Search (133 results, page 1 of 7)

0.022141643 = product of:
  0.06642493 = sum of:
    0.06642493 = sum of:
      0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018938582 = score(doc=4685,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 4685, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4685)
      0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047486346 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4685, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4685)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This document contains and presents test cases for the Web Ontology Language (OWL) approved by the Web Ontology Working Group. Many of the test cases illustrate the correct usage of the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and the formal meaning of its constructs. Other test cases illustrate the resolution of issues considered by the Working Group. Conformance for OWL documents and OWL document checkers is specified.

Date

14. 8.2011 13:33:22

0.02002593 = product of:
  0.060077786 = sum of:
    0.060077786 = sum of:
      0.018527232 = weight(_text_:of in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018527232 = score(doc=2654,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
      0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041550554 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Faceted Knowledge Representation provides a formalism for implementing knowledge systems. The basic notions of faceted knowledge representation are "unit", "relation", "facet" and "interpretation". Units are atomic elements and can be abstract elements or refer to external objects in an application. Relations are sequences or matrices of 0 and 1's (binary matrices). Facets are relational structures that combine units and relations. Each facet represents an aspect or viewpoint of a knowledge system. Interpretations are mappings that can be used to translate between different representations. This paper introduces the basic notions of faceted knowledge representation. The formalism is applied here to an abstract modeling of a faceted thesaurus as used in information retrieval.

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31

0.019723108 = product of:
  0.059169322 = sum of:
    0.059169322 = sum of:
      0.023554565 = weight(_text_:of in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023554565 = score(doc=4649,freq=22.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
            4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
              22.0 = termFreq=22.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4649, 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=4649)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

More and more cultural heritage institutions publish their collections, vocabularies and metadata on the Web. The resulting Web of linked cultural data opens up exciting new possibilities for searching and browsing through these cultural heritage collections. We report on ongoing work in which we investigate the estimation of relevance in this Web of Culture. We study existing measures of semantic distance and how they apply to two use cases. The use cases relate to the structured, multilingual and multimodal nature of the Culture Web. We distinguish between measures using the Web, such as Google distance and PMI, and measures using the Linked Data Web, i.e. the semantic structure of metadata vocabularies. We perform a small study in which we compare these semantic distance measures to human judgements of relevance. Although it is too early to draw any definitive conclusions, the study provides new insights into the applicability of semantic distance measures to the Web of Culture, and clear starting points for further research.

Date

26.12.2011 13:40:22

0.019723108 = product of:
  0.059169322 = sum of:
    0.059169322 = sum of:
      0.023554565 = weight(_text_:of in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023554565 = score(doc=2655,freq=22.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
            4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
              22.0 = termFreq=22.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2655, 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=2655)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The term "facet" was introduced into the field of library classification systems by Ranganathan in the 1930's [Ranganathan, 1962]. A facet is a viewpoint or aspect. In contrast to traditional classification systems, faceted systems are modular in that a domain is analyzed in terms of baseline facets which are then synthesized. In this paper, the term "facet" is used in a broader meaning. Facets can describe different aspects on the same level of abstraction or the same aspect on different levels of abstraction. The notion of facets is related to database views, multicontexts and conceptual scaling in formal concept analysis [Ganter and Wille, 1999], polymorphism in object-oriented design, aspect-oriented programming, views and contexts in description logic and semantic networks. This paper presents a definition of facets in terms of faceted knowledge representation that incorporates the traditional narrower notion of facets and potentially facilitates translation between different knowledge representation formalisms. A goal of this approach is a modular, machine-aided knowledge base design mechanism. A possible application is faceted thesaurus construction for information retrieval and data mining. Reasoning complexity depends on the size of the modules (facets). A more general analysis of complexity will be left for future research.

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31

0.019357719 = product of:
  0.058073156 = sum of:
    0.058073156 = sum of:
      0.022458395 = weight(_text_:of in 1652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022458395 = score(doc=1652,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 1652, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1652)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 1652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=1652,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1652, 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=1652)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This document is the formal definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model ("CRM"), a formal ontology intended to facilitate the integration, mediation and interchange of heterogeneous cultural heritage information. The CRM is the culmination of more than a decade of standards development work by the International Committee for Documentation (CIDOC) of the International Council of Museums (ICOM). Work on the CRM itself began in 1996 under the auspices of the ICOM-CIDOC Documentation Standards Working Group. Since 2000, development of the CRM has been officially delegated by ICOM-CIDOC to the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group, which collaborates with the ISO working group ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 to bring the CRM to the form and status of an International Standard.

Date

6. 8.2010 14:22:28

0.018633895 = product of:
  0.055901684 = sum of:
    0.055901684 = sum of:
      0.014351131 = weight(_text_:of in 4330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014351131 = score(doc=4330,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 4330, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4330)
      0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 4330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041550554 = score(doc=4330,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4330, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4330)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

One vision of the Semantic Web is that it will be much like the Web we know today, except that documents will be enriched by annotations in machine understandable markup. These annotations will provide metadata about the documents as well as machine interpretable statements capturing some of the meaning of document content. We discuss how the information retrieval paradigm might be recast in such an environment. We suggest that retrieval can be tightly bound to inference. Doing so makes today's Web search engines useful to Semantic Web inference engines, and causes improvements in either retrieval or inference to lead directly to improvements in the other.

Date

12. 2.2011 17:35:22

0.017165082 = product of:
  0.051495243 = sum of:
    0.051495243 = sum of:
      0.015880484 = weight(_text_:of in 3261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015880484 = score(doc=3261,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 3261, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3261)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 3261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=3261,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3261, 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=3261)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ontologies improve IR systems regarding its retrieval and presentation of information, which make the task of finding information more effective, efficient, and interactive. In this paper we argue that ontologies also greatly improve the engineering of such systems. We created a framework that uses ontology to drive the process of engineering an IR system. We developed a prototype that shows how a domain specialist without knowledge in the IR field can build an IR system with interactive components. The resulting system provides support for users not only to find their information needs but also to extend their state of knowledge. This way, our approach to ontology-enabled information retrieval addresses both the engineering aspect described here and also the usability aspect described elsewhere.

Date

28.11.2016 12:43:22

0.016606232 = product of:
  0.049818695 = sum of:
    0.049818695 = sum of:
      0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014203937 = score(doc=4820,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 4820, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4820)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4820, 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=4820)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

One of the major problems facing systems for Computer Aided Design (CAD), Architecture Engineering and Construction (AEC) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) applications today is the lack of interoperability among the various systems. When integrating software applications, substantial di culties can arise in translating information from one application to the other. In this paper, we focus on semantic di culties that arise in software integration. Applications may use di erent terminologies to describe the same domain. Even when appli-cations use the same terminology, they often associate di erent semantics with the terms. This obstructs information exchange among applications. To cir-cumvent this obstacle, we need some way of explicitly specifying the semantics for each terminology in an unambiguous fashion. Ontologies can provide such specification. It will be the task of this paper to explain what ontologies are and how they can be used to facilitate interoperability between software systems used in computer aided design, architecture engineering and construction, and geographic information processing.

Date

3.12.2016 18:39:22

0.014304235 = product of:
  0.042912703 = sum of:
    0.042912703 = sum of:
      0.013233736 = weight(_text_:of in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013233736 = score(doc=4553,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
      0.029678967 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029678967 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4553, 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=4553)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Semantic Web knowledge representation standards, and in particular RDF and OWL, often come endowed with a formal semantics which is considered to be of fundamental importance for the field. Reasoning, i.e., the drawing of logical inferences from knowledge expressed in such standards, is traditionally based on logical deductive methods and algorithms which can be proven to be sound and complete and terminating, i.e. correct in a very strong sense. For various reasons, though, in particular the scalability issues arising from the ever increasing amounts of Semantic Web data available and the inability of deductive algorithms to deal with noise in the data, it has been argued that alternative means of reasoning should be investigated which bear high promise for high scalability and better robustness. From this perspective, deductive algorithms can be considered the gold standard regarding correctness against which alternative methods need to be tested. In this paper, we show that it is possible to train a Deep Learning system on RDF knowledge graphs, such that it is able to perform reasoning over new RDF knowledge graphs, with high precision and recall compared to the deductive gold standard.

Date

16.11.2018 14:22:01

0.009892989 = product of:
  0.029678967 = sum of:
    0.029678967 = product of:
      0.059357934 = sum of:
        0.059357934 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059357934 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, 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=539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:07

0.0055237534 = product of:
  0.01657126 = sum of:
    0.01657126 = product of:
      0.03314252 = sum of:
        0.03314252 = weight(_text_:of in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03314252 = score(doc=572,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.48376274 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
              5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                32.0 = termFreq=32.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We consider use of ontological background knowledge in intelligent information systems and analyze directions of their reduction in compliance with specifics of particular user task. Such reduction is aimed at simplification of knowledge processing without loss of significant information. We propose methods of generation of task thesauri based on domain ontology that contain such subset of ontological concepts and relations that can be used in task solving. Combinatorial optimization is used for minimization of task thesaurus. In this approach, semantic similarity estimates are used for determination of concept significance for user task. Some practical examples of optimized thesauri application for semantic retrieval and competence analysis demonstrate efficiency of proposed approach.

0.004463867 = product of:
  0.0133916 = sum of:
    0.0133916 = product of:
      0.0267832 = sum of:
        0.0267832 = weight(_text_:of in 1510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0267832 = score(doc=1510,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 1510, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1510)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Starting from an unsolved problem of information retrieval this paper presents an ontology-based model for indexing and retrieval. The model combines the methods and experiences of cognitive-to-interpret indexing languages with the strengths and possibilities of formal knowledge representation. The core component of the model uses inferences along the paths of typed relations between the entities of a knowledge representation for enabling the determination of hit quantities in the context of retrieval processes. The entities are arranged in aspect-oriented facets to ensure a consistent hierarchical structure. The possible consequences for indexing and retrieval are discussed.

0.004175565 = product of:
  0.012526695 = sum of:
    0.012526695 = product of:
      0.02505339 = sum of:
        0.02505339 = weight(_text_:of in 792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02505339 = score(doc=792,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 792, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=792)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Based on an in-depth analysis of existing approaches in building ontology-based query systems we discuss and compare the methods, approaches to be used in current query systems using Ontology or the Semantic Web techniques. This paper identifies various relevant research directions in ontology-based querying research. Based on the results of our investigation we summarise the state of the art ontology-based query/search and name areas of further research activities.

0.004175565 = product of:
  0.012526695 = sum of:
    0.012526695 = product of:
      0.02505339 = sum of:
        0.02505339 = weight(_text_:of in 2862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02505339 = score(doc=2862,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 2862, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper evaluates the use of an explicit domain ontology in an information retrieval tool. The evaluation compares the performance of ontology-enhanced retrieval with keyword retrieval for a fixed set of queries across several data sets. The robustness of the IR approach is assessed by comparing the performance of the tool on the original data set with that on previously unseen data.

Content

Beitrag für: Workshop on the Applications of Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods, (eds) Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R., Guarino, N., and Uschold, M. European Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2000, Berlin.

0.004142815 = product of:
  0.012428444 = sum of:
    0.012428444 = product of:
      0.024856888 = sum of:
        0.024856888 = weight(_text_:of in 4724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024856888 = score(doc=4724,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 4724, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4724)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Topic maps are a new ISO standard for describing knowledge structures and associating them with information resources. As such they constitute an enabling technology for knowledge management. Dubbed "the GPS of the information universe", topic maps are also destined to provide powerful new ways of navigating large and interconnected corpora. While it is possible to represent immensely complex structures using topic maps, the basic concepts of the model - Topics, Associations, and Occurrences (TAO) - are easily grasped. This paper provides a non-technical introduction to these and other concepts (the IFS and BUTS of topic maps), relating them to things that are familiar to all of us from the realms of publishing and information management, and attempting to convey some idea of the uses to which topic maps will be put in the future.

0.003945538 = product of:
  0.0118366135 = sum of:
    0.0118366135 = product of:
      0.023673227 = sum of:
        0.023673227 = weight(_text_:of in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023673227 = score(doc=1154,freq=50.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
              7.071068 = tf(freq=50.0), with freq of:
                50.0 = termFreq=50.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this thesis, we will present methods for introducing ontologies in information retrieval. The main hypothesis is that the inclusion of conceptual knowledge such as ontologies in the information retrieval process can contribute to the solution of major problems currently found in information retrieval. This utilization of ontologies has a number of challenges. Our focus is on the use of similarity measures derived from the knowledge about relations between concepts in ontologies, the recognition of semantic information in texts and the mapping of this knowledge into the ontologies in use, as well as how to fuse together the ideas of ontological similarity and ontological indexing into a realistic information retrieval scenario. To achieve the recognition of semantic knowledge in a text, shallow natural language processing is used during indexing that reveals knowledge to the level of noun phrases. Furthermore, we briefly cover the identification of semantic relations inside and between noun phrases, as well as discuss which kind of problems are caused by an increase in compoundness with respect to the structure of concepts in the evaluation of queries. Measuring similarity between concepts based on distances in the structure of the ontology is discussed. In addition, a shared nodes measure is introduced and, based on a set of intuitive similarity properties, compared to a number of different measures. In this comparison the shared nodes measure appears to be superior, though more computationally complex. Some of the major problems of shared nodes which relate to the way relations differ with respect to the degree they bring the concepts they connect closer are discussed. A generalized measure called weighted shared nodes is introduced to deal with these problems. Finally, the utilization of concept similarity in query evaluation is discussed. A semantic expansion approach that incorporates concept similarity is introduced and a generalized fuzzy set retrieval model that applies expansion during query evaluation is presented. While not commonly used in present information retrieval systems, it appears that the fuzzy set model comprises the flexibility needed when generalizing to an ontology-based retrieval model and, with the introduction of a hierarchical fuzzy aggregation principle, compound concepts can be handled in a straightforward and natural manner.

Content

A dissertation Presented to the Faculties of Roskilde University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Vgl. unter: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.117.987 oder http://coitweb.uncc.edu/~ras/RS/Onto-Retrieval.pdf.

0.003925761 = product of:
  0.011777283 = sum of:
    0.011777283 = product of:
      0.023554565 = sum of:
        0.023554565 = weight(_text_:of in 4682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023554565 = score(doc=4682,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 4682, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4682)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The OWL Web Ontology Language is designed for use by applications that need to process the content of information instead of just presenting information to humans. OWL facilitates greater machine interpretability of Web content than that supported by XML, RDF, and RDF Schema (RDF-S) by providing additional vocabulary along with a formal semantics. OWL has three increasingly-expressive sublanguages: OWL Lite, OWL DL, and OWL Full. This document is written for readers who want a first impression of the capabilities of OWL. It provides an introduction to OWL by informally describing the features of each of the sublanguages of OWL. Some knowledge of RDF Schema is useful for understanding this document, but not essential. After this document, interested readers may turn to the OWL Guide for more detailed descriptions and extensive examples on the features of OWL. The normative formal definition of OWL can be found in the OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax.

0.003925761 = product of:
  0.011777283 = sum of:
    0.011777283 = product of:
      0.023554565 = sum of:
        0.023554565 = weight(_text_:of in 2259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023554565 = score(doc=2259,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 2259, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2259)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

An ontology is "an explicit conceptualization of a domain of discourse, and thus provides a shared and common understanding of the domain." We have been producing ontologies for millennia to understand and explain our rationale and environment. From Plato's philosophical framework to modern day classification systems, ontologies are, in most cases, the product of extensive analysis and categorization. Only recently has the process of building ontologies become a research topic of interest. Today, ontologies are built very much ad-hoc. A terminology is first developed providing a controlled vocabulary for the subject area or domain of interest, then it is organized into a taxonomy where key concepts are identified, and finally these concepts are defined and related to create an ontology. The intent of this paper is to show that domain analysis methods can be used for building ontologies. Domain analysis aims at generic models that represent groups of similar systems within an application domain. In this sense, it deals with categorization of common objects and operations, with clear, unambiguous definitions of them and with defining their relationships.

0.003925761 = product of:
  0.011777283 = sum of:
    0.011777283 = product of:
      0.023554565 = sum of:
        0.023554565 = weight(_text_:of in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023554565 = score(doc=5365,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Wikipedia categories, a classification scheme built for organizing and describing Wikpedia articles, are being applied in computer science research. This paper adopts a systematic literature review approach, in order to identify different approaches and uses of Wikipedia categories in information retrieval research. Several types of work are identified, depending on the intrinsic study of the categories structure, or its use as a tool for the processing and analysis of other documentary corpus different to Wikipedia. Information retrieval is identified as one of the major areas of use, in particular its application in the refinement and improvement of search expressions, and the construction of textual corpus. However, the set of available works shows that in many cases research approaches applied and results obtained can be integrated into a comprehensive and inclusive concept of information retrieval.

0.0038202507 = product of:
  0.011460752 = sum of:
    0.011460752 = product of:
      0.022921504 = sum of:
        0.022921504 = weight(_text_:of in 3743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022921504 = score(doc=3743,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 3743, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3743)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In 2008 the FRBR/CRM Harmonisation Working Group has achieved a major milestone: a complete version of the object-oriented definition of FRBR (FRBRoo) was released for comment. After a brief overview of the history and context of the Working Group, this paper focuses on the primary contributions resulting from this work. - FRBRoo is a self-contained document which expresses the concepts of FRBR using the objectoriented methodology and framework of CIDOC CRM. It is an alternative view on library conceptualisation for a different purpose, not a replacement for FRBR. - This 'translation' process presented an opportunity to verify and confirm FRBR's internal consistency. - FRBRoo offers a common view of library and museum documentation as two kinds of information from memory institutions. Such a common view is necessary to provide interoperable information systems for all users interested in accessing common or related content. - The analysis provided an opportunity for mutual enrichment of FRBR and CIDOC CRM. Examples include: - - Addition of the modelling of time and events to FRBR, which can be seen in its application to the publishing process - - Clarification of the manifestation entity - - Explicit modelling of performances and recordings in FRBR - - Adding the work entity to CRM - - Adding the identifier assignment process to CRM. - Producing a formalisation which is more suited for implementation with object-oriented tools, and which facilitates the testing and adoption of FRBR concepts in implementations with different functional specifications and in different environments.