspektive zu thematisieren. / The study attempts to open Husserl's model of a non-scientific lifeworld for pedagogical investigations of the relationship between technology and “Bildung” in the scientific world. It discusses developmental problems of late modernity under plural questions and brings together approaches and traditions that have taken different paths to the further development of modern “Bildungs”-theory. The central question is how modern technology can be problematized on the one hand as the alienation of human beings from the world of life and on the other hand be appreciated as a product of human freedom and the shaping of the world. Four chapters present the methodological approaches and answers that philosopher and educator Eugen Fink (1905–1975), philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), philosopher and educationalist Theodor Litt (1880–1962), and sociologist Helmut Schelsky (1912–1984) have given to the question of the relationship between education and technology. In the course of their positions, a concert will be developed whose originality lies in addressing the coordination problems of “Bildung” (education), “Technik” (technology) and “Lebenswelt” (lifeworld) from a post-dualist, praxis-theoretical as well as post-humanist perspective.

Page generated in 0.0851 seconds