Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.018070325 = product of:
  0.08432818 = sum of:
    0.06333152 = weight(_text_:web in 438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06333152 = score(doc=438,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.10140731 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031073077 = queryNorm
        0.6245262 = fieldWeight in 438, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=438)
    0.0052899313 = weight(_text_:information in 438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052899313 = score(doc=438,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0545481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031073077 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 438, 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=438)
    0.015706725 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015706725 = score(doc=438,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09399342 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031073077 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 438, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=438)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss the architecture and implementation of the Semantic Web Search Engine (SWSE). Following traditional search engine architecture, SWSE consists of crawling, data enhancing, indexing and a user interface for search, browsing and retrieval of information; unlike traditional search engines, SWSE operates over RDF Web data - loosely also known as Linked Data - which implies unique challenges for the system design, architecture, algorithms, implementation and user interface. In particular, many challenges exist in adopting Semantic Web technologies for Web data: the unique challenges of the Web - in terms of scale, unreliability, inconsistency and noise - are largely overlooked by the current Semantic Web standards. Herein, we describe the current SWSE system, initially detailing the architecture and later elaborating upon the function, design, implementation and performance of each individual component. In so doing, we also give an insight into how current Semantic Web standards can be tailored, in a best-effort manner, for use on Web data. Throughout, we offer evaluation and complementary argumentation to support our design choices, and also offer discussion on future directions and open research questions. Later, we also provide candid discussion relating to the difficulties currently faced in bringing such a search engine into the mainstream, and lessons learnt from roughly six years working on the Semantic Web Search Engine project.

Object

Semantic Web Search Engine

Theme

Semantic Web

0.007466177 = product of:
  0.052263238 = sum of:
    0.044782147 = weight(_text_:web in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044782147 = score(doc=410,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.10140731 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031073077 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 410, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=410)
    0.0074810926 = weight(_text_:information in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074810926 = score(doc=410,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0545481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031073077 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 410, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=410)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Web search engines such as Google, Yahoo! MSN/Bing, and Ask are far from the consummate Web search solution: they do not typically produce direct answers to queries but instead typically recommend a selection of related documents from the Web. We note that in more recent years, search engines have begun to provide direct answers to prose queries matching certain common templates-for example, "population of china" or "12 euro in dollars"-but again, such functionality is limited to a small subset of popular user queries. Furthermore, search engines now provide individual and focused search interfaces over images, videos, locations, news articles, books, research papers, blogs, and real-time social media-although these tools are inarguably powerful, they are limited to their respective domains. In the general case, search engines are not suitable for complex information gathering tasks requiring aggregation from multiple indexed documents: for such tasks, users must manually aggregate tidbits of pertinent information from various pages. In effect, such limitations are predicated on the lack of machine-interpretable structure in HTML-documents, which is often limited to generic markup tags mainly concerned with document renderign and linking. Most of the real content is contained in prose text which is inherently difficult for machines to interpret.

Object

Semantic Web Search Engine

Source

Semantic search over the Web. Eds.: R. De Virgilio, et al

Theme

Semantic Web

0.004837026 = product of:
  0.06771836 = sum of:
    0.06771836 = weight(_text_:web in 5813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06771836 = score(doc=5813,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.10140731 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031073077 = queryNorm
        0.6677857 = fieldWeight in 5813, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5813)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

In diesem Kapitel werden Anwendungsgebiete und Ansätze für die semantische Beschreibung von Web Services behandelt. Bestehende Web Service Technologien leisten einen entscheidenden Beitrag zur Entwicklung verteilter Anwendungen dadurch, dass weithin akzeptierte Standards vorliegen, die die Kommunikation zwischen Anwendungen bestimmen und womit deren Kombination zu komplexeren Einheiten ermöglicht wird. Automatisierte Mechanismen zum Auffinden geeigneter Web Services und deren Komposition dagegen werden von bestehenden Technologien in vergleichsweise geringem Maß unterstützt. Ähnlich wie bei der Annotation statischer Daten im "Semantic Web" setzen Forschung und Industrie große Hoffnungen in die semantische Beschreibung von Web Services zur weitgehenden Automatisierung dieser Aufgaben.

Source

Semantic Web: Wege zur vernetzten Wissensgesellschaft. Hrsg.: T. Pellegrini, u. A. Blumauer

0.0038384704 = product of:
  0.053738583 = sum of:
    0.053738583 = weight(_text_:web in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053738583 = score(doc=4798,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.10140731 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031073077 = queryNorm
        0.5299281 = fieldWeight in 4798, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4798)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Seven years on from OWL becoming a W3C recommendation, and two years on from the more recent OWL 2 W3C recommendation, OWL has still experienced only patchy uptake on the Web. Although certain OWL features (like owl:sameAs) are very popular, other features of OWL are largely neglected by publishers in the Linked Data world. This may suggest that despite the promise of easy implementations and the proposal of tractable profiles suggested in OWL's second version, there is still no "right" standard fragment for the Linked Data community. In this paper, we (1) analyse uptake of OWL on the Web of Data, (2) gain insights into the OWL fragment that is actually used/usable on the Web, where we arrive at the conclusion that this fragment is likely to be a simplified profile based on OWL RL, (3) propose and discuss such a new fragment, which we call OWL LD (for Linked Data).

Content

Beitrag des Workshops: Linked Data on the Web (LDOW2012), April 16, 2012 Lyon, France; vgl.: http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2012/.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0036935697 = product of:
  0.051709972 = sum of:
    0.051709972 = weight(_text_:web in 4864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051709972 = score(doc=4864,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.10140731 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031073077 = queryNorm
        0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 4864, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4864)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Im vorliegenden Beitrag diskutieren wir Rahmenbedingungen zur Kombination, Wiederverwendung und Erweiterung bestehender RDF-Vokabulare im Social Semantic Web. Hierbei konzentrieren wir uns auf das Anwendungsszenario des Auffindens und Bewerbens von Experten im Web oder Intranet. Wir präsentieren, wie RDF-Vokabulare einerseits und de facto Standardformate andererseits, die von täglich verwendeten Applikationen benutzt werden (z. B. vCard, iCal oder Dublin Core), kombiniert werden können, um konkrete Anwendungsfälle der Expertensuche und zum Management von Expertise zu lösen. Unser Fokus liegt darauf aufzuzeigen, dass für praktische Anwendungsszenarien nicht notwendigerweise neue Ontologien entwickelt werden müssen, sondern der Schlüssel vielmehr in der Integration von bestehenden, weit verbreiteten und sich ergänzenden Formaten zu einem kohärenten Netzwerk von Ontologien liegt. Dieser Ansatz garantiert sowohl direkte Anwendbarkeit von als auch niedrige Einstiegsbarrieren in Semantic Web-Technologien sowie einfache Integrierbarkeit in bestehende Applikationen. Die im Web verfügbaren und verwendeten RDF-Formate decken zwar einen großen Bereich der Aspekte zur Beschreibung von Personen und Expertisen ab, zeigen aber auch signifikante Überlappungen. Bisher gibt es wenig systematische Ansätze, um diese Vokabulare zu verbinden, sei es in Form von allgemeingültigen Praktiken, die definieren, wann welches Format zu benutzen ist, oder in Form von Regeln, die Überlappungen zwischen einzelnen Formaten formalisieren. Der vorliegende Artikel analysiert, wie bestehende Formate zur Beschreibung von Personen, Organisationen und deren Expertise kombiniert und, wo nötig, erweitert werden können. Darüber hinaus diskutieren wir Regelsprachen zur Beschreibung von Formatüberlappungen sowie deren praktische Verwendbarkeit zur Erstellung eines Ontologie-Netzwerks zur Beschreibung von Experten.

Object

Web 2.0

Source

Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini