Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Milton, S."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Kless, D.; Lindenthal, J.; Milton, S.; Kazmierczak, E.: Interoperability of knowledge organization systems with and through ontologies (2011) 0.04 
    0.04299237 = product of:
  0.08598474 = sum of:
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 4814) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=4814,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 4814, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4814)
    0.030660335 = product of:
      0.06132067 = sum of:
        0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 4814) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06132067 = score(doc=4814,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 4814, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4814)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Ontologies are increasingly seen as a new type of knowledge organization system (KOS) besides traditional ones such as classification schemes or thesauri. Consequently, there are efforts to compare them with and map them to other KOS. This paper argues that only ontologies for reality representation are useful subjects of such comparisons and mappings. These ontologies are difficult to distinguish from other "data modelling" - types of ontology, since both can be represented through the popular Web Ontology Language (OWL). Data modelling ontologies such as Simple Knowledge Organization Systems (SKOS) are useful instruments for establishing interoperability between KOS in the sense of publishing and accessing data and data models in a uniform way as well as for relating them to each other. Discriminating these two understandings of ontologies particularly supports comparisons and mappings between traditional KOS and ontologies. In practice, such efforts are still impeded by the absence of standards or guidelines for vocabulary control in ontologies. Moreover, this paper emphasizes that methods for constructing and evaluating reality representation ontologies can be useful to re-engineer traditional KOS. This makes them become more interoperable in the sense of combinable, but also more useful in the sense of improving search expansion results and reusable for different purposes.
  2. Kless, D.; Milton, S.: Comparison of thesauri and ontologies from a semiotic perspective (2010) 0.00 
    0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=756,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 756, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=756)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Footnote
    Preprint. To be published as Vol 122 in the Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology Series by the Australian Computer Society Inc. http://crpit.com/.
  3. Kless, D.; Milton, S.; Kazmierczak, E.; Lindenthal, J.: Thesaurus and ontology structure : formal and pragmatic differences and similarities (2015) 0.00 
    0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=2036,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2036, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2036)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.7, S.1348-1366

Authors

Themes