1,721,029 research outputs found

    An analysis of agent speech acts as institutional actions

    No full text
    All major proposals in the field of Agent Communication Languages deal with agent communication in terms of speech acts. This choice is important not only because it allows one to rely on a powerful and deep theory of communication, namely Speech Act Theory, but also because AI has developed computationally effective ways of dealing with actions. However, the AI literature does not seem to distinguish between "physical" or "natural" actions and speech acts in a principled way. This attitude often results in a fairly confused and inadequate account of what it means that an agent performs a speech act - a situation that is likely to hinder further developments in the field of Agent Communication Languages. In this paper we analyze the concept of speech act, and point out the main differences between speech acts, conceived as a special category of "institutional" actions, and natural actions. On the basis of our analysis, we conclude that speech acts should be modelled in terms of the specific social effects brought about by their performance

    人間中心の(ヒューマンセンタード)セマンティックWeb

    Get PDF
    平成15-17度科学研究費補助金(基盤研究(A)(1))研究成果報告書 課題番号:15200012 研究代表者:石田亨 (京都大学情報学研究科社会情報学専攻

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Get PDF
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed

    献辞

    No full text
    corecore