background preloader

Categorization

Categorization
There are many categorization theories and techniques. In a broader historical view, however, three general approaches to categorization may be identified: Classical categorizationConceptual clusteringPrototype theory The classical view[edit] The classical Aristotelian view claims that categories are discrete entities characterized by a set of properties which are shared by their members. According to the classical view, categories should be clearly defined, mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. Conceptual clustering[edit] Conceptual clustering developed mainly during the 1980s, as a machine paradigm for unsupervised learning. Categorization tasks in which category labels are provided to the learner for certain objects are referred to as supervised classification, supervised learning, or concept learning. Conceptual clustering is closely related to fuzzy set theory, in which objects may belong to one or more groups, in varying degrees of fitness. Prototype Theory[edit] Related:  the function of reason - Whitehead

Prototype theory Theory of categorization based upon degrees of similarity to a central case Prototype theory is a theory of categorization in cognitive science, particularly in psychology and cognitive linguistics, in which there is a graded degree of belonging to a conceptual category, and some members are more central than others. It emerged in 1971 with the work of psychologist Eleanor Rosch, and it has been described as a "Copernican Revolution" in the theory of categorization for its departure from the traditional Aristotelian categories.[1] It has been criticized by those that still endorse the traditional theory of categories, like linguist Eugenio Coseriu and other proponents of the structural semantics paradigm.[1] In this prototype theory, any given concept in any given language has a real world example that best represents this concept. For example: when asked to give an example of the concept furniture, a couch is more frequently cited than, say, a wardrobe. Overview and terminology [edit] 1.

Lexicography Lexicography is divided by two related disciplines: A person devoted to lexicography is called a lexicographer. General lexicography focuses on the design, compilation, use and evaluation of general dictionaries, i.e. dictionaries that provide a description of the language in general use. There is some disagreement on the definition of lexicology, as distinct from lexicography. It is now widely accepted that lexicography is a scholarly discipline in its own right and not a sub-branch of applied linguistics, as the chief object of study in lexicography is the dictionary (see e.g. Etymology[edit] Coined in English 1680, the word "lexicography" derives from the Greek "λεξικογράφος" (lexikographos), "lexicographer",[1] from "λεξικόν" (lexicon), neut. of "λεξικός" (lexikos), "of or for words",[2] from "λέξις" (lexis), "speech", "word",[3] (in turn from "λέγω" – lego, "to say", "to speak"[4]) + "γράφω" (grapho), "to scratch, to inscribe, to write".[5] Aspects[edit] Recommended reading[edit]

Alphabet of human thought The alphabet of human thought is a concept originally proposed by Gottfried Leibniz that provides a universal way to represent and analyze ideas and relationships, no matter how complicated, by breaking down their component pieces. All ideas are compounded from a very small number of simple ideas which can be represented by a unique "real" character.[1][2] René Descartes suggested that the lexicon of a universal language should consist of primitive elements. The systematic combination of these elements, according to syntactical rules, would generate "an infinity of different words". In the early 18th century, Leibniz outlined his characteristica universalis, an artificial language in which grammatical and logical structure would coincide, which would allow much reasoning to be reduced to calculation. Leibniz acknowledged the work of Ramon Llull, particularly the Ars generalis ultima (1305), as one of the inspirations for this idea. See also[edit] References[edit]

Archetype The concept of an archetype /ˈɑːrkɪtaɪp/ appears in areas relating to behavior, historical psychological theory, and literary analysis. An archetype can be: Etymology[edit] The word archetype, "original pattern from which copies are made", first entered into English usage in the 1540s[1] and derives from the Latin noun archetypum, latinisation of the Greek noun ἀρχέτυπον (archétypon), whose adjective form is ἀρχέτυπος (archétypos), which means "first-molded",[2] which is a compound of ἀρχή archḗ, "beginning, origin",[3] and τύπος týpos, which can mean, amongst other things, "pattern", "model", or "type".[4] It, thus, referred to the beginning or origin of the pattern, model or type.[5] Function[edit] Usage of archetypes in specific pieces of writing is a holistic approach, which can help the writing win universal acceptance. Plato[edit] The origins of the archetypal hypothesis date as far back as Plato. Jungian archetypes[edit] Jung states in part one of Man And His Symbols that:

Library catalog Another view of the SML card catalog The card catalog was a familiar sight to library users for generations[vague], but it has been[when?] effectively replaced by the online public access catalog (OPAC). Some still refer to the online catalog as a "card catalog". Goal[edit] Charles Ammi Cutter made the first explicit statement regarding the objectives of a bibliographic system in his Rules for a Printed Dictionary Catalog in 1876. 1. to enable a person to find a book of which either (Identifying objective) the authorthe titlethe subjectthe category is known. 2. to show what the library has (Collocating objective) by a given authoron a given subjectin a given kind of literature 3. to assist in the choice of a book (Evaluating objective) as to its edition (bibliographically)as to its character (literary or topical) A catalog also serves as an inventory or bookkeeping of the library's contents. Catalog card[edit] A catalog card is an individual record in a library catalog. Arif, Abdul Majid. c.

Bloom's Taxonomy Bloom's wheel, according to the Bloom's verbs and matching assessment types. The verbs are intended to be feasible and measurable. Bloom's taxonomy is a classification of learning objectives within education. It is named for Benjamin Bloom, who chaired the committee of educators that devised the taxonomy, and who also edited the first volume of the standard text, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Bloom's taxonomy refers to a classification of the different objectives that educators set for students (learning objectives). It divides educational objectives into three "domains": cognitive, affective, and psychomotor (sometimes loosely described as "knowing/head", "feeling/heart" and "doing/hands" respectively). Bloom's taxonomy is considered to be a foundational and essential element within the education community. History[edit] The first volume of the taxonomy, "Handbook I: Cognitive" (Bloom et al. 1956) was published in 1956. Cognitive[edit]

Recognition primed decision Decision-making model Recognition-primed decision (RPD) is a model of how people make quick, effective decisions when faced with complex situations. In this model, the decision maker is assumed to generate a possible course of action, compare it to the constraints imposed by the situation, and select the first course of action that is not rejected. Overview[edit] The RPD model identifies a reasonable reaction as the first one that is immediately considered. RPD reveals a critical difference between experts and novices when presented with recurring situations. Variations[edit] There are three variations in RPD strategy. Variation 2 occurs when the decision maker diagnoses an unknown situation to choose from a known selection of courses of action. In Variation 3, the decision maker is knowledgeable of the situation but unaware of the proper course of action. Application[edit] See also[edit] References[edit] Gary A.

Library classification A library book shelf in Hong Kong arranged using the Dewey classification Description[edit] Library classification is an aspect of library and information science. It is a form of bibliographic classification (library classifications are used in library catalogs, while "bibliographic classification" also covers classification used in other kinds of bibliographic databases). Library classification is associated with library (descriptive) cataloging under the rubric of cataloging and classification, sometimes grouped together as technical services. Library classification of a piece of work consists of two steps. It is important to note that unlike subject heading or thesauri where multiple terms can be assigned to the same work, in library classification systems, each work can only be placed in one class. Classification systems in libraries generally play two roles. Some classification systems are more suitable for aiding subject access, rather than for shelf location. Types[edit]

Listing of 185 Ontology Building Tools At the beginning of this year Structured Dynamics assembled a listing of ontology building tools at the request of a client. That listing was presented as The Sweet Compendium of Ontology Building Tools. Now, again because of some client and internal work, we have researched the space again and updated the listing [1]. All new tools are marked with <New> (new only means newly discovered; some had yet to be discovered in the prior listing). Comprehensive Ontology Tools Altova SemanticWorks is a visual RDF and OWL editor that auto-generates RDF/XML or nTriples based on visual ontology design. Not Apparently in Active Use Adaptiva is a user-centred ontology building environment, based on using multiple strategies to construct an ontology, minimising user input by using adaptive information extractionExteca is an ontology-based technology written in Java for high-quality knowledge management and document categorisation, including entity extraction. Vocabulary Prompting Tools Ontology Editing

Jungian archetypes Archetypes are universal archaic patterns and images that derive from the collective unconscious According to Jungian approach of psychology, some highly developed elements of the collective unconscious are called "archetypes". Carl Jung developed an understanding of archetypes as universal, archaic patterns and images that derive from the collective unconscious and are the psychic counterpart of instinct [1] They are autonomous and hidden forms which are transformed once they enter consciousness and are given particular expression by individuals and their cultures. Being unconscious, the existence of archetypes can only be deduced indirectly by examining behavior, images, art, myths, religions, or dreams. They are inherited potentials which are actualized when they enter consciousness as images or manifest in behavior on interaction with the outside world.[2] Introduction[edit] Jung's idea of archetypes were based in part on Plato's Forms Early development[edit] Later development[edit]

Related: