See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/264868725
Conceptual Framework for Development of Computer Technology Supporting
Cross-Linguistic Knowledge Discovery
Conference Paper · September 2014
DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4388.5441
CITATIONS READS
9 5,751
5 authors, including:
Igor M. Zatsman Buntman Nadezda
Russian Academy of Sciences Lomonosov Moscow State University
74 PUBLICATIONS 189 CITATIONS 10 PUBLICATIONS 44 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Mikhail Kruzhkov Vitaly Nuriev
Russian Academy of Sciences 11 PUBLICATIONS 32 CITATIONS
16 PUBLICATIONS 37 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Logical structure of the text: means for the expression of logical-semantic relations in Russian, French and Italian from the contrastive perspective View project
Russian Science Foundation, project RSCI 18-18-00462 “Communicative - syntactic interface: typology and grammar” realized at Pushkin State Russian Language
Institute. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Igor M. Zatsman on 20 August 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Conceptual Framework for Development of Computer Technology
Supporting Cross‐Linguistic Knowledge Discovery
Igor Zatsman1, Nadezhda Buntman2, Mikhail Kruzhkov1, Vitaly Nuriev1, 3 and Anna
Zalizniak1, 3
1
Institute of Informatics Problems of the RAS, Moscow, Russia
2
Faculty of Foreign Languages and Area Studies, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
3
Institute of Linguistics of the RAS, Moscow, Russia
[email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]Abstract: The paper focuses on a fundamental problem, that of developing goal‐oriented knowledge creation theory. Here
we suggest a conceptual framework for development of a specific computer technology. This technology supports cross‐
linguistic knowledge discovery in a parallel corpus of Russian texts and their aligned French translations. We assumed that
knowledge was evolved by a team of experts who thus filled a knowledge gap in contrastive grammar of Russian and
French. The gap was identified through investigating the Russian‐French parallel text corpus. The study is important
because of a current need to reconsider linguistic education programs in the light of state‐of‐the‐art corpus linguistic
research. The knowledge gap was identified in the area of understanding equivalences between Russian and French
grammatical constructions. To establish baseline reference conditions for this computer technology development, we
observed how experts worked and how new concepts emerged. The concepts are thought to be knowledge parts that
come from some denotata. The denotata are Russian‐French parallel text fragments. Experts analyze them to identify and
describe types of equivalences between Russian and French grammatical constructions. A typology of those constructions
is thus developed. We establish baseline reference conditions as follows: Experts’ interaction is goal‐oriented, Experts
apply an iterative identification procedure for defining equivalences between Russian and French grammatical
constructions, Knowledge discovering processes are irreversible during the iterative identification procedure, Results of
corpus‐based knowledge discovery are the personal concepts that belong to a knowledge space – the mental medium,
Experts identify and describe their own personal concepts as results of semantic interpretation of denotata, the denotata
being Russian‐French parallel text fragments, Experts jointly coordinate their personal concepts as parts of emerging
knowledge and generate collective concepts interpreting Russian‐French parallel text fragments, Russian‐French parallel
text fragments are new knowledge sources and belong to the text corpus as parts of the social information medium. The
proposed conceptual framework is based on these conditions and includes descriptions of following items: Mental
medium, social information medium, digital medium and forms of human‐computer interfaces, Individual, group and
conventional concepts as signifieds in the mental medium, along with their computer codes named as semantic codes of
the digital medium, Knowledge sources as denotata, that are Russian‐French parallel text fragments into the social
information medium, and their computer codes named as object codes of the digital medium. To show feasibility of the
proposed conceptual framework, our team designed a new computer technology supporting cross‐linguistic knowledge
discovery. The technology is based on three forms of human‐computer interfaces and knowledge creation models. We give
a few examples to show what new knowledge could be discovered with the aid of the technology.
Keywords: interactive knowledge creation, semantic analysis, cross‐linguistic knowledge discovery, conceptual framework,
knowledge creation models
1. Introduction
From the point of view of economic policy, generating and evolving new knowledge provides the potential to
create competitive advantage (Spender 1996; Boisot 1998; Mitchell and Boyle 2010). Scientifically, new
knowledge would reduce the incompleteness of indicator system for research programmes (Zatsman and
Durnovo 2010; Zatsman and Buntman 2013). In the field of language education, new cross‐linguistic
knowledge fills a gap in contrastive grammars (Aijmer and Altenberg 2013).
The paper deals with a conceptual framework and two knowledge creation models. At present the spiral
model of knowledge creation, which was described in the works (Nonaka 1991; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995), is
one of the most popular. The model is very often mentioned in discussions about knowledge creation. Two
1063
Igor Zatsman et al.
categories of knowledge are defined in this model: individual knowledge and group knowledge. Each of these
categories is divided, in turn, into two sub‐categories: explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge.
The spiral model of knowledge creation was generalized in the works (Wierzbicki and Nakamori 2006, 2007),
where a definition of creative space was given. The generalized model does not describe how new knowledge
pieces are created; it does not have a quantitative time axis and does not define those discrete points in time
where new knowledge pieces are produced.
In order to use a time axis and to increase the applicability of knowledge creation modelling, two models have
been proposed (Zatsman 2012a):
One that describes a frozen state of a knowledge creation process, named the frozen‐state model;
The other that identifies a dynamics of a knowledge creation process, named the time‐dependent model.
These models have been used to create new indicators for scientific performance assessment and to design
evaluation systems for verified monitoring, analysis and assessment of scientific activities (Zatsman 2012b;
Zatsman and Durnovo 2012). Such models also help to describe emergence processes for new indicators’
meanings.
This work lies mainly in the area of contrastive linguistics and language education. We attempt to suggest a
conceptual framework for development of a specific computer technology. This technology supports cross‐
linguistic knowledge discovery in a parallel corpus of Russian original texts and their aligned French
translations. The study is important because of a current need to fill a knowledge gap in contrastive grammars
and to reconsider language education programs in the light of state‐of‐the‐art corpus linguistic research.
2. Knowledge creation field positioning
For the last two decades, the positioning of knowledge creation field has been essentially changed in the
humanities, science and technology studies. Nonaka described the spiral model of knowledge creation in 1991.
In forging his theory, Nonaka uses such words as organizational, business, management and innovation that
belong more to economics than to other disciplines. Besides economics, it was the theory of cognition that
raised some rather close questions. This theory pertains to philosophy and analyses both properties,
boundaries of consciousness and reliability conditions. Yet in the late 20 century goal‐oriented processes of
new knowledge creation, methods and models for developing contemporary knowledge systems were studied
predominantly by economic scholars.
At the beginning of this century, two new approaches were proposed to position the field of knowledge
creation. The first one is aimed to form a new discipline called «Knowledge science» (Wierzbicki and Nakamori
2006, 2007). In 2011 and 2013 two works thus appeared, both devoted to Knowledge science (Nakamori 2011,
2013). The second one considers the field of knowledge creation as a part of informatics as computer and
information science, which presents the theoretical basis for developing knowledge creation technologies. The
key ideas of the second approach are outlined in the proceedings of the workshop «Knowledge Anywhere
Anytime: “The Social Life of Knowledge”» (Report of the workshop 2004) and, partly, in the research theme
«Future and Emerging Technologies» (ICT FP7 2009).
The first approach generalizes the spiral model of knowledge creation and describes the creative space of
knowledge generation with its nodes and transitions between them. In contrast with the spiral model, in the
creative space new knowledge generation is not necessarily a one‐way process. In essence, this generalization
resulted in changes involving the classification of knowledge: instead of two categories there are three ones:
Individual knowledge;
Group knowledge;
Humanity’s knowledge.
Given the division of each of three categories into two sub‐categories (tacit and explicit knowledge) Wierzbicki
and Nakamori found six types of knowledge in the creative space. In the generalized model of knowledge
creation, along with these six types, nine transition processes are defined, including socialization,
externalization, combination and internalization. Additionally, humanity emotive heritage, group emotions and
individual emotions are proposed to be a part of the space. Consequently, their generalized model of
1064
Igor Zatsman et al.
knowledge creation contains six types of knowledge, three types of emotions and nine types of transition
processes between various sub‐categories of knowledge and emotions (Wierzbicki and Nakamori 2006, 2007).
The second approach is developed as a theory, central to accomplish four goals. They are thoroughly described
in the proceedings of the workshop (Report of the workshop 2004). These goals are briefly stated as follows:
1. To scientifically uncover how knowledge emerges, how teamwork affects this process and its results. One of
the practical aims is to create methods, information and communication technologies (ICT) for describing
matches and differences in individual comprehension that are detected when a group of people read the same
text or figure, or diagram, etc.
2. To study how various are the representations of the same concepts as ‘quanta’ of mental knowledge
(mental medium). The studies focus on how conventional and constant concepts, individual and group
(coordinated) concepts are represented in the social information medium and in the digital medium. Concept
evolution is taken into account. Such investigations reveal how individual and group concepts serve to form
conventional concepts.
3. To make knowledge grids that provide semantic interoperability of experts in their teamwork, with
dynamics of new knowledge creation and development taken into account.
4. To study how ICT could possibly shape the processes of creation and goal‐oriented development of new
knowledge. For this purpose, it is urgent to observe the experts working in spatially distributed teams where
the collective creation of knowledge is supported by network technologies. The goal‐oriented development of
knowledge is preceded by an identification of the gaps in existing knowledge. After the identification, a group
of experts is formed to perform the task of filling knowledge gaps. Therefore, such studies focus on how and to
what extent the processes of new knowledge creation could be shaped. They try to find out what cognitive
technologies and network solutions could be used to form new knowledge that is socially relevant and
necessary to produce the planned results. As the workshop participants claim, the opportunity to influence
these processes is a character trait of a knowledge‐based society.
The goals mentioned above are closely aligned with four research branches that contribute much to
knowledge creation field positioning. We propose to unite those branches within a specific part of informatics
as computer and information science, named here as Targeted Knowledge Creation theory (TKC‐theory).
Importantly, it is the early beginning of this theory, so both its research directions and its principal goals are
now being formulated. The practical aim of TKC‐theory is to build a theoretical ground for developing goal‐
oriented knowledge creation technologies (Zatsman 2012a).
The two approaches (Knowledge science and TKC‐theory) as scientific paradigms differ greatly from each
other, primarily by the number of media involved. In Knowledge science there are only two types of media, the
mental medium and the social information one. TKC‐theory goes into the digital medium, extending the
number to three. The practical aim of TKC‐theory explains why it is necessary to include this medium in the
proposed conceptual framework. Hence, we suggest that the second approach should be used to develop a
computer technology supporting cross‐linguistic knowledge discovery. This very approach permits to consider
the objects of all three media: mental medium, social information medium and digital one.
3. Baseline reference conditions and proposed conceptual framework
To establish baseline reference conditions for this computer technology development, we observed how
experts worked and how new concepts emerged. These concepts were pieces of new knowledge received
from some denotata. The denotata were Russian‐French parallel text fragments. Experts analysed them to
identify and describe types of equivalences between Russian and French grammatical constructions. They thus
developed a typology of those constructions (Zalizniak et al. 2013).
According to the TKC‐theory and established baseline reference conditions (see the abstract), in our study we
use three following media: knowledge medium, social information medium and digital medium. The
knowledge medium contains two concept categories: text concepts, i.e. notions concerning Russian‐French
parallel text fragments, and construction concepts, i.e. notions concerning Russian and French grammatical
constructions (Fig. 1). The social information medium is built out of these text fragments and grammatical
constructions. The digital medium consists of computer codes for text fragments and constructions.
1065
Igor Zatsman et al.
Figure 1: Three media, sign‐ and formcode‐mediated HCI
Concepts tend to be denoted by words as forms of signs that make up a semiotic sign system. In terms of the
three media, this sign system is a region on the border between the knowledge and the social information
media. We will name the human‐computer interface on this border as the sign‐mediated HCI. On the Fig. 1 a
sign, connecting a concept to a relevant word, is shown as a circle on this border.
The second border is between the social information medium and the digital one. This border separates the
area of grammatical constructions and text fragments, both pieces of social information, from their computer
codes that are digital in nature. We failed to find a common term for a two‐natured entity that connects a text
word to its computer code just as a sign connects a concept to its name. This two‐natured entity is likely not to
have any common name so far. It was named as formcode by Zatsman (2003). We will name the human‐
computer interface on this border as the formcode‐mediated HCI (Fig. 1). In terms of the three media,
formcodes arise on the border between the social information medium and the digital one. On Fig. 2 a
formcode is represented by a circle on this border. Here, sign‐ and formcode‐mediated HCI are considered
jointly.
The third border passes between the knowledge medium and the digital one. This border separates the zone
of concepts from the zone of their computer codes. We did not find any common name for a two‐natured
entity that connects a concept to its computer code. These entities are also likely to have no common name so
far. Here we name them as semcodes.
The border between these media is a double line on Fig. 2. We will name the human‐computer interface on
this border as the semcode‐mediated HCI. This can be defined as a semcode connecting a concept to its
computer code. To obtain a semcode for a new concept, experts need a computer technology that is able to
support the semcode‐mediated HCI. This technology should register the results, accumulated by means of
personal introspection and issued from semantic interpretation of new knowledge sources.
Hence, the proposed conceptual framework includes:
Three media – knowledge medium, social information medium and digital one,
One‐natured entities – individual, group and conventional concepts, information objects (words, headings,
texts) and their computer codes,
1066
Igor Zatsman et al.
Media borders and their two‐natured entities – signs, formcodes and semcodes,
Sign‐, formcode‐ and semcode‐mediated human‐computer interfaces.
Figure 2: Sign‐, formcode‐ and semcode‐mediated human‐computer interfaces
It is noteworthy that in the proposed conceptual framework new knowledge sources can be of different nature
(mental, socio‐informational, digital), and equally they can be physical. This work lies mainly in the area of
contrastive linguistics. So parallel text fragments as new knowledge sources may only be socio‐informational.
4. Models of iterative knowledge creation
We digitally model a knowledge creation process and code a detailed typology so as to get each new
typological heading described by experts from three points of view:
As an emerging concept of a typological heading;
As a variable name of a typological heading;
As a changeable denotatum of a typological heading.
Each changeable denotatum consists of two (Russian and French) varying‐length text fragments. The
fragments are truncated or extended by experts iteratively. Names of typological headings are given and
changed by experts, who are developing these headings. In order to depict knowledge creation processes, two
models have been proposed:
One describing a frozen state of a knowledge creation process, named the frozen‐state model;
The other identifying a dynamics of a knowledge creation process, named the time‐dependent model.
These models are based on Frege’s triangle, where a concept of a typological heading, a name of this heading
and its denotatum are the vertices. In terms of semiotics, three vertices of the triangle are a sign meaning
(concept), a sign form (name), and a denotatum of the sign.
Frege’s triangle, denoted as FT on Fig. 3, is used here to describe (at a point in time):
A frozen state of two (Russian and French) varying‐length parallel text fragments as a denotatum that
belongs to the social information medium;
A concept of a typological heading as a sign meaning that belongs to the knowledge medium;
A name of a typological heading as a sign form that belongs to the social information medium.
1067
Igor Zatsman et al.
Figure 3: The frozen‐state semiotic model
Besides the knowledge and the social information media, we also use the digital medium for modelling cross‐
linguistic knowledge discovery in a parallel text corpus. On Fig. 3, the digital medium contains three types of
computer codes, generated by a computer program at a point in time:
Object code for the frozen state of two (Russian and French) varying‐length parallel text fragments,
Semantic code for a concept of a typological heading,
Information code for a name of a typological heading.
The three computer codes can be arranged into a digitally encoded semiotic triangle, denoted as DEST on Fig.
3. By definition (Zatsman 2012a), at a point in time the frozen‐state semiotic model for any state of a
developed typological heading (Fig. 3):
Works with one‐natured entities of the knowledge medium, the social information medium and the digital
one;
Is based on Frege’s triangle of a developed typological heading including its denotatum, concept and
name;
Produces a digitally encoded semiotic triangle of this heading including different kinds of computer codes:
object code, concept code and information one.
Consequently, within the frozen state model, the vertices of DEST are three computer codes: object code,
semantic code and information one.
The time‐dependent model has a quantitative time axis with those points in time where new headings are
developed by experts. Through personal introspection experts evolve a detailed typology of grammatical
constructions. Each individual semantic interpretation of two (Russian and French) varying‐length parallel text
fragments is associated with a separate typological heading. When a heading is being developed, the
description of the emerging concept, its name, and its denotatum can be repeatedly changed by experts.
Moreover, each typological heading is developed across key stages where experts use an iterative
coordination. Therefore experts set up a collective concept description of one heading from their individual
concept descriptions of it.
1068
Igor Zatsman et al.
The model takes into account the variability of emerging concepts, names, and denotata of headings. By
definition, the time‐dependent model for a detailed typology of headings:
Works with one‐natured entities of the knowledge medium, the social information medium and the digital
one.
Is based of Frege’s triangles for all states of headings at discrete points in time (ti, i = 1,2, ...).
Produces digitally encoded semiotic triangles for states at ti, i = 1,2, ... .
The model describes all development states of headings at discrete points in time (ti, i = 1,2,...), where ti is the
i‐th stage of headings’ development. It is supposed, that at each ti for a heading, changed at ti , experts
describe the heading’s frozen state. At the same time a computer program generates three kinds of codes:
object code, semantic code and information one.
Consequently, the time‐dependent model is based on the frozen‐state model. Fig. 3 and 4 in (Zatsman 2012a)
show two stages of knowledge creation for new indicator generation. Analogous figures may be obtained for
developed typological headings.
5. Computer technology supporting cross‐linguistic knowledge discovery
Our team designed a new computer technology supporting cross‐linguistic knowledge discovery by means of
contrastive analysis. We implemented the frozen‐state model, developed a prototype technology (Zalizniak et
al. 2013) and obtained the first results. A group of experts analysed Russian‐French parallel text fragments and
thus evolved the grammatical typology.
We give here a few examples without going into details and only to show what linguistically interesting new
observations could be made with the aid of the technology. The examples are taken from the database of
Russian‐French parallel text fragments. The database is built as a result of the frozen‐state model
implementation. All the examples are structured as two‐part entities. In the left part a fragment of some
Russian literary text is presented, its two aligned French translations are stored in the right part.
The examples are listed to demonstrate how a contrastive analysis helps to discover new knowledge about
certain linguistic categories, for instance, the category of uncertainty. The Russian text fragments below
contain the non‐referential pronoun kakoy‐nibud’ (какой‐нибудь – Ex. 1‐2) or the third person indefinite
pronoun kto‐to (кто‐то – Ex.3). These pronouns serve as markers of uncertainty in Russian and have their
regular but different French translations:
1)
Обломов иногда интересовался какою‐ Il arrivait à Oblomov de s’intéresser à une nouvelle,
нибудь новостью, Certes, Oblomov s’intéressait parfois à une nouvelle
2)
Он [...] долго ловил какую‐нибудь Il [...] cherchait longtemps quelque trait anguleux
угловатую черту, Il [...] cherchait à saisir quelque trait précis
3)
Dans la forêt un promeneur [...] riait d'un rire terrible...
или в лесу кто‐то прогуливается [...] да
страшно хохочет... ou encore un être [...] se promenait dans la forêt, riait aux éclats à faire
frémir...
Only through such analysis can we draw any strong conclusions about the intensity of uncertainty, performed
by the Russian pronoun in every context. The intensity being low, the pronoun kakoy‐nibud’ is
grammaticalized in translations as the French indefinite article (un / une / des – Ex. 1). When kakoy‐nibud’
gets separated from the defined word (kakuyu‐nibud’ ... chertu – Ex. 2), the intensity of uncertainty
increases, and the pronoun has a specific lexicalized equivalent in French translations (quelque – Ex. 2). A
very high degree of uncertainty is revealed with the Russian pronoun kto‐to. In 50 per cent of cases it is not
translated by its regular French equivalent quelqu'un. The pronoun acquires the anaphoric function and is
substituted in translations with a possible antecedent noun, preceded by the indefinite article (un promeneur,
un être – Ex. 3).
1069
Igor Zatsman et al.
Therefore, we argue that this kind of contrastive analysis provided by the database, digitally mediated and
done within the frozen‐state model, leads to some important conclusions. These conclusions fill a knowledge
gap in contrastive grammar of Russian and French.
6. Final remarks
Taken together, the findings of this study would seem to support the idea of strengthening the TKC‐theory.
Considerable insight has been gained with regard to the TKC‐theory’s positioning. We have devised a
conceptual framework for developing a computer technology, which supports cross‐linguistic knowledge
discovery. This study has proposed two adapted semiotic models, aimed at evolving a typology of grammatical
constructions and thus filling a knowledge gap in contrastive grammars. The strength of our approach lies in
the careful designing and building of a prototype technology that gives concrete examples of cross‐linguistic
knowledge discovery.
So far three general ways to develop a conceptual framework and models for knowledge creation process
were examined in the following areas:
Development and implementation of digital geolibraries (Zatsman 2009);
Creation of new indicators for scientific performance assessment and design of evaluation systems that
provide verified monitoring, analysis and assessment of scientific activities (Zatsman 2012b);
Cross‐linguistic knowledge discovery in a parallel text corpus (this paper).
In all these cases, the conceptual framework and models for knowledge creation process have the same basic
elements:
Mental medium, social information medium and digital medium;
Two‐natured entities that mediate human‐computer interfaces;
Knowledge sources as denotata and their object codes in the digital medium;
Individual, group, conventional concepts as signifieds in the mental medium and semantic codes of these
concepts;
Names given by experts and information codes for these names.
In our view these results represent an excellent initial step toward shaping the TKC‐theory as a specific part of
informatics as computer and information science.
Acknowledgements
This research was made possible by a grant (No. 14‐07‐00785) and a grant (No. 14‐06‐31358) from the RFBR.
References
Aijmer K., Altenberg B. (2013) Advances in Corpus‐based Contrastive Linguistics. Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Boisot, M. (1998) Knowledge Assets: Securing Competitive Advantage in the Information Economy, Oxford University Press,
New York.
ICT FP7 (2009) “Information and Communications Technologies: Updated Work Programme 2009 and Work Programme
2010”, [online], ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/ict/docs/ict‐wp‐2009‐10_en.pdf.
Mitchell, R. and Boyle, B. (2010) “Knowledge creation measurement methods”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol 14,
No. 1, pp 67‐82.
Nakamori Y. (2013) Knowledge and Systems Science ‐ Enabling Systemic Knowledge Synthesis, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis
Group, London&New York.
Nakamori Y. (ed.) (2011) Knowledge Science ‐ Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group,
London&New York.
Nonaka, I. (1991) “The knowledge‐creating company”, Harvard Business Review, Vol 69, No. 6, pp 96–104.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge‐Creating Company, Oxford University Press, New York.
Spender, J.‐C. (1996) “Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 17
(Winter Special issue), pp 45‐62.
Report of the workshop (2004) “Knowledge Anywhere Anytime: «The Social Life of Knowledge»”, [online],
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/ist/docs/dir_f/ws4reportv3a.pdf.
Wierzbicki, A. and Nakamori, Y. (2006) “Basic dimensions of creative space”, In Creative Space: Models of Creative
Processes for Knowledge Civilization Age, Wierzbicki, A. and Nakamori Y. (Eds.), Springer, Heidelberg, pp 59‐90.
1070
Igor Zatsman et al.
Wierzbicki, A. and Nakamori, Y. (2007) “Knowledge sciences: some new developments”, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft,
Vol 77, No. 3, pp 271‐295.
Zalizniak Anna A., Sitchinava D.V., Loiseau S., Kruzhkov M., Zatsman I.M. (2013) “Database of Equivalent Verbal Forms in a
Russian‐French Multivariant Parallel Corpus”, In 2013 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ICAI’13), Vol.
I, CRSEA Press, Las Vegas, pp 101‐107.
Zatsman, I. (2003) Concept Retrieval and Information Quality, Publishing House “Nauka”, Moscow (in Russian).
Zatsman, I. (2009) “A semiotic model of correlations between concepts, information objects and computer codes”,
Informatics and its Applications, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp 65–81 (full text in Russian from:
http://www.ipiran.ru/journal/issues/2009_03_02/Vol3_Issue2.pdf; abstract in English from:
http://www.ipiran.ru/journal/issues/2009_02_eng/annot.asp).
Zatsman, I. (2012a) “Tracing Emerging Meanings by Computer: Semiotic Framework”, In 13th European Conference on
Knowledge Management Proceedings, Vol. 2, Academic Publishing International Limited, Reading, pp 1298–1307.
Zatsman, I. (2012b) “Denotatum‐Based Models of Knowledge Creation for Monitoring and Evaluating R&D Program
Implementation”, In 11th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics & Cognitive Computing Proceedings,
IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, pp 27–34.
Zatsman I., Buntman P. (2013) “New Knowledge Creation by Collaborating Goal‐Oriented Experts: Methodology and
Models”, In 14th European Conference on Knowledge Management Proceedings, Vol. 2, Academic Publishing
International Limited, Reading, pp 776‐784.
Zatsman, I. and Durnovo, A. (2010) “Incompleteness problem for indicators system of research programme”, In 11th
International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (Book of Abstracts), Universiteit Leiden, Leiden, pp
309–311 [online], http://www.cwts.nl/pdf/ BookofAbstracts2010_version_15072010.pdf.
Zatsman, I. and Durnovo, A. (2012) “Proactive Dictionary of Evaluation System as a Tool for Science and Technology
Indicator Development”, In 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators Proceedings, Vol. 2,
Science‐Metrix and OST, Montréal, pp 905–906.
1071
View publication stats
