Fictionality

The index term that is usually found in the back-of-book index was created to help readers with finding the information, such as important names or terms on book pages. A good back-of-book index should guide the reader to find relevant term on the book page. The process to create the back-of-book index requires great effort. The important words should be extracted from a large collection of words in the book. The subjectivity and knowledge of the author determine which important words should be indexed. The inaccurate indexing process could result in back-of-book index that refers to an irrelevant page number. This research aims to identify the relevant page numbers using syntactic similarity approach and semantic approach that based on Wordnet thesaurus. Through these approaches, we measure the relatedness between sentence and the index term to identify the relevant page number. We use Kappa statistic to measure the reliability of our methods, our experimental result shows that the semantic approach has better performance than the syntactic approach. The average Kappa value in the semantic similarity framework is 0.619, imply that the semantic similarity approach could identify the relevant page numbers as well as the book author.

Syntactic approaches in the philosophy of science, which are based on formalizations in predicate logic, are often considered in principle inferior to semantic approaches, which are based on formalizations with the help of structures. To compare the two kinds of approach, I identify some ambiguities in common semantic accounts and explicate the concept of a structure in a way that avoids hidden references to a specific vocabulary. From there, I argue that contrary to common opinion (i) unintended models do not pose a significant problem for syntactic approaches to scientific theories, (ii) syntactic approaches can be at least as language-independent as semantic ones, and (iii) in syntactic approaches, scientific theories can be as well connected to the world as in semantic ones. Based on these results, I argue that syntactic and semantic approaches fare equally well when it comes to (iv) ease of application, (v) accommodating the use of models in the sciences, and (vi) capturing the theory-observation relation.

Review

Web mining is the application of data mining techniques to discover patterns from the Web. Web services defines set of standards like WSDL(Web Service Description Language), SOAP(Simple Object Access Protocol) and UDDI(Universal Description Discovery and Integration) to support service description, discovery and invocation in a uniform interchangeable format between heterogeneous applications. Due to huge number of Web services and short content of WSDL description, the identification of correct Web services becomes a time consuming process and retrieves a vast amount of irrelevant Web services. This emerges the need for the efficient Web service mining framework for Web service discovery. Discovery involves matching, assessment and selection. Various complex relationships may provide incompatibility in delivering and identifying efficient Web services. As a result the web service requester did not attain the exact useful services. A research has emerged to develop method to improve the accuracy of Web service discovery to match the best services. In the discovery of Web services there are two approaches are available namely Semantic based approach and Syntactic based approach. Semantic based approach gives high accuracy than Syntactic approach but it takes high processing time. Syntactic based approach has high flexibility. Thus, this paper presents a survey of semantic based and syntactic based approaches of Web service discovery system and it proposed a novel approach which has better accuracy and good flexibility than existing one. Finally, it compares the existing approaches in web service discovery.

Despite the intense reception and critical discussion which Wolfgang Iser’s work on the reading process and the esthetics of reception (Rezeptionsästhetik) received throughout the 1970s and 80s in Anglo-American literary criticism, his later ambitious attempt to sketch out a “literary anthropology” with the help of a general theory of fiction was almost completely ignored outside of his immediate German context. This is especially lamentable from the perspective of law and literature approaches to legal and literary fiction since Iser’s argument for the anthropological “grounding” of fictions as acts of motivated and strategic “feigning” (fingieren) develops out of a careful analysis and assessment of Jeremy Bentham’s Theory of Fiction. Iser’s discussion of Bentham does not only present a rare case of acknowledgement of Benthamian notions about fictions from the perspective of continental literary theory, it also illustrates the way in which the discussion of fiction in general may serve to foster a more robust interdisciplinary perspective in regard to legal and literary practices of storytelling and narration. 1 Since Iser’s theory of (literary) fiction has been perceived from rather different angles and with a diverging range of comprehension by Anglo-American and European audiences, respectively, the essay will first attempt to introduce and place Iser’s discussion of fiction and the imaginary within the larger disciplinary context and his overarching interest and investment in a literary anthropology. After a more general presentation of the various elements in his larger work, the paper will briefly look at the “anthropological” prospects which Iser had pursued from early on throughout his critical work, culminating in The Fictive and the Imaginary. The second half of the essay will then take a closer look at Iser’s particular interest in and detailed discussion of Jeremy Bentham’s Theory of Fiction, to reveal how Iser’s own anthropological project could derive a central impulse and trajectory from his intense reading of Bentham. In particular, I am interested in how Iser interprets Bentham’s use of legal fictions to project a general theory of fiction, and how Iser then uses the concept of necessity or “need” to gradually translate and transfer Bentham’s theoretical premises to match and support his own conceptualization of the fictive, the real and the imaginary. Iser’s particular understanding of “doing fiction,” I will conclude, might be of considerable value for the interdisciplinary engagement with legal and literary fictions.

It is very important to use automatic text summarization to turn long chunks of text into short, useful snippets. In the area of automatic text summary, this study looks at both semantic and syntactic methods in great detail. Using methods like natural language understanding and semantic processing, semantic approaches try to get meaning and context from writing. These methods try to get at the main ideas and connections in the material so that recaps can be more complex and full of information. Syntactic methods, on the other hand, focus on the structure of language, such as grammar and syntax. To find important sentences and phrases for summarization, methods like sentence extraction based on grammar patterns and grammatical analysis are used. Syntactic methods often make sure that the outlines they create are grammatically right and make sense. This review compares both methods in a number of areas, such as how well they capture the spirit of the original text, how well the generated snippets make sense, how quickly they can be produced, and how well they can be used with different types of material. The pros and cons of each method are shown in comparative studies, which help us understand how they can be used in various areas and situations. Recent improvements that combine semantic and syntactic methods have also shown promise in making automatic recaps better overall and more helpful. The goal of these mixed methods is to make reports that are both verbally and semantically correct by using the benefits of both semantic understanding and syntactic structure. This review gives us a more complete picture of how automatic text summarization methods are changing. It stresses how important it is to look at both semantic and syntactic approaches in order to make the field move forward and create better and more advanced summary systems.

Accounting, as the language of the business world, can be approached in syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic perspectives. Not explicit, the researchers use the tridimensionality of accounting language to support their investigations. This study investigates the accounting language adopted in the theoretical underpinning of publications of Brazilian scientific journals in the period from 2001 to 2012, regarding to the areas of Accounting for External Users and Financial, Credit and Capital Markets. To this end, a descriptive study using Content Analysis were performed. The results show that semantic and pragmatic languages excel syntactic languages. Articles regarding Accounting theme for External Users use more pragmatic approach and the ones of Markets use, mainly, semantic approach. Research on standards convergence used, mainly, syntactic approach, which is justified by the need to explain normative and practical procedures. Those regarding Corporate Finances prioritized the semantic approach, showing concern with the meaning of the information produced by the accounting. The research on issues involving the Social Balance used more pragmatic approach, focusing on the utility and reflexes of such information on the business environment. Thus, this study contributes to the extent that reveals trends in thematic investigations of accounting, particularly in focused areas in the analysis, the types of language used in the development of studies approach, proposing a methodology to classify the studies in order to identify the approach.

British Formalist Aesthetics and Its Literary Writing Practice

In Type Theory, definition by dependently-typed case analysis can be expressed by means of a set of equations — the semantic approach — or by an explicit pattern-matching construction — the syntactic approach. We aim at putting together the best of both approaches by extending the pattern-matching construction found in the Coq proof assistant in order to obtain the expressivity and flexibility of equation-based case analysis while remaining in a syntax-based setting, thus making dependently-typed programming more tractable in the Coq system. We provide a new rule that permits the omission of impossible cases, handles the propagation of inversion constraints, and allows to derive Streicher’s K axiom. We show that subject reduction holds, and sketch a proof of relative consistency.

We propose a syntactic approach to performing fixed point computation on finite domains. Finding fixed points in finite domains for monotonic fuctions is an essential task when calculating abstract semantics of functional programs. Previous methods for fixed point finding have been mainly based on semantic approaches which may be very inefficient even for simple programs. We outline the development of a syntactic approach, and show that the syntactic approach is sound and complete with respect to semantics. A few examples are provided to illustrate this syntactic approach.

We propose a syntactic approach to performing fixed point computation on finite domains. Finding fixed points in finite domains for monotonic fuctions is an essential task when calculating abstract semantics of functional programs. Previous methods for fixed point finding have been mainly based on semantic approaches which may be very inefficient even for simple programs.We outline the development of a syntactic approach, and show that the syntactic approach is sound and complete with respect to semantics. A few examples are provided to illustrate this syntactic approach.

Formal Interactive Epistemology deals with the logic of knowledge and belief when there is more than one agent or “player.” One is interested not only in each person's knowledge about substantive matters, but also in his knowledge about the others' knowledge. This paper examines two parallel approaches to the subject. The first is the semantic approach, in which knowledge is represented by a space Ω of states of the world, together with partitions ℐi of Ω for each player i; the atom of ℐi containing a given state ω of the world represents i's knowledge at that state – the set of those other states that i cannot distinguish from ω. The second is the syntactic approach, in which knowledge is embodied in sentences constructed according to certain syntactic rules. This paper examines the relation between the two approaches, and shows that they are in a sense equivalent. In game theory and economics, the semantic approach has heretofore been most prevalent. A question that often arises in this connection is whether, in what sense, and why the space Ω and the partitions ℐi can be taken as given and commonly known by the players. An answer to this question is provided by the syntactic approach.

ESC 25, 1999 Calin-Andrei Mihalescu and Walid Harmeneh, eds., Fiction Up­ dated: Theories of Fictionality, Narratology, and Poetics (Toron­ to: University of Toronto Press, 1996.) xiii, 327. $60.00 cloth, $24.95 paper. As its title suggests, this collection endeavours to make more current our understanding of relations between truth and fiction in contexts predominantly but not exclusively imaginative. The authors of the twenty-four essays featured here take their cue from the multi-faceted Prague-School work of Lubomir Dolezel, who taught for many years at the University of Toronto. Priv­ ileging neither mimetic theory nor deconstruction but building rather on “possible-worlds semantics,” this collection seeks to find a different and more spacious ground or more penetrating avenue by means of which to rework our understanding of those analogies and hypotheses, the as ifs and what ifs, on which so much fiction productively turns. The volume, after a substan­ tial introduction by the editors, unfolds in six parts dealing successively with Fictions and Philosophies; Models; Names, Genre, Gender; Fictions and Histories; Poetics; and Dolezel and His Worlds. The four essays in the first section engage in unevenly com­ plementary ways with the ontological status of “fictional worlds.” Ruth Ronan relies on terms like “original,” “accurate,” and “lit­ eral” to expose the “conceptual affinity between literary theory and possible-worlds frameworks” that derive from a more gen­ eral relativizing of truth (29). Nicholas Rescher poses a number o f troubling questions that reveal our reliance on and limited understanding of anything other than the “natural history” of fictions (38). John W oods turns the logical screws to little literary purpose, while Peter McCormick returns to the need for a metaphysical component in any theory of fiction while at the same time modestly reminding fellow philosophers that the best art and criticism need not look to philosophy for the ef­ fective rendering (and unravelling) of complexity. The section on Models begins forbiddingly for the average literary reader, but Pierre Ouellet’s appeal to the reader’s “experience” of a text is a relief (78), as is his accessible valuing of the “close but tenuous” link between the experienced world and fictionality 108 R E V IE W S (89-90). Siegfried Schmidt establishes some interesting paral­ lels between fiction and mass media while locating young people in something of a post-dichotomous ‘nineties zone’. The high­ light of the section on Names, Genre, Gender is Eva Kushner’s essay on the renaissance dialogue — Platonic, Ciceronian, and Lucianic versions — where she makes good use of Dolezel’s nar­ rative typology to present imagined conversations as a shrewdly wordly version of possible worlds. The most impressive essays in the volume are in the fourth and fifth sections. Linda Hutcheon’s meditation on Coetzee’s Foe offers a challenge to possible-worlds semantics that she her­ self terms “friendly” (214) but that seems to me irrefutable. W ith her usual patience and generosity, Hutcheon discloses the homogenizing cultural imperatives behind Dolezel’s taxonomy of narrative modes; at the same time,with her eye for the sub­ tleties of reflexive resistance and dissent, she ably defends Coetzee against most implications of Nadine Gordimer’s accusation of “stately fastidiousness” (225). The essays by Umberto Eco (on Aristotle’s Poetics) and Michael Riffaterre (on Bakhtin’s treatment of the chronotope) are lesser things, and of interest primarily because of the reputation of their authors. Nancy Felson-Rubin reminds us that fictions are purveyed orally as well as textually, but she restricts herself to the example of Homer. No hint here o f the rich Indigenous oral traditions to which Canadian comparativists and narratologists need to pay more, and more respectful, attention. The essays on Chinese narrative by Douwe Fokkema and Polish formalism and struc­ turalism by Edward Mozejko offer welcome reminders of the diversity of the one world whose existence we are bound to ad­ mit, before we turn in conclusion to the preoccupations and achievement of Lubomir Dolezel. In this connection, HansGeorge Ruprecht gives an imaginary account of Borges and Dolezel in Prague in 1968, just before the Russian tanks rolled in to crush the reform movement headed by Alexander Dubcek. The final chapter...

This text primarily deals with Hans Vaihinger?s fiction theory. Emphasizing the central role of scientific fiction in that theory, it attempts to give a critical account of Vaihinger?s philosophical theory of ?As if?. On the one hand, this analysis of the philosophy of ?As if? includes conceptual delimitation between the notion of fiction and concepts of fantasy, hypothesis, and regulatory ideas. On the other hand, it points out to some problems related to Vaihinger?s constructivist-pragmatic approach to the problem of fiction, such as a tendency towards an unreasonable extension of the notion of fiction, and a tendency towards the integration of other forms of fictionality into scientific fiction.

The alternative to the ‘Syntactic Approach’ is the Semantic Approach, according to which theories should be characterized in terms of families of models. The issue of the linguistic independence of this framework is discussed and it is suggested that this approach offers a ‘toolbox’ of resources that can be deployed to capture various features of scientific practice. One such tool is the notion of a ‘partial structure’ by which such models can be formally presented, together with the associated device of partial isomorphisms, as deployed elsewhere. A recent critique of this approach is also discussed in some detail and it is argued that this critique assumes that theories are things with well-defined identity conditions, which is precisely the claim that is denied here. The chapter concludes by noting van Fraassen’s point that the critique also ignores the representational function of these models, which leads into Chapter 3.