2017
DOI: 10.1504/ijict.2017.086830
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Meaning negotiation based on merged individual context ontology and part of semantic web ontology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Introducing a streamlined conceptual model inspired by prior research (Keskes & Rahmoun, 2017;De Moor, 2005), our proposed methodology seeks to mitigate complexities within the pragmatic web, introducing a contextual dimension to meaning negotiation. The study contributes practical insights, offering a refined scenario applicable to diverse domain ontologies within the Semantic Web.…”
Section: Pgmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Introducing a streamlined conceptual model inspired by prior research (Keskes & Rahmoun, 2017;De Moor, 2005), our proposed methodology seeks to mitigate complexities within the pragmatic web, introducing a contextual dimension to meaning negotiation. The study contributes practical insights, offering a refined scenario applicable to diverse domain ontologies within the Semantic Web.…”
Section: Pgmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In meaning negotiation, three key classes-ontological (Keskes & Rahmoun, 2017;De Moor, 2005;Van Diggelen, 2007;Burato, 2011;Maarif, 2020;Zhu, et al, 2021), logical (Burato, 2011), cognitive (Lindh-Knuutila, 2006) and non-structured (Jones, 2020;Schenker, 2021;Myrendal, 2019)-define contextual representation. Ontological representation is widely used for information sharing, and structured domain knowledge, though finding an optimal granularity remains a challenge.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations