Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0026467475 = product of:
  0.007940242 = sum of:
    0.007940242 = product of:
      0.015880484 = sum of:
        0.015880484 = weight(_text_:of in 4645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015880484 = score(doc=4645,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 4645, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4645)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Evaluation of ontology alignments is in practice done in two ways: (1) assessing individual correspondences and (2) comparing the alignment to a reference alignment. However, this type of evaluation does not guarantee that an application which uses the alignment will perform well. In this paper, we contribute to the current ontology alignment evaluation practices by proposing two alternative evaluation methods that take into account some characteristics of a usage scenario without doing a full-fledged end-to-end evaluation. We compare different evaluation approaches in three case studies, focussing on methodological issues. Each case study considers an alignment between a different pair of ontologies, ranging from rich and well-structured to small and poorly structured. This enables us to conclude on the use of different evaluation approaches in different settings.

0.001972769 = product of:
  0.0059183068 = sum of:
    0.0059183068 = product of:
      0.0118366135 = sum of:
        0.0118366135 = weight(_text_:of in 265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0118366135 = score(doc=265,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 265, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Within the cultural heritage field, proprietary metadata and vocabularies are being transformed into public Linked Data. These efforts have mostly been at the level of large-scale aggregators such as Europeana where the original data is abstracted to a common format and schema. Although this approach ensures a level of consistency and interoperability, the richness of the original data is lost in the process. In this paper, we present a transparent and interactive methodology for ingesting, converting and linking cultural heritage metadata into Linked Data. The methodology is designed to maintain the richness and detail of the original metadata. We introduce the XMLRDF conversion tool and describe how it is integrated in the ClioPatria semantic web toolkit. The methodology and the tools have been validated by converting the Amsterdam Museum metadata to a Linked Data version. In this way, the Amsterdam Museum became the first 'small' cultural heritage institution with a node in the Linked Data cloud.