Sentence examples for comparison of concepts from inspiring English sources

However, comparisons are difficult because a single concept associates with numerous possible final design specifications, and any meaningful comparison of concepts must consider this range of possibilities.

The literature, however, takes it for granted that Fuzzy Cognitive Maps allow for a simple aggregation of domain knowledge from several experts without much considering holistic approaches with semantic comparison of concepts.

Table 2 Comparison of concepts communicated by the DEM and by many tree diagrams Concept group Evolutionary concept Affordances of tree-based diagrams that suggest important aspects of evolutionary theory, and which are retained in the DEM Common descent differentiates pre-evolutionary and evolution-based descriptions of the Natural System.

The comparison of concept systems of different languages should proceed one concept at a time, so that a common structure can be uncovered.

The transfer to other languages is then not characterized by comparison of concept systems but by the translation of single terms without a closer look at their context.

The comparison of concept systems with the aim of finding equivalents and probably even the adjustment of concept positions, and therefore systems, is then based on the comparison of definitions that describe characteristics of concepts.

The representation of ontologies in RDFS or OWL provides additional advantages, namely, novel interpretations of the existing data against the ontological knowledge enabled by the mapping of data elements in RDF representation ('instances') to the ontological concepts ('classes' or 'types'); and more detailed semantic comparisons of concepts that exploit the expressiveness of these formats [ 27].

These include classification, comparison of design concepts, finding patent holes and building patent fences, design knowledge acquisition, and learning abstract concepts.

In the comparison of the concepts, their respective advantages and disadvantages have been demonstrated.

The objectives of the experiments differ: for OTTO, the focus was on the comparison of different concepts of IMF, i.e. homogeneous fuel versus different types of heterogeneous fuel.

For the purpose of validation and evaluation of the methods for practical application, a systematic comparison of two concepts, classical deterministic and probabilistic, was carried out as an example of a nuclear power plants structure.