Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.002274399 = product of:
  0.004548798 = sum of:
    0.004548798 = product of:
      0.009097596 = sum of:
        0.009097596 = weight(_text_:e in 3084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009097596 = score(doc=3084,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.13753214 = fieldWeight in 3084, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3084)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ontologies have moved beyond the domains of library science, philosophy, and knowledge representation. They are now the concerns of marketing departments, CEOs, and mainstream business. Research analyst companies such as Forrester Research report on the critical roles of ontologies in support of browsing and search for e-commerce and in support of interoperability for facilitation of knowledge management and configuration. One now sees ontologies used as central controlled vocabularies that are integrated into catalogues, databases, web publications, knowledge management applications, etc. Large ontologies are essential components in many online applications including search (such as Yahoo and Lycos), e-commerce (such as Amazon and eBay), configuration (such as Dell and PC-Order), etc. One also sees ontologies that have long life spans, sometimes in multiple projects (such as UMLS, SIC codes, etc.). Such diverse usage generates many implications for ontology environments. In this paper, we will discuss ontologies and requirements in their current instantiations on the web today. We will describe some desirable properties of ontologies. We will also discuss how both simple and complex ontologies are being and may be used to support varied applications. We will conclude with a discussion of emerging trends in ontologies and their environments and briefly mention our evolving ontology evolution environment.

Language

e

0.0018570389 = product of:
  0.0037140779 = sum of:
    0.0037140779 = product of:
      0.0074281557 = sum of:
        0.0074281557 = weight(_text_:e in 5073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0074281557 = score(doc=5073,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.112294525 = fieldWeight in 5073, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5073)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As ontologies become common in more applications and as those applications become larger and longer-lived, it is becoming increasingly common for ontologies to be developed in distributed environments by authors with disparate backgrounds. Ontologies that are expected to be collaboratively created and maintained over time by authors in many locations present special challenges to the problem of conceptual modeling. In this paper, we will discuss conceptual modeling issues and focus on those topics with elevated importance in distributed environments. We will draw on our experience creating and maintaining ontologies in differing knowledge representation and reasoning environments over the last decade. Many of our recent observations are drawn from our experiences in the DARPA High Performance Knowledge Base Program. This program generated dozens of knowledge bases authored by people of varying expertise in both knowledge representation and reasoning as well as domain experience. Our efforts in merging the ontologies, loading them for coordinated use, and modifying them to meet evolving needs shape much of the material in this paper. Additional sources of observations are from designing and building a number of e-commerce ontologies (with content merged from multiple sources) and also from a few families of description logic applications including the PROSE/QUESTAR family of configurators and the FindUR knowledge-enhanced search applications

Language

e

0.0018383748 = product of:
  0.0036767495 = sum of:
    0.0036767495 = product of:
      0.007353499 = sum of:
        0.007353499 = weight(_text_:e in 4684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007353499 = score(doc=4684,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.1111659 = fieldWeight in 4684, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4684)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Language

e

0.0015757497 = product of:
  0.0031514994 = sum of:
    0.0031514994 = product of:
      0.006302999 = sum of:
        0.006302999 = weight(_text_:e in 4703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006302999 = score(doc=4703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 4703, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4703)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Language

e