Search (49 results, page 1 of 3)

0.21206538 = product of:
  0.53016347 = sum of:
    0.05301635 = product of:
      0.15904905 = sum of:
        0.15904905 = weight(_text_:3a in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15904905 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24256827 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.15904905 = weight(_text_:2f in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15904905 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24256827 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
    0.15904905 = weight(_text_:2f in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15904905 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24256827 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
    0.15904905 = weight(_text_:2f in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15904905 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24256827 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
  0.4 = coord(4/10)

Content

Vgl.: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5386707&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5386707.

0.009973028 = product of:
  0.049865138 = sum of:
    0.04082007 = weight(_text_:web in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04082007 = score(doc=759,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
    0.009045068 = product of:
      0.027135205 = sum of:
        0.027135205 = weight(_text_:22 in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027135205 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

XML will have a profound impact on the way data is exchanged on the Internet. An important feature of this language is the separation of content from presentation, which makes it easier to select and/or reformat the data. However, due to the likelihood of numerous industry and domain specific DTDs, those who wish to integrate information will still be faced with the problem of semantic interoperability. In this paper we discuss why this problem is not solved by XML, and then discuss why the Resource Description Framework is only a partial solution. We then present the SHOE language, which we feel has many of the features necessary to enable a semantic web, and describe an existing set of tools that make it easy to use the language.

Date

11. 5.2013 19:22:18

Theme

Semantic Web

0.008037447 = product of:
  0.040187236 = sum of:
    0.033667825 = weight(_text_:web in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033667825 = score(doc=1171,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
    0.00651941 = product of:
      0.019558229 = sum of:
        0.019558229 = weight(_text_:29 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019558229 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Amid the debates about whether folksonomies will supplant controlled vocabularies and whether the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system have outlived their usefulness, libraries, museums and other organizations continue to require efficient, effective access to controlled vocabularies for creating consistent metadata for their collections . In this article, we present an approach for using Web services to interact with controlled vocabularies. Services are implemented within a service-oriented architecture (SOA) framework. SOA is an approach to distributed computing where services are loosely coupled and discoverable on the network. A set of experimental services for controlled vocabularies is provided through the Microsoft Office (MS) Research task pane (a small window or sidebar that opens up next to Internet Explorer (IE) and other Microsoft Office applications). The research task pane is a built-in feature of IE when MS Office 2003 is loaded. The research pane enables a user to take advantage of a number of research and reference services accessible over the Internet. Web browsers, such as Mozilla Firefox and Opera, also provide sidebars which could be used to deliver similar, loosely-coupled Web services.

Date

28.12.2008 17:54:29

0.007123591 = product of:
  0.035617955 = sum of:
    0.029157192 = weight(_text_:web in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029157192 = score(doc=2649,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2649, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2649)
    0.006460763 = product of:
      0.019382289 = sum of:
        0.019382289 = weight(_text_:22 in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019382289 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2649, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2649)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

OCLC's Crosswalk Web Service (Godby, Smith and Childress, 2008) formalizes the notion of crosswalk, as defined in Gill,et al. (n.d.), by hiding technical details and permitting the semantic equivalences to emerge as the centerpiece. One outcome is that metadata experts, who are typically not programmers, can enter the translation logic into a spreadsheet that can be automatically converted into executable code. In this paper, we describe the implementation of the Dublin Core Terms application profile in the management of crosswalks involving MARC. A crosswalk that encodes an application profile extends the typical format with two columns: one that annotates the namespace to which an element belongs, and one that annotates a 'broader-narrower' relation between a pair of elements, such as Dublin Core coverage and Dublin Core Terms spatial. This information is sufficient to produce scripts written in OCLC's Semantic Equivalence Expression Language (or Seel), which are called from the Crosswalk Web Service to generate production-grade translations. With its focus on elements that can be mixed, matched, added, and redefined, the application profile (Heery and Patel, 2000) is a natural fit with the translation model of the Crosswalk Web Service, which attempts to achieve interoperability by mapping one pair of elements at a time.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.0060695536 = product of:
  0.060695533 = sum of:
    0.060695533 = weight(_text_:web in 1908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060695533 = score(doc=1908,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.65002745 = fieldWeight in 1908, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1908)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Purpose - To demonstrate that newer developments in the semantic web community, particularly those based on ontologies (simple knowledge organization system and others) mitigate common arguments from the digital library (DL) community against participation in the Semantic web. Design/methodology/approach - The approach is a semantic web discussion focusing on the weak structure of the Web and the lack of consideration given to the semantic content during indexing. Findings - The points criticised by the semantic web and ontology approaches are the same as those of the DL "Shell model approach" from the mid-1990s, with emphasis on the centrality of its heterogeneity components (used, for example, in vascoda). The Shell model argument began with the "invisible web", necessitating the restructuring of DL approaches. The conclusion is that both approaches fit well together and that the Shell model, with its semantic heterogeneity components, can be reformulated on the semantic web basis. Practical implications - A reinterpretation of the DL approaches of semantic heterogeneity and adapting to standards and tools supported by the W3C should be the best solution. It is therefore recommended that - although most of the semantic web standards are not technologically refined for commercial applications at present - all individual DL developments should be checked for their adaptability to the W3C standards of the semantic web. Originality/value - A unique conceptual analysis of the parallel developments emanating from the digital library and semantic web communities.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Digital libraries and the semantic web: context, applications and research".

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0050501735 = product of:
  0.050501734 = sum of:
    0.050501734 = weight(_text_:web in 6061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050501734 = score(doc=6061,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.5408555 = fieldWeight in 6061, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6061)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The middle of the 1990s are coined by the increased enthusiasm for the possibilities of the WWW, which has only recently deviated - at least in relation to scientific information - for the differentiated measuring of its advantages and disadvantages. Web Information Retrieval originated as a specialized discipline with great commercial significance (for an overview see Lewandowski 2005). Besides the new technological structure that enables the indexing and searching (in seconds) of unimaginable amounts of data worldwide, new assessment processes for the ranking of search results are being developed, which use the link structures of the Web. They are the main innovation with respect to the traditional "mother discipline" of Information Retrieval. From the beginning, link structures of Web pages are applied to commercial search engines in a wide array of variations. From the perspective of scientific information, link topology based approaches were in essence trying to solve a self-created problem: on the one hand, it quickly became clear that the openness of the Web led to an up-tonow unknown increase in available information, but this also caused the quality of the Web pages searched to become a problem - and with it the relevance of the results. The gatekeeper function of traditional information providers, which narrows down every user query to focus on high-quality sources was lacking. Therefore, the recognition of the "authoritativeness" of the Web pages by general search engines such as Google was one of the most important factors for their success.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.004658935 = product of:
  0.023294676 = sum of:
    0.016833913 = weight(_text_:web in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016833913 = score(doc=2627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
    0.006460763 = product of:
      0.019382289 = sum of:
        0.019382289 = weight(_text_:22 in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019382289 = score(doc=2627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Knowledge organization systems (KOS), like thesauri and other controlled vocabularies, are used to provide subject access to information systems across the web. Due to the heterogeneity of these systems, mapping between vocabularies becomes crucial for retrieving relevant information. However, mapping thesauri is a laborious task, and thus big efforts are being made to automate the mapping process. This paper examines two mapping approaches involving the agricultural thesaurus AGROVOC, one machine-created and one human created. We are addressing the basic question "What are the pros and cons of human and automatic mapping and how can they complement each other?" By pointing out the difficulties in specific cases or groups of cases and grouping the sample into simple and difficult types of mappings, we show the limitations of current automatic methods and come up with some basic recommendations on what approach to use when.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.004658935 = product of:
  0.023294676 = sum of:
    0.016833913 = weight(_text_:web in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016833913 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3628, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3628)
    0.006460763 = product of:
      0.019382289 = sum of:
        0.019382289 = weight(_text_:22 in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019382289 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3628)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Purpose: To develop a prototype middleware framework between different terminology resources in order to provide a subject cross-browsing service for library portal systems. Design/methodology/approach: Nine terminology experts were interviewed to collect appropriate knowledge to support the development of a theoretical framework for the research. Based on this, a simplified software-based prototype system was constructed incorporating the knowledge acquired. The prototype involved mappings between the computer science schedule of the Dewey Decimal Classification (which acted as a spine) and two controlled vocabularies UKAT and ACM Computing Classification. Subsequently, six further experts in the field were invited to evaluate the prototype system and provide feedback to improve the framework. Findings: The major findings showed that given the large variety of terminology resources distributed on the web, the proposed middleware service is essential to integrate technically and semantically the different terminology resources in order to facilitate subject cross-browsing. A set of recommendations are also made outlining the important approaches and features that support such a cross browsing middleware service.

Content

This paper is a pre-print version presented at the ISKO UK 2009 conference, 22-23 June, prior to peer review and editing. For published proceedings see special issue of Aslib Proceedings journal.

0.0041234493 = product of:
  0.041234493 = sum of:
    0.041234493 = weight(_text_:web in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041234493 = score(doc=2661,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 2661, 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=2661)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Research on semantic web services promises greater interoperability among software agents and web services by enabling content-based automated service discovery and interaction and by utilizing. Although this is to be based on use of shared ontologies published on the semantic web, services produced and described by different developers may well use different, perhaps partly overlapping, sets of ontologies. Interoperability will depend on ontology mappings and architectures supporting the associated translation processes. The question we ask is, does the traditional approach of introducing mediator agents to translate messages between requestors and services work in such an open environment? This article reviews some of the processing assumptions that were made in the development of the semantic web service modeling ontology OWL-S and argues that, as a practical matter, the translation function cannot always be isolated in mediators. Ontology mappings need to be published on the semantic web just as ontologies themselves are. The translation for service discovery, service process model interpretation, task negotiation, service invocation, and response interpretation may then be distributed to various places in the architecture so that translation can be done in the specific goal-oriented informational contexts of the agents performing these processes. We present arguments for assigning translation responsibility to particular agents in the cases of service invocation, response translation, and match- making.

0.0038090795 = product of:
  0.038090795 = sum of:
    0.038090795 = weight(_text_:web in 3883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038090795 = score(doc=3883,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 3883, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3883)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

At VVWW-7 (Brisbane, 1997), Tim Berners-Lee outlined his vision of a global reasoning web. At VVWW- 8 (Toronto, May 1998), he developed this into a vision of a semantic web, where one Gould search not just for isolated words, but for meaning in the form of logically provable claims. In the past four years this vision has spread with amazing speed. The semantic web has been adopted by the European Commission as one of the important goals of the Sixth Framework Programme. In the United States it has become linked with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). While this quest to achieve a semantic web is new, the quest for meaning in language has a history that is almost as old as language itself. Accordingly this paper opens with a survey of the historical background. The contributions of the Dublin Core are reviewed briefly. To achieve a semantic web requires both syntactic and semantic interoperability. These challenges are outlined. A basic contention of this paper is that semantic interoperability requires much more than a simple agreement concerning the static meaning of a term. Different levels of agreement (local, regional, national and international) are involved and these levels have their own history. Hence, one of the larger challenges is to create new systems of knowledge organization, which identify and connect these different levels. With respect to meaning or semantics, early twentieth century pioneers such as Wüster were hopeful that it might be sufficient to limit oneself to isolated terms and words without reference to the larger grammatical context: to concept systems rather than to propositional logic. While a fascination with concept systems implicitly dominates many contemporary discussions, this paper suggests why this approach is not sufficient. The final section of this paper explores how an approach using propositional logic could lead to a new approach to universals and particulars. This points to a re-organization of knowledge, and opens the way for a vision of a semantic web with all the historical and cultural richness and complexity of language itself.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0035630676 = product of:
  0.035630677 = sum of:
    0.035630677 = weight(_text_:web in 3398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035630677 = score(doc=3398,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.38159183 = fieldWeight in 3398, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3398)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Purpose - To show how semantic web techniques can help address semantic interoperability issues in the broad cultural heritage domain, allowing users an integrated and seamless access to heterogeneous collections. Design/methodology/approach - This paper presents the heterogeneity problems to be solved. It introduces semantic web techniques that can help in solving them, focusing on the representation of controlled vocabularies and their semantic alignment. It gives pointers to some previous projects and experiments that have tried to address the problems discussed. Findings - Semantic web research provides practical technical and methodological approaches to tackle the different issues. Two contributions of interest are the simple knowledge organisation system model and automatic vocabulary alignment methods and tools. These contributions were demonstrated to be usable for enabling semantic search and navigation across collections. Research limitations/implications - The research aims at designing different representation and alignment methods for solving interoperability problems in the context of controlled subject vocabularies. Given the variety and technical richness of current research in the semantic web field, it is impossible to provide an in-depth account or an exhaustive list of references. Every aspect of the paper is, however, given one or several pointers for further reading. Originality/value - This article provides a general and practical introduction to relevant semantic web techniques. It is of specific value for the practitioners in the cultural heritage and digital library domains who are interested in applying these methods in practice.

Content

This paper is based on a talk given at "Information Access for the Global Community, An International Seminar on the Universal Decimal Classification" held on 4-5 June 2007 in The Hague, The Netherlands. An abstract of this talk will be published in Extensions and Corrections to the UDC, an annual publication of the UDC consortium. Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Digital libraries and the semantic web: context, applications and research".

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0034988632 = product of:
  0.03498863 = sum of:
    0.03498863 = weight(_text_:web in 241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03498863 = score(doc=241,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 241, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=241)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The semantic heterogeneity presented by Web information in the Agricultural domain presents tremendous information retrieval challenges. This article presents work taking place at the Food and Agriculture Organizations (FAO) which addresses this challenge. Based on the analysis of resources in the domain of agriculture, this paper proposes (a) an application profile (AP) for dealing with the problem of heterogeneity originating from differences in terminologies, domain coverage, and domain modelling, and (b) a root application ontology (AAO) based on the application profile which can serve as a basis for extending knowledge of the domain. The paper explains how even a small investment in the enhancement of relations between vocabularies, both metadata and domain-specific, yields a relatively large return on investment.

Footnote

Simultaneously published as Knitting the Semantic Web

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0033667826 = product of:
  0.033667825 = sum of:
    0.033667825 = weight(_text_:web in 3152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033667825 = score(doc=3152,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 3152, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3152)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Content

Table of Contents Part I: Accepted Papers Christoph Tempich and Raphael Volz: Towards a benchmark for Semantic Web reasoners - an analysis of the DAML ontology library M. Carmen Suarez-Figueroa and Asuncion Gomez-Perez: Results of Taxonomic Evaluation of RDF(S) and DAML+OIL ontologies using RDF(S) and DAML+OIL Validation Tools and Ontology Platforms import services Volker Haarslev and Ralf Möller: Racer: A Core Inference Engine for the Semantic Web Mikhail Kazakov and Habib Abdulrab: DL-workbench: a metamodeling approach to ontology manipulation Thorsten Liebig and Olaf Noppens: OntoTrack: Fast Browsing and Easy Editing of Large Ontologie Frederic Fürst, Michel Leclere, and Francky Trichet: TooCoM : a Tool to Operationalize an Ontology with the Conceptual Graph Model Naoki Sugiura, Masaki Kurematsu, Naoki Fukuta, Noriaki Izumi, and Takahira Yamaguchi: A domain ontology engineering tool with general ontologies and text corpus Howard Goldberg, Alfredo Morales, David MacMillan, and Matthew Quinlan: An Ontology-Driven Application to Improve the Prescription of Educational Resources to Parents of Premature Infants Part II: Experiment Contributions Domain natural language description for the experiment Raphael Troncy, Antoine Isaac, and Veronique Malaise: Using XSLT for Interoperability: DOE and The Travelling Domain Experiment Christian Fillies: SemTalk EON2003 Semantic Web Export / Import Interface Test Óscar Corcho, Asunción Gómez-Pérez, Danilo José Guerrero-Rodríguez, David Pérez-Rey, Alberto Ruiz-Cristina, Teresa Sastre-Toral, M. Carmen Suárez-Figueroa: Evaluation experiment of ontology tools' interoperability with the WebODE ontology engineering workbench Holger Knublauch: Case Study: Using Protege to Convert the Travel Ontology to UML and OWL Franz Calvo and John Gennari: Interoperability of Protege 2.0 beta and OilEd 3.5 in the Domain Knowledge of Osteoporosis

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0033667826 = product of:
  0.033667825 = sum of:
    0.033667825 = weight(_text_:web in 3367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033667825 = score(doc=3367,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 3367, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3367)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Ontology mapping is one of the core tasks for ontology interoperability. It is aimed to find semantic relationships between entities (i.e. concept, attribute, and relation) of two ontologies. It benefits many applications, such as integration of ontology based web data sources, interoperability of agents or web services. To reduce the amount of users' effort as much as possible, (semi-) automatic ontology mapping is becoming more and more important to bring it into fruition. In the existing literature, many approaches have found considerable interest by combining several different similar/mapping strategies (namely multi-strategy based mapping). However, experiments show that the multi-strategy based mapping does not always outperform its single-strategy counterpart. In this paper, we mainly aim to deal with two problems: (1) for a new, unseen mapping task, should we select a multi-strategy based algorithm or just one single-strategy based algorithm? (2) if the task is suitable for multi-strategy, then how to select the strategies into the final combined scenario? We propose an approach of multiple strategies detections for ontology mapping. The results obtained so far show that multi-strategy detection improves on precision and recall significantly.

Content

Beitrag anlässlich: Workshop on The Semantic Computing Initiative (SeC 2005) --- From Semantic Web to Semantic World --- to be held in conjunction with The 14th Int'l Conf. on World Wide Web (WWW2005); vgl.: http://www.instsec.org/2005ws/.

0.00329876 = product of:
  0.0329876 = sum of:
    0.0329876 = weight(_text_:web in 1955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0329876 = score(doc=1955,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.35328537 = fieldWeight in 1955, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1955)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Dublin Core recommends controlled terminology for the subject of a resource. Knowledge organization systems (KOS), such as classifications, gazetteers, taxonomies and thesauri, provide controlled vocabularies that organize and structure concepts for indexing, classifying, browsing and search. For example, a thesaurus employs a set of standard semantic relationships (ISO 2788, ISO 5964), and major thesauri have a large entry vocabulary of terms considered equivalent for retrieval purposes. Many KOS have been made available for Web-based access. However, they are often not fully integrated into indexing and search systems and the full potential for networked and programmatic access remains untapped. The lack of standardized access and interchange formats impedes wider use of KOS resources. We developed a Web demonstrator (www.comp.glam.ac.uk/~FACET/webdemo/) for the FACET project (www.comp.glam.ac.uk/~facet/facetproject.html) that explored thesaurus-based query expansion with the Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus. A Web demonstrator was implemented via Active Server Pages (ASP) with server-side scripting and compiled server-side components for database access, and cascading style sheets for presentation. The browser-based interactive interface permits dynamic control of query term expansion. However, being based on a custom thesaurus representation and API, the techniques cannot be applied directly to thesauri in other formats on the Web. General programmatic access requires commonly agreed protocols, for example, building on Web and Grid services. The development of common KOS representation formats and service protocols are closely linked. Linda Hill and colleagues argued in 2002 for a general KOS service protocol from which protocols for specific types of KOS can be derived. Thus, in the future, a combination of thesaurus and query protocols might permit a thesaurus to be used with a choice of search tools on various kinds of databases. Service-oriented architectures bring an opportunity for moving toward a clearer separation of interface components from the underlying data sources. In our view, basing distributed protocol services on the atomic elements of thesaurus data structures and relationships is not necessarily the best approach because client operations that require multiple client-server calls would carry too much overhead. This would limit the interfaces that could be offered by applications following such a protocol. Advanced interactive interfaces require protocols that group primitive thesaurus data elements (via their relationships) into composites to achieve reasonable response.

0.0028568096 = product of:
  0.028568096 = sum of:
    0.028568096 = weight(_text_:web in 2191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028568096 = score(doc=2191,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2191, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2191)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Theme

Semantic Web

0.002791589 = product of:
  0.027915888 = sum of:
    0.027915888 = weight(_text_:web in 3173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027915888 = score(doc=3173,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.29896918 = fieldWeight in 3173, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3173)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The integration of metadata from distinct, heterogeneous data sources requires metadata interoperability, which is a qualitative property of metadata information objects that is not given by default. The technique of metadata mapping allows domain experts to establish metadata interoperability in a certain integration scenario. Mapping solutions, as a technical manifestation of this technique, are already available for the intensively studied domain of database system interoperability, but they rarely exist for the Web. If we consider the amount of steadily increasing structured metadata and corresponding metadata schemes on theWeb, we can observe a clear need for a mapping solution that can operate in aWeb-based environment. To achieve that, we first need to build its technical core, which is a mapping model that provides the language primitives to define mapping relationships. Existing SemanticWeb languages such as RDFS and OWL define some basic mapping elements (e.g., owl:equivalentProperty, owl:sameAs), but do not address the full spectrum of semantic and structural heterogeneities that can occur among distinct, incompatible metadata information objects. Furthermore, it is still unclear how to process defined mapping relationships during run-time in order to deliver metadata to the client in a uniform way. As the main contribution of this thesis, we present an abstract mapping model, which reflects the mapping problem on a generic level and provides the means for reconciling incompatible metadata. Instance transformation functions and URIs take a central role in that model. The former cover a broad spectrum of possible structural and semantic heterogeneities, while the latter bind the complete mapping model to the architecture of the Word Wide Web. On the concrete, language-specific level we present a binding of the abstract mapping model for the RDF Vocabulary Description Language (RDFS), which allows us to create mapping specifications among incompatible metadata schemes expressed in RDFS. The mapping model is embedded in a cyclic process that categorises the requirements a mapping solution should fulfil into four subsequent phases: mapping discovery, mapping representation, mapping execution, and mapping maintenance. In this thesis, we mainly focus on mapping representation and on the transformation of mapping specifications into executable SPARQL queries. For mapping discovery support, the model provides an interface for plugging-in schema and ontology matching algorithms. For mapping maintenance we introduce the concept of a simple, but effective mapping registry. Based on the mapping model, we propose aWeb-based mediator wrapper-architecture that allows domain experts to set up mediation endpoints that provide a uniform SPARQL query interface to a set of distributed metadata sources. The involved data sources are encapsulated by wrapper components that expose the contained metadata and the schema definitions on the Web and provide a SPARQL query interface to these metadata. In this thesis, we present the OAI2LOD Server, a wrapper component for integrating metadata that are accessible via the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). In a case study, we demonstrate how mappings can be created in aWeb environment and how our mediator wrapper architecture can easily be configured in order to integrate metadata from various heterogeneous data sources without the need to install any mapping solution or metadata integration solution in a local system environment.

Content

Die Integration von Metadaten aus unterschiedlichen, heterogenen Datenquellen erfordert Metadaten-Interoperabilität, eine Eigenschaft die nicht standardmäßig gegeben ist. Metadaten Mapping Verfahren ermöglichen es Domänenexperten Metadaten-Interoperabilität in einem bestimmten Integrationskontext herzustellen. Mapping Lösungen sollen dabei die notwendige Unterstützung bieten. Während diese für den etablierten Bereich interoperabler Datenbanken bereits existieren, ist dies für Web-Umgebungen nicht der Fall. Betrachtet man das Ausmaß ständig wachsender strukturierter Metadaten und Metadatenschemata im Web, so zeichnet sich ein Bedarf nach Web-basierten Mapping Lösungen ab. Den Kern einer solchen Lösung bildet ein Mappingmodell, das die zur Spezifikation von Mappings notwendigen Sprachkonstrukte definiert. Existierende Semantic Web Sprachen wie beispielsweise RDFS oder OWL bieten zwar grundlegende Mappingelemente (z.B.: owl:equivalentProperty, owl:sameAs), adressieren jedoch nicht das gesamte Sprektrum möglicher semantischer und struktureller Heterogenitäten, die zwischen unterschiedlichen, inkompatiblen Metadatenobjekten auftreten können. Außerdem fehlen technische Lösungsansätze zur Überführung zuvor definierter Mappings in ausfu¨hrbare Abfragen. Als zentraler wissenschaftlicher Beitrag dieser Dissertation, wird ein abstraktes Mappingmodell pr¨asentiert, welches das Mappingproblem auf generischer Ebene reflektiert und Lösungsansätze zum Abgleich inkompatibler Schemata bietet. Instanztransformationsfunktionen und URIs nehmen in diesem Modell eine zentrale Rolle ein. Erstere überbrücken ein breites Spektrum möglicher semantischer und struktureller Heterogenitäten, während letztere das Mappingmodell in die Architektur des World Wide Webs einbinden. Auf einer konkreten, sprachspezifischen Ebene wird die Anbindung des abstrakten Modells an die RDF Vocabulary Description Language (RDFS) präsentiert, wodurch ein Mapping zwischen unterschiedlichen, in RDFS ausgedrückten Metadatenschemata ermöglicht wird. Das Mappingmodell ist in einen zyklischen Mappingprozess eingebunden, der die Anforderungen an Mappinglösungen in vier aufeinanderfolgende Phasen kategorisiert: mapping discovery, mapping representation, mapping execution und mapping maintenance. Im Rahmen dieser Dissertation beschäftigen wir uns hauptsächlich mit der Representation-Phase sowie mit der Transformation von Mappingspezifikationen in ausführbare SPARQL-Abfragen. Zur Unterstützung der Discovery-Phase bietet das Mappingmodell eine Schnittstelle zur Einbindung von Schema- oder Ontologymatching-Algorithmen. Für die Maintenance-Phase präsentieren wir ein einfaches, aber seinen Zweck erfüllendes Mapping-Registry Konzept. Auf Basis des Mappingmodells stellen wir eine Web-basierte Mediator-Wrapper Architektur vor, die Domänenexperten die Möglichkeit bietet, SPARQL-Mediationsschnittstellen zu definieren. Die zu integrierenden Datenquellen müssen dafür durch Wrapper-Komponenen gekapselt werden, welche die enthaltenen Metadaten im Web exponieren und SPARQL-Zugriff ermöglichen. Als beipielhafte Wrapper Komponente präsentieren wir den OAI2LOD Server, mit dessen Hilfe Datenquellen eingebunden werden können, die ihre Metadaten über das Open Archives Initative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) exponieren. Im Rahmen einer Fallstudie zeigen wir, wie Mappings in Web-Umgebungen erstellt werden können und wie unsere Mediator-Wrapper Architektur nach wenigen, einfachen Konfigurationsschritten Metadaten aus unterschiedlichen, heterogenen Datenquellen integrieren kann, ohne dass dadurch die Notwendigkeit entsteht, eine Mapping Lösung in einer lokalen Systemumgebung zu installieren.

0.0026349241 = product of:
  0.02634924 = sum of:
    0.02634924 = weight(_text_:web in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02634924 = score(doc=553,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.28219095 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Currently, a number of efforts are being carried out to integrate collections from different institutions and containing heterogeneous material. Examples of such projects are The European Library [1] and the Memory of the Netherlands [2]. A crucial point for the success of these is the availability to provide a unified access on top of the different collections, e.g. using one single vocabulary for querying or browsing the objects they contain. This is made difficult by the fact that the objects from different collections are often described using different vocabularies - thesauri, classification schemes - and are therefore not interoperable at the semantic level. To solve this problem, one can turn to semantic links - mappings - between the elements of the different vocabularies. If one knows that a concept C from a vocabulary V is semantically equivalent to a concept to a concept D from vocabulary W, then an appropriate search engine can return all the objects that were indexed against D for a query for objects described using C. We thus have an access to other collections, using a single one vocabulary. This is however an ideal situation, and hard alignment work is required to reach it. Several projects in the past have tried to implement such a solution, like MACS [3] and Renardus [4]. They have demonstrated very interesting results, but also highlighted the difficulty of aligning manually all the different vocabularies involved in practical cases, which sometimes contain hundreds of thousands of concepts. To alleviate this problem, a number of tools have been proposed in order to provide with candidate mappings between two input vocabularies, making alignment a (semi-) automatic task. Recently, the Semantic Web community has produced a lot of these alignment tools'. Several techniques are found, depending on the material they exploit: labels of concepts, structure of vocabularies, collection objects and external knowledge sources. Throughout our presentation, we will present a concrete heterogeneity case where alignment techniques have been applied to build a (pilot) browser, developed in the context of the STITCH project [5]. This browser enables a unified access to two collections of illuminated manuscripts, using the description vocabulary used in the first collection, Mandragore [6], or the one used by the second, Iconclass [7]. In our talk, we will also make the point for using unified representations the vocabulary semantic and lexical information. Additionally to ease the use of the alignment tools that have these vocabularies as input, turning to a standard representation format helps designing applications that are more generic, like the browser we demonstrate. We give pointers to SKOS [8], an open and web-enabled format currently developed by the Semantic Web community.
References [1] http:// www.theeuropeanlibrary.org [2] http://www.geheugenvannederland.nl [3] http://macs.cenl.org [4] Day, M., Koch, T., Neuroth, H.: Searching and browsing multiple subject gateways in the Renardus service. In Proceedings of the RC33 Sixth International Conference on Social Science Methodology, Amsterdam , 2005. [5] http://stitch.cs.vu.nl [6] http://mandragore.bnf.fr [7] http://www.iconclass.nl [8] www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/ 1 The Semantic Web vision supposes sharing data using different conceptualizations (ontologies), and therefore implies to tackle the semantic interoperability problem

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0023806747 = product of:
  0.023806747 = sum of:
    0.023806747 = weight(_text_:web in 1909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023806747 = score(doc=1909,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1909, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1909)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Digital libraries and the semantic web: context, applications and research".

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0023567479 = product of:
  0.023567477 = sum of:
    0.023567477 = weight(_text_:web in 3717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023567477 = score(doc=3717,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 3717, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3717)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Representing classification systems on the web for publication and exchange continues to be a challenge within the SKOS framework. This paper focuses on the differences between classification schemes and other families of KOS (knowledge organization systems) that make it difficult to express classifications without sacrificing a large amount of their semantic richness. Issues resulting from the specific set of relationships between classes and topics that defines the basic nature of any classification system are discussed. Where possible, different solutions within the frameworks of SKOS and OWL are proposed and examined.