Search (66 results, page 1 of 4)

0.14815785 = product of:
  0.2963157 = sum of:
    0.074078925 = product of:
      0.22223677 = sum of:
        0.22223677 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22223677 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3954264 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.22223677 = weight(_text_:2f in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22223677 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3954264 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.042434774 = product of:
  0.08486955 = sum of:
    0.060311824 = weight(_text_:reference in 672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060311824 = score(doc=672,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.31784135 = fieldWeight in 672, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=672)
    0.024557726 = product of:
      0.049115453 = sum of:
        0.049115453 = weight(_text_:services in 672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049115453 = score(doc=672,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.28682584 = fieldWeight in 672, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=672)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This chapter describes not so much what digital libraries are but what digital libraries with semantic support could and should be. It discusses the nature of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) and how KOS can support digital library users. It projects a vision for designers to make and for users to demand better digital libraries. What is a digital library? The term \Digital Library" (DL) is used to refer to a range of systems, from digital object and metadata repositories, reference-linking systems, archives, and content management systems to complex systems that integrate advanced digital library services and support for research and practice communities. A DL may offer many technology-enabled functions and services that support users, both as information producers and as information users. Many of these functions appear in information systems that would not normally be considered digital libraries, making boundaries even more blurry. Instead of pursuing the hopeless quest of coming up with the definition of digital library, we present a framework that allows a clear and somewhat standardized description of any information system so that users can select the system(s) that best meet their requirements. Section 2 gives a broad outline for more detail see the DELOS DL Reference Model.

0.038054995 = product of:
  0.07610999 = sum of:
    0.060311824 = weight(_text_:reference in 2589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060311824 = score(doc=2589,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.31784135 = fieldWeight in 2589, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2589)
    0.015798168 = product of:
      0.031596337 = sum of:
        0.031596337 = weight(_text_:22 in 2589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031596337 = score(doc=2589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2589, 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=2589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose Ontologies are used to formally describe the concepts within a domain in a machine-understandable way. Matching of heterogeneous ontologies is often essential for many applications like semantic annotation, query answering or ontology integration. Some ontologies may include a large number of entities which make the ontology matching process very complex in terms of the search space and execution time requirements. The purpose of this paper is to present a technique for finding degree of similarity between ontologies that trims down the search space by eliminating the ontology concepts that have less likelihood of being matched. Design/methodology/approach Algorithms are written for finding key concepts, concept matching and relationship matching. WordNet is used for solving synonym problems during the matching process. The technique is evaluated using the reference alignments between ontologies from ontology alignment evaluation initiative benchmark in terms of degree of similarity, Pearson's correlation coefficient and IR measures precision, recall and F-measure. Findings Positive correlation between the degree of similarity and degree of similarity (reference alignment) and computed values of precision, recall and F-measure showed that if only key concepts of ontologies are compared, a time and search space efficient ontology matching system can be developed. Originality/value On the basis of the present novel approach for ontology matching, it is concluded that using key concepts for ontology matching gives comparable results in reduced time and space.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.029222533 = product of:
  0.058445066 = sum of:
    0.0426469 = weight(_text_:reference in 3403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0426469 = score(doc=3403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 3403, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3403)
    0.015798168 = product of:
      0.031596337 = sum of:
        0.031596337 = weight(_text_:22 in 3403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031596337 = score(doc=3403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3403, 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=3403)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

What is knowledge representation and reasoning (KR&R)? Alas, a thorough account would require a book, or at least a dedicated, full-length paper, but here we shall have to make do with something simpler. Since most readers are likely to have an intuitive grasp of the essence of KR&R, our simple account should suffice. The interesting thing is that this simple account itself makes reference to some of the foundational distinctions in the field of philosophy. These distinctions also play a central role in artificial intelligence (AI) and computer science. To begin with, the first distinction in KR&R is that we identify knowledge with knowledge that such-and-such holds (possibly to a degree), rather than knowing how. If you ask an expert tennis player how he manages to serve a ball at 130 miles per hour on his first serve, and then serve a safer, topspin serve on his second should the first be out, you may well receive a confession that, if truth be told, this athlete can't really tell you. He just does it; he does something he has been doing since his youth. Yet, there is no denying that he knows how to serve. In contrast, the knowledge in KR&R must be expressible in declarative statements. For example, our tennis player knows that if his first serve lands outside the service box, it's not in play. He thus knows a proposition, conditional in form.

Date

9. 2.2017 19:22:14

0.023378028 = product of:
  0.046756055 = sum of:
    0.03411752 = weight(_text_:reference in 1436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03411752 = score(doc=1436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.17979822 = fieldWeight in 1436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1436)
    0.012638534 = product of:
      0.025277069 = sum of:
        0.025277069 = weight(_text_:22 in 1436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025277069 = score(doc=1436,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1436, 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=1436)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The development of complex projects in the aerospace industry is based on the collaboration of geographically distributed teams and companies. In this context, the need of sharing different types of data and information is a key factor to assure the successful execution of the projects. In the case of European projects, the ECSS standards provide a normative framework that specifies, among other requirements, the different document types, information items and artifacts that need to be generated. The specification of the characteristics of these information items are usually incorporated as annex to the different ECSS standards, and they provide the intended purpose, scope, and structure of the documents and information items. In these standards, documents or deliverables should not be considered as independent items, but as the results of packaging different information artifacts for their delivery between the involved parties. Successful information integration and knowledge exchange cannot be based exclusively on the conceptual definition of information types. It also requires the definition of methods and techniques for serializing and exchanging these documents and artifacts. This area is not covered by ECSS standards, and the definition of these data schemas would improve the opportunity for improving collaboration processes among companies. This paper describes the development of an OWL-based ontology to manage the different artifacts and information items requested in the European Space Agency (ESA) ECSS standards for SW development. The ECSS set of standards is the main reference in aerospace projects in Europe, and in addition to engineering and managerial requirements they provide a set of DRD (Document Requirements Documents) with the structure of the different documents and records necessary to manage projects and describe intermediate information products and final deliverables. Information integration is a must-have in aerospace projects, where different players need to collaborate and share data during the life cycle of the products about requirements, design elements, problems, etc. The proposed ontology provides the basis for building advanced information systems where the information coming from different companies and institutions can be integrated into a coherent set of related data. It also provides a conceptual framework to enable the development of interfaces and gateways between the different tools and information systems used by the different players in aerospace projects.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.023378028 = product of:
  0.046756055 = sum of:
    0.03411752 = weight(_text_:reference in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03411752 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.17979822 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
    0.012638534 = product of:
      0.025277069 = sum of:
        0.025277069 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025277069 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1634, 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=1634)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - Ontologies are prone to wide semantic variability due to subjective points of view of their composers. The purpose of this paper is to propose a new approach for maximal unification of diverse ontologies for controversial domains by their relations. Design/methodology/approach - Effective matching or unification of multiple ontologies for a specific domain is crucial for the success of many semantic web applications, such as semantic information retrieval and organization, document tagging, summarization and search. To this end, numerous automatic and semi-automatic techniques were proposed in the past decade that attempt to identify similar entities, mostly classes, in diverse ontologies for similar domains. Apparently, matching individual entities cannot result in full integration of ontologies' semantics without matching their inter-relations with all other-related classes (and instances). However, semantic matching of ontological relations still constitutes a major research challenge. Therefore, in this paper the authors propose a new paradigm for assessment of maximal possible matching and unification of ontological relations. To this end, several unification rules for ontological relations were devised based on ontological reference rules, and lexical and textual entailment. These rules were semi-automatically implemented to extend a given ontology with semantically matching relations from another ontology for a similar domain. Then, the ontologies were unified through these similar pairs of relations. The authors observe that these rules can be also facilitated to reveal the contradictory relations in different ontologies. Findings - To assess the feasibility of the approach two experiments were conducted with different sets of multiple personal ontologies on controversial domains constructed by trained subjects. The results for about 50 distinct ontology pairs demonstrate a good potential of the methodology for increasing inter-ontology agreement. Furthermore, the authors show that the presented methodology can lead to a complete unification of multiple semantically heterogeneous ontologies. Research limitations/implications - This is a conceptual study that presents a new approach for semantic unification of ontologies by a devised set of rules along with the initial experimental evidence of its feasibility and effectiveness. However, this methodology has to be fully automatically implemented and tested on a larger dataset in future research. Practical implications - This result has implication for semantic search, since a richer ontology, comprised of multiple aspects and viewpoints of the domain of knowledge, enhances discoverability and improves search results. Originality/value - To the best of the knowledge, this is the first study to examine and assess the maximal level of semantic relation-based ontology unification.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.019897863 = product of:
  0.07959145 = sum of:
    0.07959145 = sum of:
      0.041675847 = weight(_text_:services in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041675847 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04664141 = queryNorm
          0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
      0.037915602 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037915602 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04664141 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Libraries are the tools we use to learn and to answer our questions. The quality of our work depends, among others, on the quality of the tools we use. Recent research in digital libraries is focused, on one hand on improving the infrastructure of the digital library management systems (DLMS), and on the other on improving the metadata models used to annotate collections of objects maintained by DLMS. The latter includes, among others, the semantic web and social networking technologies. Recently, the semantic web and social networking technologies are being introduced to the digital libraries domain. The expected outcome is that the overall quality of information discovery in digital libraries can be improved by employing social and semantic technologies. In this chapter we present the results of an evaluation of social and semantic end-user information discovery services for the digital libraries.

Date

1. 8.2010 12:35:22

0.015882768 = product of:
  0.06353107 = sum of:
    0.06353107 = sum of:
      0.027783897 = weight(_text_:services in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027783897 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04664141 = queryNorm
          0.1622532 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
      0.035747174 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035747174 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04664141 = queryNorm
          0.21886435 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In order to transfer the Chinese Classified Thesaurus (CCT) into a machine-processable format and provide CCT-based Web services, a pilot study has been conducted in which a variety of selected CCT classes and mapped thesaurus entries are encoded with SKOS. OWL and RDFS are also used to encode the same contents for the purposes of feasibility and cost-benefit comparison. CCT is a collected effort led by the National Library of China. It is an integration of the national standards Chinese Library Classification (CLC) 4th edition and Chinese Thesaurus (CT). As a manually created mapping product, CCT provides for each of the classes the corresponding thesaurus terms, and vice versa. The coverage of CCT includes four major clusters: philosophy, social sciences and humanities, natural sciences and technologies, and general works. There are 22 main-classes, 52,992 sub-classes and divisions, 110,837 preferred thesaurus terms, 35,690 entry terms (non-preferred terms), and 59,738 pre-coordinated headings (Chinese Classified Thesaurus, 2005) Major challenges of encoding this large vocabulary comes from its integrated structure. CCT is a result of the combination of two structures (illustrated in Figure 1): a thesaurus that uses ISO-2788 standardized structure and a classification scheme that is basically enumerative, but provides some flexibility for several kinds of synthetic mechanisms Other challenges include the complex relationships caused by differences of granularities of two original schemes and their presentation with various levels of SKOS elements; as well as the diverse coordination of entries due to the use of auxiliary tables and pre-coordinated headings derived from combining classes, subdivisions, and thesaurus terms, which do not correspond to existing unique identifiers. The poster reports the progress, shares the sample SKOS entries, and summarizes problems identified during the SKOS encoding process. Although OWL Lite and OWL Full provide richer expressiveness, the cost-benefit issues and the final purposes of encoding CCT raise questions of using such approaches.

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

0.014926414 = product of:
  0.059705656 = sum of:
    0.059705656 = weight(_text_:reference in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059705656 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.31464687 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The recent experiences in the building, maintenance and reuse of ontologies has shown that the most efficient approach is the collaborative one. However, communication between collaborators such as IT professionals, librarians, web designers and subject matter experts is difficult and time consuming. This is because there are different reasoning strategies, different logics and different kinds of knowledge representation in the applications of Semantic Web. This article intends to be a reference scheme. It uses concise and simple explanations that can be used in common by specialists of different backgrounds working together in an application of Semantic Web.

0.014926414 = product of:
  0.059705656 = sum of:
    0.059705656 = weight(_text_:reference in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059705656 = score(doc=604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.31464687 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

iQvoc is a new open source SKOS-XL vocabulary management tool developed by the Federal Environment Agency, Germany, and innoQ Deutschland GmbH. Its immediate purpose is maintaining and publishing reference vocabularies in the upcoming Linked Data cloud of environmental information, but it may be easily adapted to host any SKOS- XL compliant vocabulary. iQvoc is implemented as a Ruby on Rails application running on top of JRuby - the Java implementation of the Ruby Programming Language. To increase the user experience when editing content, iQvoc uses heavily the JavaScript library jQuery.

0.0147733195 = product of:
  0.059093278 = sum of:
    0.059093278 = weight(_text_:reference in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059093278 = score(doc=549,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.31141967 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

LCSH is known as such since 1975. It always has created headings to serve the LC collections instead of a theoretical basis. It started to replace cross reference codes by thesaural codes in 1986, in a mechanical fashion. It was in no way transformed into a thesaurus. Its encyclopedic coverage, its pre-coordinate concepts make it substantially distinct, considering that thesauri usually map a restricted field of knowledge and use uniterms. The questions raised are whether the new symbols comply with thesaurus standards and if they are true to one or to several models. Explanations and definitions from other lists of subject headings and thesauri, literature in the field of classification and subject indexing will provide some answers. For instance, see refers from a subject heading not used to another or others used. Exceptionally it will lead from a specific term to a more general one. Some equate a see reference with the equivalence relationship. Such relationships are pointed by USE in LCSH. See also references are made from the broader subject to narrower parts of it and also between associated subjects. They suggest lateral or vertical connexions as well as reciprocal relationships. They serve a coordination purpose for some, lay down a methodical search itinerary for others. Since their inception in the 1950's thesauri have been devised for indexing and retrieving information in the fields of science and technology. Eventually they attended to a number of social sciences and humanities. Research derived from thesauri was voluminous. Numerous guidelines are designed. They did not discriminate between the "hard" sciences and the social sciences. RT relationships are widely but diversely used in numerous controlled vocabularies. LCSH's aim is to achieve a list almost free of RT and SA references. It thus restricts relationships to BT/NT, USE and UF. This raises the question as to whether all fields of knowledge can "fit" in the Procrustean bed of RT/NT, i.e., genus/species relationships. Standard codes were devised. It was soon realized that BT/NT, well suited to the genus/species couple could not signal a whole-part relationship. In LCSH, BT and NT function as reciprocals, the whole-part relationship is taken into account by ISO. It is amply elaborated upon by authors. The part-whole connexion is sometimes studied apart. The decision to replace cross reference codes was an improvement. Relations can now be distinguished through the distinct needs of numerous fields of knowledge are not attended to. Topic inclusion, and topic-subtopic, could provide the missing link where genus/species or whole/part are inadequate. Distinct codes, BT/NT and whole/part, should be provided. Sorting relationships with mechanical means can only lead to confusion.

0.012794068 = product of:
  0.051176272 = sum of:
    0.051176272 = weight(_text_:reference in 5448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051176272 = score(doc=5448,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 5448, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5448)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this paper the possibility to develop a richer relational structure for thesauri is explored and described. The development of a new environmental thesaurus - EARTh (Environmental Applications Reference Thesaurus) - is serving as a case study for exploring the refinement of thesaurus relational structure by specialising standard relationships into different subtypes. Together with benefits and opportunities, implications and possible challenges that an expanded set of thesaurus relations may cause are evaluated.

0.010661725 = product of:
  0.0426469 = sum of:
    0.0426469 = weight(_text_:reference in 3575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0426469 = score(doc=3575,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 3575, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3575)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Presents a proposal for the long-range development of an open, multifunctional, multilingual system for integrated access to many kinds of knowledge about concepts and terminology. The system would draw on existing knowledge bases that are accessible through the Internet or on CD-ROM and on a common integrated distributed knowledge base that would grow incrementally over time. Existing knowledge bases would be accessed througha common interface that would search several knowledge bases, collate the data into a common format, and present them to the user. The common integrated distributed knowldge base would provide an environment in which many contributors could carry out classification and terminological projects more efficiently, with the results available in a common format. Over time, data from other knowledge bases could be incorporated into the common knowledge base, either by actual transfer (provided the knowledge base producers are willing) or by reference through a link. Either way, such incorporation requires intellectual work but allows for tighter integration than common interface access to multiple knowledge bases. Each piece of information in the common knowledge base will have all its sources attached, providing an acknowledgment mechanism that gives due credit to all contributors. The whole system would be designed to be usable by many levels of users for improved information exchange.

0.010661725 = product of:
  0.0426469 = sum of:
    0.0426469 = weight(_text_:reference in 3576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0426469 = score(doc=3576,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 3576, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3576)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper presents a proposal for the long-range development of an open, multifunctional, multilingual system for integrated access to many kinds of knowledge about concepts and terminology. The system would draw on existing knowledge bases that are accessible through the Internet or on CD-ROM an on a common integrated distributed knowledge base that would grow incrementally over time. Existing knowledge bases would be accessed through a common interface that would search several knowledge bases, collate the data into a common format, and present them to the user. The common integrated distributed knowledge base would provide an environment in which many contributors could carry out classification and terminological projects more efficiently, with the results available in a common format. Over time, data from other knowledge bases could be incorporated into the common knowledge base, either by actual transfer (provided the knowledge base producers are willing) or by reference through a link. Either way, such incorporation requires intellectual work but allows for tighter integration than common interface access to multiple knowledge bases. Each piece of information in the common knowledge base will have all its sources attached, providing an acknowledgment mechanism that gives due credit to all contributors. The whole system woul be designed to be usable by many levels of users for improved information exchange.

0.010661725 = product of:
  0.0426469 = sum of:
    0.0426469 = weight(_text_:reference in 1386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0426469 = score(doc=1386,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 1386, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1386)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article seeks to resolve ambiguities and create a shared vocabulary with reference to classification-related terms. Due to the need to organize information in all disciplines, knowledge organization systems (KOSs) with varying attributes, content and structures have been developed independently in different domains. These scattered developments have given rise to a conglomeration of classification-related terms which are often used inconsistently both within and across different research fields. This terminological conundrum has impeded communication among researchers. To build the ideal Semantic Web, this problem will have to be surmounted. A common nomenclature is needed to incorporate the vast body of semantic information embedded in existing classifications when developing new systems and to facilitate interoperability among diverse systems. To bridge the terminological gap between the researchers and practitioners of disparate disciplines, we have identified five broad classes of KOSs: lists, taxonomies, lattices, thesauri and ontologies. We provide definitions of the terms catalogue, index, lexicon, knowledge base and topic map. After explaining the meaning and usage of these terms, we delineate how they relate to one another as well as to the different types of KOSs. Our definitions are not intended to replace established definitions but rather to clarify their respective meanings and to advocate their proper usage. In particular we caution against the indiscriminate use of the term ontology in contexts where, in our view, the term thesaurus would be more appropriate.

0.010661725 = product of:
  0.0426469 = sum of:
    0.0426469 = weight(_text_:reference in 2895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0426469 = score(doc=2895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 2895, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2895)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The article presents a method for automatic semantic indexing of archaeological grey-literature reports using empirical (rule-based) Information Extraction techniques in combination with domain-specific knowledge organization systems. The semantic annotation system (OPTIMA) performs the tasks of Named Entity Recognition, Relation Extraction, Negation Detection, and Word-Sense Disambiguation using hand-crafted rules and terminological resources for associating contextual abstractions with classes of the standard ontology CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM) for cultural heritage and its archaeological extension, CRM-EH. Relation Extraction (RE) performance benefits from a syntactic-based definition of RE patterns derived from domain oriented corpus analysis. The evaluation also shows clear benefit in the use of assistive natural language processing (NLP) modules relating to Word-Sense Disambiguation, Negation Detection, and Noun Phrase Validation, together with controlled thesaurus expansion. The semantic indexing results demonstrate the capacity of rule-based Information Extraction techniques to deliver interoperable semantic abstractions (semantic annotations) with respect to the CIDOC CRM and archaeological thesauri. Major contributions include recognition of relevant entities using shallow parsing NLP techniques driven by a complimentary use of ontological and terminological domain resources and empirical derivation of context-driven RE rules for the recognition of semantic relationships from phrases of unstructured text.

0.010661725 = product of:
  0.0426469 = sum of:
    0.0426469 = weight(_text_:reference in 3437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0426469 = score(doc=3437,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 3437, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3437)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The idea of constructing science maps based on bibliographic data has intrigued researchers for decades, and various techniques have been developed to map the structure of research disciplines. Most science mapping studies use a single method. However, as research fields have various properties, a valid map of a field should actually be composed of a set of maps derived from a series of investigations using different methods. That leads to the question of what can be learned from a combination-triangulation-of these different science maps. In this paper we propose a method for triangulation, using the example of water science. We combine three different mapping approaches: journal-journal citation relations (JJCR), shared author keywords (SAK), and title word-cited reference co-occurrence (TWRC). Our results demonstrate that triangulation of JJCR, SAK, and TWRC produces a more comprehensive picture than each method applied individually. The outcomes from the three different approaches can be associated with each other and systematically interpreted to provide insights into the complex multidisciplinary structure of the field of water research.

0.010661725 = product of:
  0.0426469 = sum of:
    0.0426469 = weight(_text_:reference in 5854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0426469 = score(doc=5854,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 5854, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5854)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The quantitative evaluation of thesauri has been carried out much further since 1976. This type of evaluation is based on counting of special factors in thesaurus structure, some of which are counting preferred terms, non preferred terms, cross reference terms and so on. Therefore, various statistical tests have been proposed and applied for evaluation of thesauri. In this article, we try to explain some ratios in the field of unity quantitative evaluation in a thesaurus term network. Theoretical base of the ratios' indicators and indices construction, and epistemological thought in this type of quantitative evaluation, are discussed in this article. The theoretical base of quantitative evaluation is the epistemological thought of Immanuel Kant's Critique of pure reason. The cognition states of transcendental understanding are divided into three steps, the first is perception, the second combination and the third, relation making. Terms relation domains and conceptual relation domains can be analyzed with ratios. The use of quantitative evaluations in current research in the field of thesaurus construction prepares a basis for a restoration period. In modern thesaurus construction, traditional term relations are analyzed in detail in the form of new conceptual relations. Hence, the new domains of hierarchical and associative relations are constructed in the form of relations between concepts. The newly formed conceptual domains can be a suitable basis for quantitative evaluation analysis in conceptual relations.

0.009707294 = product of:
  0.038829178 = sum of:
    0.038829178 = product of:
      0.077658355 = sum of:
        0.077658355 = weight(_text_:services in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.077658355 = score(doc=2661,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.45351148 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.007899084 = product of:
  0.031596337 = sum of:
    0.031596337 = product of:
      0.06319267 = sum of:
        0.06319267 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06319267 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, 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=6089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Pages

S.11-22