Search (21 results, page 1 of 2)

Tudhope, D.; Hodge, G.: Terminology registries (2007) 0.01

0.010752733 = product of:
  0.032258198 = sum of:
    0.032258198 = product of:
      0.064516395 = sum of:
        0.064516395 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064516395 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = 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

Pepper, S.: ¬The TAO of topic maps : finding the way in the age of infoglut (2002) 0.01
```
0.009861874 = product of:
  0.029585622 = sum of:
    0.029585622 = product of:
      0.059171245 = sum of:
        0.059171245 = weight(_text_:management in 4724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059171245 = score(doc=4724,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.36866072 = fieldWeight in 4724, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, 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.

OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases (2004) 0.01

0.008602187 = product of:
  0.02580656 = sum of:
    0.02580656 = product of:
      0.05161312 = sum of:
        0.05161312 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05161312 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date: 14. 8.2011 13:33:22

OWL Web Ontology Language Use Cases and Requirements (2004) 0.01

0.007969598 = product of:
  0.023908794 = sum of:
    0.023908794 = product of:
      0.047817588 = sum of:
        0.047817588 = weight(_text_:management in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047817588 = score(doc=4686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.29792285 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract: This document specifies usage scenarios, goals and requirements for a web ontology language. An ontology formally defines a common set of terms that are used to describe and represent a domain. Ontologies can be used by automated tools to power advanced services such as more accurate web search, intelligent software agents and knowledge management.

Mayfield, J.; Finin, T.: Information retrieval on the Semantic Web : integrating inference and retrieval 0.01

0.007526913 = product of:
  0.02258074 = sum of:
    0.02258074 = product of:
      0.04516148 = sum of:
        0.04516148 = weight(_text_:22 in 4330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04516148 = score(doc=4330,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date: 12. 2.2011 17:35:22

Priss, U.: Faceted knowledge representation (1999) 0.01

0.007526913 = product of:
  0.02258074 = sum of:
    0.02258074 = product of:
      0.04516148 = sum of:
        0.04516148 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04516148 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date: 22. 1.2016 17:30:31

Pepper, S.; Groenmo, G.O.: Towards a general theory of scope (2002) 0.01
```
0.007044196 = product of:
  0.021132588 = sum of:
    0.021132588 = product of:
      0.042265177 = sum of:
        0.042265177 = weight(_text_:management in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042265177 = score(doc=539,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Abstract

This paper is concerned with the issue of scope in topic maps. Topic maps are a form of knowledge representation suitable for solving a number of complex problems in the area of information management, ranging from findability (navigation and querying) to knowledge management and enterprise application integration (EAI). The topic map paradigm has its roots in efforts to understand the essential semantics of back-of-book indexes in order that they might be captured in a form suitable for computer processing. Once understood, the model of a back-of-book index was generalised in order to cover the needs of digital information, and extended to encompass glossaries and thesauri, as well as indexes. The resulting core model, of typed topics, associations, and occurrences, has many similarities with the semantic networks developed by the artificial intelligence community for representing knowledge structures. One key requirement of topic maps from the earliest days was to be able to merge indexes from disparate origins. This requirement accounts for two further concepts that greatly enhance the power of topic maps: subject identity and scope. This paper concentrates on scope, but also includes a brief discussion of the feature known as the topic naming constraint, with which it is closely related. It is based on the authors' experience in creating topic maps (in particular, the Italian Opera Topic Map, and in implementing processing systems for topic maps (in particular, the Ontopia Topic Map Engine and Navigator.
Bandholtz, T.; Schulte-Coerne, T.; Glaser, R.; Fock, J.; Keller, T.: iQvoc - open source SKOS(XL) maintenance and publishing tool (2010) 0.01
```
0.0069733984 = product of:
  0.020920195 = sum of:
    0.020920195 = product of:
      0.04184039 = sum of:
        0.04184039 = weight(_text_:management in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04184039 = score(doc=604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
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.

Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (2003) 0.01

0.00645164 = product of:
  0.019354919 = sum of:
    0.019354919 = product of:
      0.038709838 = sum of:
        0.038709838 = weight(_text_:22 in 1652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038709838 = score(doc=1652,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date: 6. 8.2010 14:22:28

Hollink, L.; Assem, M. van: Estimating the relevance of search results in the Culture-Web : a study of semantic distance measures (2010) 0.01

0.00645164 = product of:
  0.019354919 = sum of:
    0.019354919 = product of:
      0.038709838 = sum of:
        0.038709838 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038709838 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date: 26.12.2011 13:40:22

Bittner, T.; Donnelly, M.; Winter, S.: Ontology and semantic interoperability (2006) 0.01

0.00645164 = product of:
  0.019354919 = sum of:
    0.019354919 = product of:
      0.038709838 = sum of:
        0.038709838 = weight(_text_:22 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038709838 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date: 3.12.2016 18:39:22

Priss, U.: Description logic and faceted knowledge representation (1999) 0.01

0.00645164 = product of:
  0.019354919 = sum of:
    0.019354919 = product of:
      0.038709838 = sum of:
        0.038709838 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038709838 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date: 22. 1.2016 17:30:31

Beppler, F.D.; Fonseca, F.T.; Pacheco, R.C.S.: Hermeneus: an architecture for an ontology-enabled information retrieval (2008) 0.01

0.00645164 = product of:
  0.019354919 = sum of:
    0.019354919 = product of:
      0.038709838 = sum of:
        0.038709838 = weight(_text_:22 in 3261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038709838 = score(doc=3261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date: 28.11.2016 12:43:22

Davies, J.; Weeks, R.; Krohn, U.: QuizRDF: search technology for the Semantic Web (2004) 0.01
```
0.0059771985 = product of:
  0.017931595 = sum of:
    0.017931595 = product of:
      0.03586319 = sum of:
        0.03586319 = weight(_text_:management in 4316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03586319 = score(doc=4316,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 4316, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4316)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Abstract

An information-seeking system is described which combines traditional keyword querying of WWW resources with the ability to browse and query against RDF annotations of those resources. RDF(S) and RDF are used to specify and populate an ontology and the resultant RDF annotations are then indexed along with the full text of the annotated resources. The resultant index allows both keyword querying against the full text of the document and the literal values occurring in the RDF annotations, along with the ability to browse and query the ontology. We motivate our approach as a key enabler for fully exploiting the Semantic Web in the area of knowledge management and argue that the ability to combine searching and browsing behaviours more fully supports a typical information-seeking task. The approach is characterised as "low threshold, high ceiling" in the sense that where RDF annotations exist they are exploited for an improved information-seeking experience but where they do not yet exist, a search capability is still available.

Monireh, E.; Sarker, M.K.; Bianchi, F.; Hitzler, P.; Doran, D.; Xie, N.: Reasoning over RDF knowledge bases using deep learning (2018) 0.01

0.0053763664 = product of:
  0.016129099 = sum of:
    0.016129099 = product of:
      0.032258198 = sum of:
        0.032258198 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032258198 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date: 16.11.2018 14:22:01

Davies, J.; Weeks, R.: QuizRDF: search technology for the Semantic Web (2004) 0.00
```
0.004980999 = product of:
  0.014942996 = sum of:
    0.014942996 = product of:
      0.029885992 = sum of:
        0.029885992 = weight(_text_:management in 4320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029885992 = score(doc=4320,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 4320, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4320)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Abstract

An information-seeking system is described which combines traditional keyword querying of WWW resources with the ability to browse and query against RD annotations of those resources. RDF(S) and RDF are used to specify and populate an ontology and the resultant RDF annotations are then indexed along with the full text of the annotated resources. The resultant index allows both keyword querying against the full text of the document and the literal values occurring in the RDF annotations, along with the ability to browse and query the ontology. We motivate our approach as a key enabler for fully exploiting the Semantic Web in the area of knowledge management and argue that the ability to combine searching and browsing behaviours more fully supports a typical information-seeking task. The approach is characterised as "low threshold, high ceiling" in the sense that where RDF annotations exist they are exploited for an improved information-seeking experience but where they do not yet exist, a search capability is still available.
Gómez-Pérez, A.; Corcho, O.: Ontology languages for the Semantic Web (2015) 0.00
```
0.004980999 = product of:
  0.014942996 = sum of:
    0.014942996 = product of:
      0.029885992 = sum of:
        0.029885992 = weight(_text_:management in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029885992 = score(doc=3297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Abstract

Ontologies have proven to be an essential element in many applications. They are used in agent systems, knowledge management systems, and e-commerce platforms. They can also generate natural language, integrate intelligent information, provide semantic-based access to the Internet, and extract information from texts in addition to being used in many other applications to explicitly declare the knowledge embedded in them. However, not only are ontologies useful for applications in which knowledge plays a key role, but they can also trigger a major change in current Web contents. This change is leading to the third generation of the Web-known as the Semantic Web-which has been defined as "the conceptual structuring of the Web in an explicit machine-readable way."1 This definition does not differ too much from the one used for defining an ontology: "An ontology is an explicit, machinereadable specification of a shared conceptualization."2 In fact, new ontology-based applications and knowledge architectures are developing for this new Web. A common claim for all of these approaches is the need for languages to represent the semantic information that this Web requires-solving the heterogeneous data exchange in this heterogeneous environment. Here, we don't decide which language is best of the Semantic Web. Rather, our goal is to help developers find the most suitable language for their representation needs. The authors analyze the most representative ontology languages created for the Web and compare them using a common framework.
Favato Barcelos, P.P.; Sales, T.P.; Fumagalli, M.; Guizzardi, G.; Valle Sousa, I.; Fonseca, C.M.; Romanenko, E.; Kritz, J.: ¬A FAIR model catalog for ontology-driven conceptual modeling research (2022) 0.00
```
0.004980999 = product of:
  0.014942996 = sum of:
    0.014942996 = product of:
      0.029885992 = sum of:
        0.029885992 = weight(_text_:management in 756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029885992 = score(doc=756,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 756, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=756)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Abstract

Conceptual models are artifacts representing conceptualizations of particular domains. Hence, multi-domain model catalogs serve as empirical sources of knowledge and insights about specific domains, about the use of a modeling language's constructs, as well as about the patterns and anti-patterns recurrent in the models of that language crosscutting different domains. However, to support domain and language learning, model reuse, knowledge discovery for humans, and reliable automated processing and analysis by machines, these catalogs must be built following generally accepted quality requirements for scientific data management. Especially, all scientific (meta)data-including models-should be created using the FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability). In this paper, we report on the construction of a FAIR model catalog for Ontology-Driven Conceptual Modeling research, a trending paradigm lying at the intersection of conceptual modeling and ontology engineering in which the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) and OntoUML emerged among the most adopted technologies. In this initial release, the catalog includes over a hundred models, developed in a variety of contexts and domains. The paper also discusses the research implications for (ontology-driven) conceptual modeling of such a resource.
Urs, S.R.; Angrosh, M.A.: Ontology-based knowledge organization systems in digital libraries : a comparison of experiments in OWL and KAON ontologies (2006 (?)) 0.00
```
0.003984799 = product of:
  0.011954397 = sum of:
    0.011954397 = product of:
      0.023908794 = sum of:
        0.023908794 = weight(_text_:management in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023908794 = score(doc=2799,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Abstract

Grounded on a strong belief that ontologies enhance the performance of information retrieval systems, there has been an upsurge of interest in ontologies. Its importance is identified in diverse research fields such as knowledge engineering, knowledge representation, qualitative modeling, language engineering, database design, information integration, object-oriented analysis, information retrieval and extraction, knowledge management and agent-based systems design (Guarino, 1998). While the role-played by ontologies, automatically lends a place of legitimacy for these tools, research in this area gains greater significance in the wake of various challenges faced in the contemporary digital environment. With the objective of overcoming various pitfalls associated with current search mechanisms, ontologies are increasingly used for developing efficient information retrieval systems. An indicator of research interest in the area of ontology is the Swoogle, a search engine for Semantic Web documents, terms and data found on the Web (Ding, Li et al, 2004). Given the complex nature of the digital content archived in digital libraries, ontologies can be employed for designing efficient forms of information retrieval in digital libraries. Knowledge representation assumes greater significance due to its crucial role in ontology development. These systems aid in developing intelligent information systems, wherein the notion of intelligence implies the ability of the system to find implicit consequences of its explicitly represented knowledge (Baader and Nutt, 2003). Knowledge representation formalisms such as 'Description Logics' are used to obtain explicit knowledge representation of the subject domain. These representations are developed into ontologies, which are used for developing intelligent information systems. Against this backdrop, the paper examines the use of Description Logics for conceptually modeling a chosen domain, which would be utilized for developing domain ontologies. The knowledge representation languages identified for this purpose are Web Ontology Language (OWL) and KArlsruhe ONtology (KAON) language. Drawing upon the various technical constructs in developing ontology-based information systems, the paper explains the working of the prototypes and also presents a comparative study of the two prototypes.
Frey, J.; Streitmatter, D.; Götz, F.; Hellmann, S.; Arndt, N.: DBpedia Archivo (2020) 0.00
```
0.0034866992 = product of:
  0.010460097 = sum of:
    0.010460097 = product of:
      0.020920195 = sum of:
        0.020920195 = weight(_text_:management in 53) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020920195 = score(doc=53,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.13034125 = fieldWeight in 53, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=53)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Content

# Community action on all ontologies (quality, FAIRness, conformity) Archivo is extensible and allows contributions to give consumers a central place to encode their requirements. We envision fostering adherence to standards and strengthening incentives for publishers to build a better (FAIRer) web of ontologies. 1. SHACL (https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/, co-edited by DBpedia's CTO D. Kontokostas) enables easy testing of ontologies. Archivo offers free SHACL continuous integration testing for ontologies. Anyone can implement their SHACL tests and add them to the SHACL library on Github. We believe that there are many synergies, i.e. SHACL tests for your ontology are helpful for others as well. 2. We are looking for ontology experts to join DBpedia and discuss further validation (e.g. stars) to increase FAIRness and quality of ontologies. We are forming a steering committee and also a PC for the upcoming Vocarnival at SEMANTiCS 2021. Please message hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de <mailto:hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>if you would like to join. We would like to extend the Archivo platform with relevant visualisations, tests, editing aides, mapping management tools and quality checks.

Search (21 results, page 1 of 2)

Authors

Years

Types

Themes