Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Schreiber, G."
  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Hollink, L.; Assem, M. van; Wang, S.; Isaac, A.; Schreiber, G.: Two variations on ontology alignment evaluation : methodological issues (2008) 0.03 
    0.028408606 = product of:
  0.11363442 = sum of:
    0.071807064 = weight(_text_:case in 4645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071807064 = score(doc=4645,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 4645, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4645)
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 4645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=4645,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 4645, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4645)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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.
  2. Wielinga, B.; Wielemaker, J.; Schreiber, G.; Assem, M. van: Methods for porting resources to the Semantic Web (2004) 0.02 
    0.023150655 = product of:
  0.09260262 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Ontologies will play a central role in the development of the Semantic Web. It is unrealistic to assume that such ontologies will be developed from scratch. Rather, we assume that existing resources such as thesauri and lexical data bases will be reused in the development of ontologies for the Semantic Web. In this paper we describe a method for converting existing source material to a representation that is compatible with Semantic Web languages such as RDF(S) and OWL. The method is illustrated with three case studies: converting Wordnet, AAT and MeSH to RDF(S) and OWL.
  3. Assem, M. van; Malaisé, V.; Miles, A.; Schreiber, G.: ¬A method to convert thesauri to SKOS (2006) 0.02 
    0.023150655 = product of:
  0.09260262 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 4642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=4642,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 4642, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4642)
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 4642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=4642,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 4642, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4642)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Thesauri can be useful resources for indexing and retrieval on the Semantic Web, but often they are not published in RDF/OWL. To convert thesauri to RDF for use in Semantic Web applications and to ensure the quality and utility of the conversion a structured method is required. Moreover, if different thesauri are to be interoperable without complicated mappings, a standard schema for thesauri is required. This paper presents a method for conversion of thesauri to the SKOS RDF/OWL schema, which is a proposal for such a standard under development by W3Cs Semantic Web Best Practices Working Group. We apply the method to three thesauri: IPSV, GTAA and MeSH. With these case studies we evaluate our method and the applicability of SKOS for representing thesauri.

Authors

Types

Themes