Search (184 results, page 1 of 10)

0.094059676 = product of:
  0.28217903 = sum of:
    0.07054476 = product of:
      0.21163426 = sum of:
        0.21163426 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21163426 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37656134 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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)
    0.21163426 = weight(_text_:2f in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21163426 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37656134 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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(2/6)

Content

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

0.06657317 = product of:
  0.13314635 = sum of:
    0.04434892 = weight(_text_:web in 4342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04434892 = score(doc=4342,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 4342, 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=4342)
    0.039323866 = weight(_text_:computer in 4342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039323866 = score(doc=4342,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24226204 = fieldWeight in 4342, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4342)
    0.049473554 = product of:
      0.09894711 = sum of:
        0.09894711 = weight(_text_:programs in 4342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09894711 = score(doc=4342,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25748047 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.38428974 = fieldWeight in 4342, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4342)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

The Semantic Web consists of data structured for use by computer programs, such as data sets made available under the Linked Open Data initiative. Much of this data is structured following the entity-relationship model encoded in RDF for syntactic interoperability. For semantic interoperability, the semantics of the relationships used in any given dataset needs to be made explicit. Ultimately this requires an inventory of these relationships structured around a relation ontology. This talk will outline a blueprint for such an inventory, including a format for the description/definition of binary and n-ary relations, drawing on ideas put forth in the classification and thesaurus community over the last 60 years, upper level ontologies, systems like FrameNet, the Buffalo Relation Ontology, and an analysis of linked data sets.

0.060048036 = product of:
  0.12009607 = sum of:
    0.062718846 = weight(_text_:web in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062718846 = score(doc=2418,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 2418, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2418)
    0.039323866 = weight(_text_:computer in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039323866 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24226204 = fieldWeight in 2418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2418)
    0.01805336 = product of:
      0.03610672 = sum of:
        0.03610672 = weight(_text_:22 in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610672 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2418, 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=2418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

Integrated digital access to multiple collections is a prominent issue for many Cultural Heritage institutions. The metadata describing diverse collections must be interoperable, which requires aligning the controlled vocabularies that are used to annotate objects from these collections. In this paper, we present an experiment where we match the vocabularies of two collections by applying the Knowledge Representation techniques established in recent Semantic Web research. We discuss the steps that are required for such matching, namely formalising the initial resources using Semantic Web languages, and running ontology mapping tools on the resulting representations. In addition, we present a prototype that enables the user to browse the two collections using the obtained alignment while still providing her with the original vocabulary structures.

Series

Lecture notes in computer science; vol.4172

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006

Theme

Semantic Web

0.054778837 = product of:
  0.10955767 = sum of:
    0.04816959 = weight(_text_:wide in 2831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04816959 = score(doc=2831,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 2831, 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=2831)
    0.04634362 = weight(_text_:computer in 2831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04634362 = score(doc=2831,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28550854 = fieldWeight in 2831, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2831)
    0.0150444675 = product of:
      0.030088935 = sum of:
        0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 2831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030088935 = score(doc=2831,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2831, 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=2831)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to develop an ontology-based framework for developing an information retrieval system to cater to specific queries of users. For creating such an ontology, information was obtained from a wide range of information sources involved with brain tumour study and research. The information thus obtained was compiled and analysed to provide a standard, reliable and relevant information base to aid our proposed system. Facet-based methodology has been used for ontology formalization for quite some time. Ontology formalization involves different steps such as identification of the terminology, analysis, synthesis, standardization and ordering. A vast majority of the ontologies being developed nowadays lack flexibility. This becomes a formidable constraint when it comes to interoperability. We found that a facet-based method provides a distinct guideline for the development of a robust and flexible model concerning the domain of brain tumours. Our attempt has been to bridge library and information science and computer science, which itself involved an experimental approach. It was discovered that a faceted approach is really enduring, as it helps in the achievement of properties like navigation, exploration and faceted browsing. Computer-based brain tumour ontology supports the work of researchers towards gathering information on brain tumour research and allows users across the world to intelligently access new scientific information quickly and efficiently.

Date

12. 3.2016 13:21:22

0.05187861 = product of:
  0.15563582 = sum of:
    0.10975798 = weight(_text_:web in 3939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10975798 = score(doc=3939,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.75719774 = fieldWeight in 3939, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3939)
    0.04587784 = weight(_text_:computer in 3939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04587784 = score(doc=3939,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28263903 = fieldWeight in 3939, 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=3939)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The Semantic Web has attracted much attention, both from academia and industry. An important role in research towards the Semantic Web is played by formalisms and technologies for handling uncertainty and/or vagueness. In this paper, I first provide some motivating examples for handling uncertainty and/or vagueness in the Semantic Web. I then give an overview of some own formalisms for handling uncertainty and/or vagueness in the Semantic Web.

Series

Lecture Notes in Computer Scienc;10370) (Information Systems and Applications, incl. Internet/Web, and HCI

Source

Reasoning Web: Semantic Interoperability on the Web, 13th International Summer School 2017, London, UK, July 7-11, 2017, Tutorial Lectures. Eds.: Ianni, G. et al

Theme

Semantic Web

0.048833784 = product of:
  0.14650135 = sum of:
    0.057803504 = weight(_text_:wide in 1638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057803504 = score(doc=1638,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 1638, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1638)
    0.08869784 = weight(_text_:web in 1638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08869784 = score(doc=1638,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 1638, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1638)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The Web of Data keeps growing rapidly. However, the full exploitation of this large amount of structured data faces numerous challenges like usability, scalability, imprecise information needs and data change. We present Semplore, an IR-based system that aims at addressing these issues. Semplore supports intuitive faceted search and complex queries both on text and structured data. It combines imprecise keyword search and precise structured query in a unified ranking scheme. Scalable query processing is supported by leveraging inverted indexes traditionally used in IR systems. This is combined with a novel block-based index structure to support efficient index update when data changes. The experimental results show that Semplore is an efficient and effective system for searching the Web of Data and can be used as a basic infrastructure for Web-scale Semantic Web search engines.

Source

Web semantics: science, services and agents on the World Wide Web. 7(2009) no.3, S.177-188

Theme

Semantic Web

0.04241117 = product of:
  0.1272335 = sum of:
    0.03853567 = weight(_text_:wide in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03853567 = score(doc=4404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 4404, 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=4404)
    0.08869784 = weight(_text_:web in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08869784 = score(doc=4404,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Significant progress has been made in technologies for publishing and distributing knowledge and information on the web. However, much of the published information is not organized, and it is hard to find answers to questions that require more than a keyword search. In general, one can say that the web is organizing itself. Information is often published in relatively ad hoc fashion. Typically, concern about the presentation of content has been limited to purely layout issues. This, combined with the fact that the representation language used on the World Wide Web (HTML) is mainly format-oriented, makes publishing on the WWW easy, giving it an enormous expressiveness. People add private, educational or organizational content to the web that is of an immensely diverse nature. Content on the web is growing closer to a real universal knowledge base, with one problem relatively undefined; the problem of the interpretation of its contents. Although widely acknowledged for its general and universal advantages, the increasing popularity of the web also shows us some major drawbacks. The developments of the information content on the web during the last year alone, clearly indicates the need for some changes. Perhaps one of the most significant problems with the web as a distributed information system is the difficulty of finding and comparing information.
Thus, there is a clear need for the web to become more semantic. The aim of introducing semantics into the web is to enhance the precision of search, but also enable the use of logical reasoning on web contents in order to answer queries. The CORPORUM OntoBuilder toolset is developed specifically for this task. It consists of a set of applications that can fulfil a variety of tasks, either as stand-alone tools, or augmenting each other. Important tasks that are dealt with by CORPORUM are related to document and information retrieval (find relevant documents, or support the user finding them), as well as information extraction (building a knowledge base from web documents to answer queries), information dissemination (summarizing strategies and information visualization), and automated document classification strategies. First versions of the toolset are encouraging in that they show large potential as a supportive technology for building up the Semantic Web. In this chapter, methods for transforming the current web into a semantic web are discussed, as well as a technical solution that can perform this task: the CORPORUM tool set. First, the toolset is introduced; followed by some pragmatic issues relating to the approach; then there will be a short overview of the theory in relation to CognIT's vision; and finally, a discussion on some of the applications that arose from the project.

Source

Towards the semantic Web: ontology-driven knowledge management. Eds.: J. Davies, u.a

Theme

Semantic Web

0.04017412 = product of:
  0.12052235 = sum of:
    0.057803504 = weight(_text_:wide in 229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057803504 = score(doc=229,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 229, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=229)
    0.062718846 = weight(_text_:web in 229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062718846 = score(doc=229,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 229, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=229)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

While much of a company's knowledge can be found in text repositories, current content management systems have limited capabilities for structuring and interpreting documents. In the emerging Semantic Web, search, interpretation and aggregation can be addressed by ontology-based semantic mark-up. In this paper, we examine semantic annotation, identify a number of requirements, and review the current generation of semantic annotation systems. This analysis shows that, while there is still some way to go before semantic annotation tools will be able to address fully all the knowledge management needs, research in the area is active and making good progress.

Source

Web semantics: science, services and agents on the World Wide Web. 4(2006) no.1, S.14-28

Theme

Semantic Web

0.040068593 = product of:
  0.080137186 = sum of:
    0.03853567 = weight(_text_:wide in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03853567 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 1634, 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=1634)
    0.029565949 = weight(_text_:web in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029565949 = score(doc=1634,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
    0.012035574 = product of:
      0.024071148 = sum of:
        0.024071148 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024071148 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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(3/6)

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

Theme

Semantic Web

0.039814256 = product of:
  0.11944277 = sum of:
    0.08667288 = weight(_text_:web in 231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08667288 = score(doc=231,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.59793836 = fieldWeight in 231, 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=231)
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 231, 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=231)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

As an extension to the current Web, Semantic Web will not only contain structured data with machine understandable semantics but also textual information. While structured queries can be used to find information more precisely on the Semantic Web, keyword searches are still needed to help exploit textual information. It thus becomes very important that we can combine precise structured queries with imprecise keyword searches to have a hybrid query capability. In addition, due to the huge volume of information on the Semantic Web, the hybrid query must be processed in a very scalable way. In this paper, we define such a hybrid query capability that combines unary tree-shaped structured queries with keyword searches. We show how existing information retrieval (IR) index structures and functions can be reused to index semantic web data and its textual information, and how the hybrid query is evaluated on the index structure using IR engines in an efficient and scalable manner. We implemented this IR approach in an engine called Semplore. Comprehensive experiments on its performance show that it is a promising approach. It leads us to believe that it may be possible to evolve current web search engines to query and search the Semantic Web. Finally, we briefy describe how Semplore is used for searching Wikipedia and an IBM customer's product information.

Series

Lecture notes in computer science; 4825

Source

Proceeding ISWC'07/ASWC'07 : Proceedings of the 6th international The semantic web and 2nd Asian conference on Asian semantic web conference. Ed.: K. Aberer et al

Theme

Semantic Web

0.037393916 = product of:
  0.112181745 = sum of:
    0.04816959 = weight(_text_:wide in 3244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04816959 = score(doc=3244,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 3244, 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=3244)
    0.064012155 = weight(_text_:web in 3244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064012155 = score(doc=3244,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 3244, 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=3244)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This chapter discusses OIL and DAML1OIL, currently the most prominent ontology languages for the Semantic Web. The chapter starts by discussing the pyramid of languages that underlie the architecture of the Semantic Web (XML, RDF, RDFS). In section 2.2, we briefly describe XML, RDF and RDFS. We then discuss in more detail OIL and DAML1OIL, the first proposals for languages at the ontology layer of the semantic pyramid. For OIL (and to some extent DAML1OIL) we discuss the general design motivations (Section 2.3), describe the constructions in the language (Section 2.4), and the various syntactic forms of these languages (Section 2.5). Section 2.6 discusses the layered architecture of the language, section 2.7 briefly mentions the formal semantics, section 2.8 discusses the transition from OIL to DAML+OIL, and section 2.9 concludes with our experience with the language to date and future development in the context of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). This chapter is not intended to give full and formal definitions of either the syntax or the semantics of OIL or DAML1OIL. Such definitions are already available elsewhere: http://www.ontoknowledge.org/oil/ for OIL and http://www.w3.org/submission/2001/12/ for DAML1OIL.

Source

Towards the semantic Web: ontology-driven knowledge management. Eds.: J. Davies, u.a

Theme

Semantic Web

0.03737321 = product of:
  0.11211963 = sum of:
    0.057803504 = weight(_text_:wide in 3404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057803504 = score(doc=3404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 3404, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3404)
    0.054316122 = weight(_text_:web in 3404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054316122 = score(doc=3404,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 3404, 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=3404)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Source

Web semantics: science, services and agents on the World Wide Web. 6(2008) no.3, S.203-217

Theme

Semantic Web

0.03737321 = product of:
  0.11211963 = sum of:
    0.057803504 = weight(_text_:wide in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057803504 = score(doc=761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
    0.054316122 = weight(_text_:web in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054316122 = score(doc=761,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 761, 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=761)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

In this paper, I have traced a series of evolutionary adaptations of FOL motivated entirely by its use by knowledge engineers to represent and share information on the Web culminating in the development of Common Logic. While the primary goal in this paper has been to document this evolution, it is arguable, I think that CL's syntactic and semantic egalitarianism better realizes the goal "topic neutrality" that a logic should ideally exemplify - understood, at least in part, as the idea that logic should as far as possible not itself embody any metaphysical presuppositions. Instead of retaining the traditional metaphysical divisions of FOL that reflect its Fregean origins, CL begins as it were with a single, metaphysically homogeneous domain in which, potentially, anything can play the traditional roles of object, property, relation, and function. Note that the effect of this is not to destroy traditional metaphysical divisions. Rather, it simply to refrain from building those divisions explicitly into one's logic; instead, such divisions are left to the user to introduce and enforce axiomatically in an explicit metaphysical theory.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.03553481 = product of:
  0.10660443 = sum of:
    0.04816959 = weight(_text_:wide in 3084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04816959 = score(doc=3084,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 3084, 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=3084)
    0.05843484 = weight(_text_:web in 3084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05843484 = score(doc=3084,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 3084, 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=3084)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Ontologies have moved beyond the domains of library science, philosophy, and knowledge representation. They are now the concerns of marketing departments, CEOs, and mainstream business. Research analyst companies such as Forrester Research report on the critical roles of ontologies in support of browsing and search for e-commerce and in support of interoperability for facilitation of knowledge management and configuration. One now sees ontologies used as central controlled vocabularies that are integrated into catalogues, databases, web publications, knowledge management applications, etc. Large ontologies are essential components in many online applications including search (such as Yahoo and Lycos), e-commerce (such as Amazon and eBay), configuration (such as Dell and PC-Order), etc. One also sees ontologies that have long life spans, sometimes in multiple projects (such as UMLS, SIC codes, etc.). Such diverse usage generates many implications for ontology environments. In this paper, we will discuss ontologies and requirements in their current instantiations on the web today. We will describe some desirable properties of ontologies. We will also discuss how both simple and complex ontologies are being and may be used to support varied applications. We will conclude with a discussion of emerging trends in ontologies and their environments and briefly mention our evolving ontology evolution environment.

Source

Spinning the Semantic Web: bringing the World Wide Web to its full potential. Eds.: D. Fensel u.a

Theme

Semantic Web

0.03553481 = product of:
  0.10660443 = sum of:
    0.04816959 = weight(_text_:wide in 4403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04816959 = score(doc=4403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 4403, 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=4403)
    0.05843484 = weight(_text_:web in 4403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05843484 = score(doc=4403,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 4403, 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=4403)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The resource description framework (RDF) is a W3C recommendation for the formulation of meta-data on the World Wide Web. RDF Schema (RDFS) extends this standard with the means to specify domain vocabulary and object structures. These techniques will enable the enrichment of the Web with machine-processable semantics, thus giving rise to what has been dubbed the Semantic Web. We have developed Sesame, an architecture for storage and querying of RDF and RDFS information. Sesame allows persistent storage of RDF data and schema information, and provides access methods to that information through export and querying modules. It features ways of caching information and offers support for concurrency control. This chapter is organized as follows: In Section 5.2 we discuss why a query language specifically tailored to RDF and RDFS is needed, over and above existing query languages such as XQuery. In Section 5.3 we look at Sesame's modular architecture in some detail. In Section 5.4 we give an overview of the SAIL API and a brief comparison to other RDF API approaches. Section 5.5 discusses our experiences with Sesame to date, and Section 5.6 looks into possible future developments. Finally, we provide our conclusions in Section 5.7.

Source

Towards the semantic Web: ontology-driven knowledge management. Eds.: J. Davies, u.a

Theme

Semantic Web

0.03401424 = product of:
  0.10204271 = sum of:
    0.062718846 = weight(_text_:web in 4703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062718846 = score(doc=4703,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 4703, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4703)
    0.039323866 = weight(_text_:computer in 4703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039323866 = score(doc=4703,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24226204 = fieldWeight in 4703, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4703)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

In Linked Data, the use of owl:sameAs is ubiquitous in interlinking data-sets. There is however, ongoing discussion about its use, and potential misuse, particularly with regards to interactions with inference. In fact, owl:sameAs can be viewed as encoding only one point on a scale of similarity, one that is often too strong for many of its current uses. We describe how referentially opaque contexts that do not allow inference exist, and then outline some varieties of referentially-opaque alternatives to owl:sameAs. Finally, we report on an empirical experiment over randomly selected owl:sameAs statements from the Web of data. This theoretical apparatus and experiment shed light upon how owl:sameAs is being used (and misused) on the Web of data.

Series

Lecture notes in computer science; 6496

Source

The Semantic Web - ISWC 2010. 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, Shanghai, China, November 7-11, 2010, Revised Selected Papers, Part I. Eds.: Peter F. Patel-Schneider et al

0.033970308 = product of:
  0.10191092 = sum of:
    0.06914103 = weight(_text_:web in 2793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06914103 = score(doc=2793,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.47698978 = fieldWeight in 2793, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2793)
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 2793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=2793,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 2793, 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=2793)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Computers have transformed from single isolated devices to entry points into a worldwide network of information exchange. Consequently, support in the exchange of data, information, and knowledge is becoming the key issue in computer technology today. The increasing volume of data available on the Web makes information retrieval a tedious and difficult task. Researchers are now exploring the possibility of creating a semantic web, in which meaning is made explicit, allowing machines to process and integrate web resources intelligently. The vision of the semantic web introduces the next generation of the Web by establishing a layer of machine-understandable data. The success of the semantic web depends on the easy creation, integration and use of semantic data, which will depend on web ontology. The faceted approach towards analyzing and representing knowledge given by S R Ranganathan would be useful in this regard. Ontology development in different fields is one such area where this approach given by Ranganathan could be applied. This paper presents a case of developing ontology for the field of banking.

0.033748515 = product of:
  0.10124554 = sum of:
    0.05449767 = weight(_text_:wide in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05449767 = score(doc=230,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.2769224 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
    0.04674787 = weight(_text_:web in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04674787 = score(doc=230,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.32250395 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Currently, techniques for content description and query processing in Information Retrieval (IR) are based on keywords, and therefore provide limited capabilities to capture the conceptualizations associated with user needs and contents. Aiming to solve the limitations of keyword-based models, the idea of conceptual search, understood as searching by meanings rather than literal strings, has been the focus of a wide body of research in the IR field. More recently, it has been used as a prototypical scenario (or even envisioned as a potential "killer app") in the Semantic Web (SW) vision, since its emergence in the late nineties. However, current approaches to semantic search developed in the SW area have not yet taken full advantage of the acquired knowledge, accumulated experience, and technological sophistication achieved through several decades of work in the IR field. Starting from this position, this work investigates the definition of an ontology-based IR model, oriented to the exploitation of domain Knowledge Bases to support semantic search capabilities in large document repositories, stressing on the one hand the use of fully fledged ontologies in the semantic-based perspective, and on the other hand the consideration of unstructured content as the target search space. The major contribution of this work is an innovative, comprehensive semantic search model, which extends the classic IR model, addresses the challenges of the massive and heterogeneous Web environment, and integrates the benefits of both keyword and semantic-based search. Additional contributions include: an innovative rank fusion technique that minimizes the undesired effects of knowledge sparseness on the yet juvenile SW, and the creation of a large-scale evaluation benchmark, based on TREC IR evaluation standards, which allows a rigorous comparison between IR and SW approaches. Conducted experiments show that our semantic search model obtained comparable and better performance results (in terms of MAP and P@10 values) than the best TREC automatic system.

Source

Web semantics: science, services and agents on the World Wide Web. 9(2011) no.4, S.434-452

Theme

Semantic Web

0.032555856 = product of:
  0.09766757 = sum of:
    0.03853567 = weight(_text_:wide in 700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03853567 = score(doc=700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 700, 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=700)
    0.059131898 = weight(_text_:web in 700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059131898 = score(doc=700,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 700, 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=700)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The Semantic Web realization depends on the availability of a critical mass of metadata for the web content, associated with the respective formal knowledge about the world. We claim that the Semantic Web, at its current stage of development, is in a state of a critical need of metadata generation and usage schemata that are specific, well-defined and easy to understand. This paper introduces our vision for a holistic architecture for semantic annotation, indexing, and retrieval of documents with regard to extensive semantic repositories. A system (called KIM), implementing this concept, is presented in brief and it is used for the purposes of evaluation and demonstration. A particular schema for semantic annotation with respect to real-world entities is proposed. The underlying philosophy is that a practical semantic annotation is impossible without some particular knowledge modelling commitments. Our understanding is that a system for such semantic annotation should be based upon a simple model of real-world entity classes, complemented with extensive instance knowledge. To ensure the efficiency, ease of sharing, and reusability of the metadata, we introduce an upper-level ontology (of about 250 classes and 100 properties), which starts with some basic philosophical distinctions and then goes down to the most common entity types (people, companies, cities, etc.). Thus it encodes many of the domain-independent commonsense concepts and allows straightforward domain-specific extensions. On the basis of the ontology, a large-scale knowledge base of entity descriptions is bootstrapped, and further extended and maintained. Currently, the knowledge bases usually scales between 105 and 106 descriptions. Finally, this paper presents a semantically enhanced information extraction system, which provides automatic semantic annotation with references to classes in the ontology and to instances. The system has been running over a continuously growing document collection (currently about 0.5 million news articles), so it has been under constant testing and evaluation for some time now. On the basis of these semantic annotations, we perform semantic based indexing and retrieval where users can mix traditional information retrieval (IR) queries and ontology-based ones. We argue that such large-scale, fully automatic methods are essential for the transformation of the current largely textual web into a Semantic Web.

Source

Web semantics: science, services and agents on the World Wide Web. 2(2004) no.1, S.49-79

Theme

Semantic Web

0.03253942 = product of:
  0.09761825 = sum of:
    0.05174041 = weight(_text_:web in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05174041 = score(doc=3293,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 3293, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3293)
    0.04587784 = weight(_text_:computer in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04587784 = score(doc=3293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28263903 = fieldWeight in 3293, 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=3293)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Ontology engineering encompasses the method, tools and techniques used to develop ontologies. Without requiring ontologies, linked data is driving a paradigm shift, bringing benefits and drawbacks to the publishing world. Ontologies may be heavyweight, supporting deep understanding of a domain, or lightweight, suited to simple classification of concepts and more adaptable for linked data. They also vary in domain specificity, usability and reusabilty. Hybrid vocabularies drawing elements from diverse sources often suffer from internally incompatible semantics. To serve linked data purposes, ontology engineering teams require a range of skills in philosophy, computer science, web development, librarianship and domain expertise.

Theme

Semantic Web