Search (37 results, page 1 of 2)

0.034674477 = product of:
  0.10402343 = sum of:
    0.067437425 = weight(_text_:wide in 2933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067437425 = score(doc=2933,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 2933, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2933)
    0.036585998 = weight(_text_:web in 2933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036585998 = score(doc=2933,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 2933, 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=2933)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Content

Vortrag, "Semantics, Analytics, Visualisation: Enhancing Scholarly Data Workshop co-located with the 25th International World Wide Web Conference April 11, 2016 - Montreal, Canada", Montreal 2016.

0.031876236 = product of:
  0.09562871 = sum of:
    0.06553978 = weight(_text_:computer in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06553978 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.40377006 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
    0.030088935 = product of:
      0.06017787 = sum of:
        0.06017787 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06017787 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

Series

Lecture notes in computer science ; 9398

0.031876236 = product of:
  0.09562871 = sum of:
    0.06553978 = weight(_text_:computer in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06553978 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.40377006 = fieldWeight in 2754, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2754)
    0.030088935 = product of:
      0.06017787 = sum of:
        0.06017787 = weight(_text_:22 in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06017787 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2754, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2754)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

Series

Lecture notes in computer science ; 9398

0.031876236 = product of:
  0.09562871 = sum of:
    0.06553978 = weight(_text_:computer in 3279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06553978 = score(doc=3279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.40377006 = fieldWeight in 3279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3279)
    0.030088935 = product of:
      0.06017787 = sum of:
        0.06017787 = weight(_text_:22 in 3279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06017787 = score(doc=3279,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3279, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Series

Communications in computer and information science; 672

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.031876236 = product of:
  0.09562871 = sum of:
    0.06553978 = weight(_text_:computer in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06553978 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.40377006 = fieldWeight in 3280, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3280)
    0.030088935 = product of:
      0.06017787 = sum of:
        0.06017787 = weight(_text_:22 in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06017787 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3280, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3280)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Series

Communications in computer and information science; 672

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.027980987 = product of:
  0.08394296 = sum of:
    0.03853567 = weight(_text_:wide in 4564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03853567 = score(doc=4564,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 4564, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4564)
    0.045407288 = weight(_text_:computer in 4564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045407288 = score(doc=4564,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.2797401 = fieldWeight in 4564, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4564)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

For this second Special Issue of Infozine, we have invited students, teachers, researchers, and software developers to share their opinions about one or the other aspect of this broad topic: how to balance drilling (for depth) vs. surfing (for breadth) in scientific learning, teaching, research, and software design - and how the modern digital-liberal system affects our ability to strike this balance. This special issue is meant to provide a wide and unbiased spectrum of possible viewpoints on the topic, helping readers to define lucidly their own position and information use behavior.

Content

Editorial: Surfing versus Drilling for Knowledge in Science: When should you use your computer? When should you use your brain? Blaise Pascal: Les deux infinis - The two infinities / Philippe Hünenberger and Oliver Renn - "Surfing" vs. "drilling" in the modern scientific world / Antonio Loprieno - Of millimeter paper and machine learning / Philippe Hünenberger - From one to many, from breadth to depth - industrializing research / Janne Soetbeer - "Deep drilling" requires "surfing" / Gerd Folkers and Laura Folkers - Surfing vs. drilling in science: A delicate balance / Alzbeta Kubincová - Digital trends in academia - for the sake of critical thinking or comfort? / Leif-Thore Deck - I diagnose, therefore I am a Doctor? Will drilling computer software replace human doctors in the future? / Yi Zheng - Surfing versus drilling in fundamental research / Wilfred van Gunsteren - Using brain vs. brute force in computational studies of biological systems / Arieh Warshel - Laboratory literature boards in the digital age / Jeffrey Bode - Research strategies in computational chemistry / Sereina Riniker - Surfing on the hype waves or drilling deep for knowledge? A perspective from industry / Nadine Schneider and Nikolaus Stiefl - The use and purpose of articles and scientists / Philip Mark Lund - Can you look at papers like artwork? / Oliver Renn - Dynamite fishing in the data swamp / Frank Perabo 34 Streetlights, augmented intelligence, and information discovery / Jeffrey Saffer and Vicki Burnett - "Yes Dave. Happy to do that for you." Why AI, machine learning, and blockchain will lead to deeper "drilling" / Michiel Kolman and Sjors de Heuvel - Trends in scientific document search ( Stefan Geißler - Power tools for text mining / Jane Reed 42 Publishing and patenting: Navigating the differences to ensure search success / Paul Peters

0.027487947 = product of:
  0.08246384 = sum of:
    0.036585998 = weight(_text_:web in 4471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036585998 = score(doc=4471,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4471, 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=4471)
    0.04587784 = weight(_text_:computer in 4471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04587784 = score(doc=4471,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28263903 = fieldWeight in 4471, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4471)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Series

Communications in computer and information science; vol.475

Source

Semantic Web Evaluation Challenge. SemWebEval 2014 at ESWC 2014, Anissaras, Crete, Greece, May 25-29, 2014, Revised Selected Papers. Eds.: V. Presutti et al

0.026011107 = product of:
  0.07803332 = sum of:
    0.045263432 = weight(_text_:web in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045263432 = score(doc=2696,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2696, 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=2696)
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=2696,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 2696, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2696)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Search Engines have become an integral part of our day to day life. Our reliance on search engines increases with every passing day. With the amount of data available on Internet increasing exponentially, it becomes important to develop new methods and tools that help to return results relevant to the queries and reduce the time spent on searching. The results should be diverse but at the same time should return results focused on the queries asked. Relation Based Page Rank [4] algorithms are considered to be the next frontier in improvement of Semantic Web Search. The probability of finding relevance in the search results as posited by the user while entering the query is used to measure the relevance. However, its application is limited by the complexity of determining relation between the terms and assigning explicit meaning to each term. Trust Rank is one of the most widely used ranking algorithms for semantic web search. Few other ranking algorithms like HITS algorithm, PageRank algorithm are also used for Semantic Web Searching. In this paper, we will provide a comparison of few ranking approaches.

Source

International journal of computer applications. 129(2015) no.5, S12-15

0.02476748 = product of:
  0.07430244 = sum of:
    0.04816959 = weight(_text_:wide in 4913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04816959 = score(doc=4913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 4913, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4913)
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 4913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=4913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4913, 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=4913)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The growing availability of data in electronic form, the expansion of the World Wide Web and the accessibility of computational methods for large-scale data processing have allowed researchers in Information Retrieval (IR) to design systems which can effectively and efficiently constrain search within the boundaries given by context, thus transforming classical search into contextual search. Contextual Search: A Computational Framework introduces contextual search within a computational framework based on contextual variables, contextual factors and statistical models. It describes how statistical models can process contextual variables to infer the contextual factors underlying the current search context. It also provides background to the subject by: placing it among other surveys on relevance, interaction, context, and behaviour; providing a description of the contextual variables used for implementing the statistical models which represent and predict relevance and contextual factors; and providing an overview of the evaluation methodologies and findings relevant to this subject. Contextual Search: A Computational Framework is a highly recommended read, both for beginners who are embarking on research in this area and as a useful reference for established IR researchers.

0.02476748 = product of:
  0.07430244 = sum of:
    0.04816959 = weight(_text_:wide in 1338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04816959 = score(doc=1338,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 1338, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1338)
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 1338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=1338,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1338, 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=1338)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

A user's query is considered to be an imprecise description of their information need. Automatic query expansion is the process of reformulating the original query with the goal of improving retrieval effectiveness. Many successful query expansion techniques model syntagmatic associations that infer two terms co-occur more often than by chance in natural language. However, structural linguistics relies on both syntagmatic and paradigmatic associations to deduce the meaning of a word. Given the success of dependency-based approaches to query expansion and the reliance on word meanings in the query formulation process, we argue that modeling both syntagmatic and paradigmatic information in the query expansion process improves retrieval effectiveness. This article develops and evaluates a new query expansion technique that is based on a formal, corpus-based model of word meaning that models syntagmatic and paradigmatic associations. We demonstrate that when sufficient statistical information exists, as in the case of longer queries, including paradigmatic information alone provides significant improvements in retrieval effectiveness across a wide variety of data sets. More generally, when our new query expansion approach is applied to large-scale web retrieval it demonstrates significant improvements in retrieval effectiveness over a strong baseline system, based on a commercial search engine.

0.02372249 = product of:
  0.07116747 = sum of:
    0.059131898 = weight(_text_:web in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059131898 = score(doc=1626,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 1626, 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=1626)
    0.012035574 = product of:
      0.024071148 = sum of:
        0.024071148 = weight(_text_:22 in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024071148 = score(doc=1626,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1626, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose - The growing volumes of semantic data available in the web result in the need for handling the information overload phenomenon. The potential of this amount of data is enormous but in most cases it is very difficult for users to visualize, explore and use this data, especially for lay-users without experience with Semantic Web technologies. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The Visual Information-Seeking Mantra "Overview first, zoom and filter, then details-on-demand" proposed by Shneiderman describes how data should be presented in different stages to achieve an effective exploration. The overview is the first user task when dealing with a data set. The objective is that the user is capable of getting an idea about the overall structure of the data set. Different information architecture (IA) components supporting the overview tasks have been developed, so they are automatically generated from semantic data, and evaluated with end-users. Findings - The chosen IA components are well known to web users, as they are present in most web pages: navigation bars, site maps and site indexes. The authors complement them with Treemaps, a visualization technique for displaying hierarchical data. These components have been developed following an iterative User-Centered Design methodology. Evaluations with end-users have shown that they get easily used to them despite the fact that they are generated automatically from structured data, without requiring knowledge about the underlying semantic technologies, and that the different overview components complement each other as they focus on different information search needs. Originality/value - Obtaining semantic data sets overviews cannot be easily done with the current semantic web browsers. Overviews become difficult to achieve with large heterogeneous data sets, which is typical in the Semantic Web, because traditional IA techniques do not easily scale to large data sets. There is little or no support to obtain overview information quickly and easily at the beginning of the exploration of a new data set. This can be a serious limitation when exploring a data set for the first time, especially for lay-users. The proposal is to reuse and adapt existing IA components to provide this overview to users and show that they can be generated automatically from the thesaurus and ontologies that structure semantic data while providing a comparable user experience to traditional web sites.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Theme

Semantic Web

0.017333968 = product of:
  0.0520019 = sum of:
    0.036957435 = weight(_text_:web in 1343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036957435 = score(doc=1343,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1343, 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=1343)
    0.0150444675 = product of:
      0.030088935 = sum of:
        0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 1343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030088935 = score(doc=1343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1343, 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=1343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

A substantial fraction of web search queries contain references to entities, such as persons, organizations, and locations. Recently, methods that exploit named entities have been shown to be more effective for query expansion than traditional pseudorelevance feedback methods. In this article, we introduce a supervised learning approach that exploits named entities for query expansion using Wikipedia as a repository of high-quality feedback documents. In contrast with existing entity-oriented pseudorelevance feedback approaches, we tackle query expansion as a learning-to-rank problem. As a result, not only do we select effective expansion terms but we also weigh these terms according to their predicted effectiveness. To this end, we exploit the rich structure of Wikipedia articles to devise discriminative term features, including each candidate term's proximity to the original query terms, as well as its frequency across multiple article fields and in category and infobox descriptors. Experiments on three Text REtrieval Conference web test collections attest the effectiveness of our approach, with gains of up to 23.32% in terms of mean average precision, 19.49% in terms of precision at 10, and 7.86% in terms of normalized discounted cumulative gain compared with a state-of-the-art approach for entity-oriented query expansion.

Date

22. 8.2014 17:07:50

0.01444548 = product of:
  0.08667288 = sum of:
    0.08667288 = weight(_text_:web in 431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08667288 = score(doc=431,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.59793836 = fieldWeight in 431, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=431)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The birth of the Web has brought an exponential growth to the amount of the information that is freely available to the Internet population, overloading users and entangling their efforts to satisfy their information needs. Web search engines such Google, Yahoo, or Bing have become popular mainly due to the fact that they offer an easy-to-use query interface (i.e., based on keywords) and an effective and efficient query execution mechanism. The majority of these search engines do not consider information stored on the deep or hidden Web [9,28], despite the fact that the size of the deep Web is estimated to be much bigger than the surface Web [9,47]. There have been a number of systems that record interactions with the deep Web sources or automatically submit queries them (mainly through their Web form interfaces) in order to index their context. Unfortunately, this technique is only partially indexing the data instance. Moreover, it is not possible to take advantage of the query capabilities of data sources, for example, of the relational query features, because their interface is often restricted from the Web form. Besides, Web search engines focus on retrieving documents and not on querying structured sources, so they are unable to access information based on concepts.

Source

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

Theme

Semantic Web

0.011556383 = product of:
  0.0693383 = sum of:
    0.0693383 = weight(_text_:web in 411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0693383 = score(doc=411,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.47835067 = fieldWeight in 411, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=411)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The Web has become the world's largest database, with search being the main tool that allows organizations and individuals to exploit its huge amount of information. Search on the Web has been traditionally based on textual and structural similarities, ignoring to a large degree the semantic dimension, i.e., understanding the meaning of the query and of the document content. Combining search and semantics gives birth to the idea of semantic search. Traditional search engines have already advertised some semantic dimensions. Some of them, for instance, can enhance their generated result sets with documents that are semantically related to the query terms even though they may not include these terms. Nevertheless, the exploitation of the semantic search has not yet reached its full potential. In this book, Roberto De Virgilio, Francesco Guerra and Yannis Velegrakis present an extensive overview of the work done in Semantic Search and other related areas. They explore different technologies and solutions in depth, making their collection a valuable and stimulating reading for both academic and industrial researchers. The book is divided into three parts. The first introduces the readers to the basic notions of the Web of Data. It describes the different kinds of data that exist, their topology, and their storing and indexing techniques. The second part is dedicated to Web Search. It presents different types of search, like the exploratory or the path-oriented, alongside methods for their efficient and effective implementation. Other related topics included in this part are the use of uncertainty in query answering, the exploitation of ontologies, and the use of semantics in mashup design and operation. The focus of the third part is on linked data, and more specifically, on applying ideas originating in recommender systems on linked data management, and on techniques for the efficiently querying answering on linked data.

Content

Inhalt: Introduction.- Part I Introduction to Web of Data.- Topology of the Web of Data.- Storing and Indexing Massive RDF Data Sets.- Designing Exploratory Search Applications upon Web Data Sources.- Part II Search over the Web.- Path-oriented Keyword Search query over RDF.- Interactive Query Construction for Keyword Search on the SemanticWeb.- Understanding the Semantics of Keyword Queries on Relational DataWithout Accessing the Instance.- Keyword-Based Search over Semantic Data.- Semantic Link Discovery over Relational Data.- Embracing Uncertainty in Entity Linking.- The Return of the Entity-Relationship Model: Ontological Query Answering.- Linked Data Services and Semantics-enabled Mashup.- Part III Linked Data Search engines.- A Recommender System for Linked Data.- Flint: from Web Pages to Probabilistic Semantic Data.- Searching and Browsing Linked Data with SWSE.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.009855317 = product of:
  0.059131898 = sum of:
    0.059131898 = weight(_text_:web in 428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059131898 = score(doc=428,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 428, 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=428)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Search is the preferred method to access information in today's computing systems. The Web, accessed through search engines, is universally recognized as the source for answering users' information needs. However, offering a link to a Web page does not cover all information needs. Even simple problems, such as "Which theater offers an at least three-stars action movie in London close to a good Italian restaurant," can only be solved by searching the Web multiple times, e.g., by extracting a list of the recent action movies filtered by ranking, then looking for movie theaters, then looking for Italian restaurants close to them. While search engines hint to useful information, the user's brain is the fundamental platform for information integration. An important trend is the availability of new, specialized data sources-the so-called "long tail" of the Web of data. Such carefully collected and curated data sources can be much more valuable than information currently available in Web pages; however, many sources remain hidden or insulated, in the lack of software solutions for bringing them to surface and making them usable in the search context. A new class of tailor-made systems, designed to satisfy the needs of users with specific aims, will support the publishing and integration of data sources for vertical domains; the user will be able to select sources based on individual or collective trust, and systems will be able to route queries to such sources and to provide easyto-use interfaces for combining them within search strategies, at the same time, rewarding the data source owners for each contribution to effective search. Efforts such as Google's Fusion Tables show that the technology for bringing hidden data sources to surface is feasible.

Source

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

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0097700935 = product of:
  0.058620557 = sum of:
    0.058620557 = weight(_text_:computer in 360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058620557 = score(doc=360,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.3611429 = fieldWeight in 360, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=360)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Today's complex, information-intensive problems often require people to work together. Mostly these tasks go far beyond simply searching together; they include information lookup, sharing, synthesis, and decision-making. In addition, they all have an end-goal that is mutually beneficial to all parties involved. Such "collaborative information seeking" (CIS) projects typically last several sessions and the participants all share an intention to contribute and benefit. Not surprisingly, these processes are highly interactive. Shah focuses on two individually well-understood notions: collaboration and information seeking, with the goal of bringing them together to show how it is a natural tendency for humans to work together on complex tasks. The first part of his book introduces the general notions of collaboration and information seeking, as well as related concepts, terminology, and frameworks; and thus provides the reader with a comprehensive treatment of the concepts underlying CIS. The second part of the book details CIS as a standalone domain. A series of frameworks, theories, and models are introduced to provide a conceptual basis for CIS. The final part describes several systems and applications of CIS, along with their broader implications on other fields such as computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) and human-computer interaction (HCI). With this first comprehensive overview of an exciting new research field, Shah delivers to graduate students and researchers in academia and industry an encompassing description of the technologies involved, state-of-the-art results, and open challenges as well as research opportunities.

Content

Inhalt: Part I Introduction.- Introduction.- Collaboration.- Collaborative Information Seeking (CIS) in Context.- Part II Conceptual Understanding of CIS.- Frameworks for CIS Research and Development.- Toward a Model for CIS.- Part III CIS Systems, Applications, and Implications.- Systems and Tools for CIS.- Evaluation.- Conclusion.- Ten Stories of Five Cs.- Brief Overview of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).- Brief Overview of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL).- Brief Overview of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC).

0.00973914 = product of:
  0.05843484 = sum of:
    0.05843484 = weight(_text_:web in 3188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05843484 = score(doc=3188,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 3188, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3188)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Across the world, millions of users interact with search engines every day to satisfy their information needs. As the Web grows bigger over time, such information needs, manifested through user search queries, also become more complex. However, there has been no systematic study that quantifies the structural complexity of Web search queries. In this research, we make an attempt towards understanding and characterizing the syntactic complexity of search queries using a multi-pronged approach. We use traditional statistical language modeling techniques to quantify and compare the perplexity of queries with natural language (NL). We then use complex network analysis for a comparative analysis of the topological properties of queries issued by real Web users and those generated by statistical models. Finally, we conduct experiments to study whether search engine users are able to identify real queries, when presented along with model-generated ones. The three complementary studies show that the syntactic structure of Web queries is more complex than what n-grams can capture, but simpler than NL. Queries, thus, seem to represent an intermediate stage between syntactic and non-syntactic communication.

0.008710952 = product of:
  0.052265707 = sum of:
    0.052265707 = weight(_text_:web in 430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052265707 = score(doc=430,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 430, 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=430)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

With the advance of the semantic Web, increasing amounts of data are available in a structured and machine-understandable form. This opens opportunities for users to employ semantic queries instead of simple keyword-based ones to accurately express the information need. However, constructing semantic queries is a demanding task for human users [11]. To compose a valid semantic query, a user has to (1) master a query language (e.g., SPARQL) and (2) acquire sufficient knowledge about the ontology or the schema of the data source. While there are systems which support this task with visual tools [21, 26] or natural language interfaces [3, 13, 14, 18], the process of query construction can still be complex and time consuming. According to [24], users prefer keyword search, and struggle with the construction of semantic queries although being supported with a natural language interface. Several keyword search approaches have already been proposed to ease information seeking on semantic data [16, 32, 35] or databases [1, 31]. However, keyword queries lack the expressivity to precisely describe the user's intent. As a result, ranking can at best put query intentions of the majority on top, making it impossible to take the intentions of all users into consideration.

Source

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

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0075439056 = product of:
  0.045263432 = sum of:
    0.045263432 = weight(_text_:web in 2208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045263432 = score(doc=2208,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2208, 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=2208)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The formal structure of the information on the Semantic Web lends itself to faceted browsing, an information retrieval method where users can filter results based on the values of properties ("facets"). Numerous faceted browsers have been created to browse RDF and Linked Data, but these systems use their own ontologies for defining how data is queried to populate their facets. Since the source data is the same format across these systems (specifically, RDF), we can unify the different methods of describing how to quer the underlying data, to enable compatibility across systems, and provide an extensible base ontology for future systems. To this end, we present FacetOntology, an ontology that defines how to query data to form a faceted browser, and a number of transformations and filters that can be applied to data before it is shown to users. FacetOntology overcomes limitations in the expressivity of existing work, by enabling the full expressivity of SPARQL when selecting data for facets. By applying a FacetOntology definition to data, a set of facets are specified, each with queries and filters to source RDF data, which enables faceted browsing systems to be created using that RDF data.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0073914872 = product of:
  0.04434892 = sum of:
    0.04434892 = weight(_text_:web in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04434892 = score(doc=2799,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2799, 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=2799)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

With ever increasing information being available to the end users, search engines have become the most powerful tools for obtaining useful information scattered on the Web. However, it is very common that even most renowned search engines return result sets with not so useful pages to the user. Research on semantic search aims to improve traditional information search and retrieval methods where the basic relevance criteria rely primarily on the presence of query keywords within the returned pages. This work is an attempt to explore different relevancy ranking approaches based on semantics which are considered appropriate for the retrieval of relevant information. In this paper, various pilot projects and their corresponding outcomes have been investigated based on methodologies adopted and their most distinctive characteristics towards ranking. An overview of selected approaches and their comparison by means of the classification criteria has been presented. With the help of this comparison, some common concepts and outstanding features have been identified.