Search (93 results, page 1 of 5)

0.053565495 = product of:
  0.16069648 = sum of:
    0.07707134 = weight(_text_:wide in 3063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07707134 = score(doc=3063,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.3916274 = fieldWeight in 3063, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3063)
    0.08362513 = weight(_text_:web in 3063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08362513 = score(doc=3063,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 3063, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3063)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The Resource Description Framework (RDF) integrates a variety of applications from library catalogs and world-wide directories to syndication and aggregation of news, software, and content to personal collections of music, photos, and events using XML as an interchange syntax. The RDF specifications provide a lightweight ontology system to support the exchange of knowledge on the Web. The W3C Semantic Web Activity Statement explains W3C's plans for RDF, including the RDF Core WG, Web Ontology and the RDF Interest Group.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.049748734 = product of:
  0.1492462 = sum of:
    0.067437425 = weight(_text_:wide in 4684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067437425 = score(doc=4684,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 4684, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4684)
    0.081808776 = weight(_text_:web in 4684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081808776 = score(doc=4684,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.5643819 = fieldWeight in 4684, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4684)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The Web Ontology Language OWL is a semantic markup language for publishing and sharing ontologies on the World Wide Web. OWL is developed as a vocabulary extension of RDF (the Resource Description Framework) and is derived from the DAML+OIL Web Ontology Language. This document contains a structured informal description of the full set of OWL language constructs and is meant to serve as a reference for OWL users who want to construct OWL ontologies.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.049748734 = product of:
  0.1492462 = sum of:
    0.067437425 = weight(_text_:wide in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067437425 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
    0.081808776 = weight(_text_:web in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081808776 = score(doc=80,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.5643819 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The Semantic Web and ontologies can help archaeologists combine and share data, making it more open and useful. Archaeologists create diverse types of data, using a wide variety of technologies and methodologies. Like all research domains, these data are increasingly digital. The creation of data that are now openly and persistently available from disparate sources has also inspired efforts to bring archaeological resources together and make them more interoperable. This allows functionality such as federated cross-search across different datasets, and the mapping of heterogeneous data to authoritative structures to build a single data source. Ontologies provide the structure and relationships for Semantic Web data, and have been developed for use in cultural heritage applications generally, and archaeology specifically. A variety of online resources for archaeology now incorporate Semantic Web principles and technologies.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.045401078 = product of:
  0.13620323 = sum of:
    0.07707134 = weight(_text_:wide in 3064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07707134 = score(doc=3064,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.3916274 = fieldWeight in 3064, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3064)
    0.059131898 = weight(_text_:web in 3064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059131898 = score(doc=3064,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 3064, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3064)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a language for representing information about resources in the World Wide Web. This Primer is designed to provide the reader with the basic knowledge required to effectively use RDF. It introduces the basic concepts of RDF and describes its XML syntax. It describes how to define RDF vocabularies using the RDF Vocabulary Description Language, and gives an overview of some deployed RDF applications. It also describes the content and purpose of other RDF specification documents.

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

0.039188966 = product of:
  0.11756689 = sum of:
    0.09349574 = weight(_text_:web in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09349574 = score(doc=4685,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.6450079 = fieldWeight in 4685, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4685)
    0.024071148 = product of:
      0.048142295 = sum of:
        0.048142295 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048142295 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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(2/6)

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

Theme

Semantic Web

0.037393916 = product of:
  0.112181745 = sum of:
    0.04816959 = weight(_text_:wide in 4687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04816959 = score(doc=4687,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 4687, 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=4687)
    0.064012155 = weight(_text_:web in 4687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064012155 = score(doc=4687,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 4687, 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=4687)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The World Wide Web as it is currently constituted resembles a poorly mapped geography. Our insight into the documents and capabilities available are based on keyword searches, abetted by clever use of document connectivity and usage patterns. The sheer mass of this data is unmanageable without powerful tool support. In order to map this terrain more precisely, computational agents require machine-readable descriptions of the content and capabilities of Web accessible resources. These descriptions must be in addition to the human-readable versions of that information. The OWL Web Ontology Language is intended to provide a language that can be used to describe the classes and relations between them that are inherent in Web documents and applications. This document demonstrates the use of the OWL language to - formalize a domain by defining classes and properties of those classes, - define individuals and assert properties about them, and - reason about these classes and individuals to the degree permitted by the formal semantics of the OWL language. The sections are organized to present an incremental definition of a set of classes, properties and individuals, beginning with the fundamentals and proceeding to more complex language components.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.03737721 = product of:
  0.112131625 = sum of:
    0.094078265 = weight(_text_:web in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.094078265 = score(doc=4649,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.64902663 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
    0.01805336 = product of:
      0.03610672 = sum of:
        0.03610672 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610672 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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(2/6)

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

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

0.036893092 = product of:
  0.11067928 = sum of:
    0.08961702 = weight(_text_:web in 4330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08961702 = score(doc=4330,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.6182494 = fieldWeight in 4330, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4330)
    0.021062255 = product of:
      0.04212451 = sum of:
        0.04212451 = weight(_text_:22 in 4330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04212451 = score(doc=4330,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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(2/6)

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

Theme

Semantic Web

0.034050807 = product of:
  0.10215242 = sum of:
    0.057803504 = weight(_text_:wide in 1623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057803504 = score(doc=1623,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 1623, 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=1623)
    0.04434892 = weight(_text_:web in 1623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04434892 = score(doc=1623,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 1623, 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=1623)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This specification provides a model and grammar for representing the structure of information resources used to define topics, and the associations (relationships) between topics. Names, resources, and relationships are said to be characteristics of abstract subjects, which are called topics. Topics have their characteristics within scopes: i.e. the limited contexts within which the names and resources are regarded as their name, resource, and relationship characteristics. One or more interrelated documents employing this grammar is called a topic map.TopicMaps.Org is an independent consortium of parties developing the applicability of the topic map paradigm [ISO13250] to the World Wide Web by leveraging the XML family of specifications. This specification describes version 1.0 of XML Topic Maps (XTM) 1.0 [XTM], an abstract model and XML grammar for interchanging Web-based topic maps, written by the members of the TopicMaps.Org Authoring Group. More information on XTM and TopicMaps.Org is available at http://www.topicmaps.org/about.html. All versions of the XTM Specification are permanently licensed to the public, as provided by the Charter of TopicMaps.Org.

0.034050807 = product of:
  0.10215242 = sum of:
    0.057803504 = weight(_text_:wide in 4795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057803504 = score(doc=4795,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 4795, 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=4795)
    0.04434892 = weight(_text_:web in 4795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04434892 = score(doc=4795,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 4795, 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=4795)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organisation System) provides a model for expressing the basic structure and content of concept schemes such as thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading lists, taxonomies, folksonomies, and other types of controlled vocabulary. As an application of the Resource Description Framework (RDF) SKOS allows concepts to be documented, linked and merged with other data, while still being composed, integrated and published on the World Wide Web. This document is an implementors guide for those who would like to represent their concept scheme using SKOS. In basic SKOS, conceptual resources (concepts) can be identified using URIs, labelled with strings in one or more natural languages, documented with various types of notes, semantically related to each other in informal hierarchies and association networks, and aggregated into distinct concept schemes. In advanced SKOS, conceptual resources can be mapped to conceptual resources in other schemes and grouped into labelled or ordered collections. Concept labels can also be related to each other. Finally, the SKOS vocabulary itself can be extended to suit the needs of particular communities of practice.

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

0.031851403 = product of:
  0.09555421 = sum of:
    0.0693383 = weight(_text_:web in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0693383 = score(doc=135,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.47835067 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
    0.02621591 = weight(_text_:computer in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02621591 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.16150802 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Mathematics is a ubiquitous foundation of science, technology, and engineering. Specific areas, such as numeric and symbolic computation or logics, enjoy considerable software support. Working mathematicians have recently started to adopt Web 2.0 environment, such as blogs and wikis, but these systems lack machine support for knowledge organization and reuse, and they are disconnected from tools such as computer algebra systems or interactive proof assistants.We argue that such scenarios will benefit from Semantic Web technology. Conversely, mathematics is still underrepresented on the Web of [Linked] Data. There are mathematics-related Linked Data, for example statistical government data or scientific publication databases, but their mathematical semantics has not yet been modeled. We argue that the services for the Web of Data will benefit from a deeper representation of mathematical knowledge. Mathematical knowledge comprises logical and functional structures - formulæ, statements, and theories -, a mixture of rigorous natural language and symbolic notation in documents, application-specific metadata, and discussions about conceptualizations, formalizations, proofs, and (counter-)examples. Our review of approaches to representing these structures covers ontologies for mathematical problems, proofs, interlinked scientific publications, scientific discourse, as well as mathematical metadata vocabularies and domain knowledge from pure and applied mathematics. Many fields of mathematics have not yet been implemented as proper Semantic Web ontologies; however, we show that MathML and OpenMath, the standard XML-based exchange languages for mathematical knowledge, can be fully integrated with RDF representations in order to contribute existing mathematical knowledge to theWeb of Data. We conclude with a roadmap for getting the mathematical Web of Data started: what datasets to publish, how to interlink them, and how to take advantage of these new connections.

Content

Vgl.: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/ontologies-and-languages-representing-mathematical-knowledge-semantic-web http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/sites/default/files/swj122_2.pdf.

Source

Semantic Web journal. 2(2012), no.x

0.031144341 = product of:
  0.09343302 = sum of:
    0.04816959 = weight(_text_:wide in 4718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04816959 = score(doc=4718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 4718, 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=4718)
    0.045263432 = weight(_text_:web in 4718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045263432 = score(doc=4718,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 4718, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4718)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Both Topic Maps and the W3C Semantic Web technologies are meta-level semantic maps describing relationships between information resources. Previous attempts at interoperability between XTM Topic Maps and RDF have proved problematic. The ISO's drafting of an explicit Topic Map Data Model [TMDM 05] combined with the advent of the W3C's XML and RDFbased Description Logic-equivalent Web Ontology Language [OWLDL 04] now provides the means for the construction of an unambiguous semantic model to represent Topic Maps, in a form that is equivalent to a Description Logic representation. This paper describes the construction of the proposed TMDM ISO Topic Map Standard in OWL DL (Description Logic equivalent) form. The construction is claimed to exactly match the features of the proposed TMDM. The intention is that the topic map constructs described herein, once officially published on the world-wide web, may be used by Topic Map authors to construct their Topic Maps in OWL DL. The advantage of OWL DL Topic Map construction over XTM, the existing XML-based DTD standard, is that OWL DL allows many constraints to be explicitly stated. OWL DL's suite of tools, although currently still somewhat immature, will provide the means for both querying and enforcing constraints. This goes a long way towards fulfilling the requirements for a Topic Map Query Language (TMQL) and Constraint Language (TMCL), which the Topic Map Community may choose to expend effort on extending. Additionally, OWL DL has a clearly defined formal semantics (Description Logic ref)

0.029720977 = product of:
  0.08916293 = sum of:
    0.057803504 = weight(_text_:wide in 1662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057803504 = score(doc=1662,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 1662, 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=1662)
    0.031359423 = weight(_text_:web in 1662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031359423 = score(doc=1662,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1662, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1662)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The creation of the World Wide Web has had a profound impact an the ease with which information can be distributed and presented. Now with more and more information becoming available, there is an increasing demand for targeted global search, comparative studies, data transfer and data migration between heterogeneous sources of cultural and scholarly contents. This requires interoperability not only at the encoding level - a task solved well by XML for instance - but also at the more complex semantics level, where lie the characteristics of the domain. In the meanwhile, the reality of semantic interoperability is getting frustrating. In the cultural area alone, dozens of "standard" and hundreds of proprietary metadata and data structures exist, as well as hundreds of terminology systems. Core systems like the Dublin Core represent a common denominator by far too small to fulfil advanced requirements. Overstretching its already limited semantics in order to capture complex contents leads to further loss of meaning.

0.029720977 = product of:
  0.08916293 = sum of:
    0.057803504 = weight(_text_:wide in 3150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057803504 = score(doc=3150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 3150, 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=3150)
    0.031359423 = weight(_text_:web in 3150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031359423 = score(doc=3150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3150)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records (FRSAR) Working Group was formed in 2005 as the third IFLA working group of the FRBR family to address subject authority data issues and to investigate the direct and indirect uses of subject authority data by a wide range of users. This paper introduces the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD), the model developed by the FRSAR Working Group, and discusses it in the context of other related conceptual models defined in the specifications during recent years, including the British Standard BS8723-5: Structured vocabularies for information retrieval - Guide Part 5: Exchange formats and protocols for interoperability, W3C's SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference, and OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. These models enable the consideration of the functions of subject authority data and concept schemes at a higher level that is independent of any implementation, system, or specific context, while allowing us to focus on the semantics, structures, and interoperability of subject authority data.

0.028375676 = product of:
  0.085127026 = sum of:
    0.04816959 = weight(_text_:wide in 3913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04816959 = score(doc=3913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 3913, 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=3913)
    0.036957435 = weight(_text_:web in 3913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036957435 = score(doc=3913,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 3913, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3913)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Researchers in the ontology-design field have developed the content for ontologies in many domain areas. Recently, ontologies have become increasingly common on the World- Wide Web where they provide semantics for annotations in Web pages. This distributed nature of ontology development has led to a large number of ontologies covering overlapping domains. In order for these ontologies to be reused, they first need to be merged or aligned to one another. The processes of ontology alignment and merging are usually handled manually and often constitute a large and tedious portion of the sharing process. We have developed and implemented PROMPT, an algorithm that provides a semi-automatic approach to ontology merging and alignment. PROMPT performs some tasks automatically and guides the user in performing other tasks for which his intervention is required. PROMPT also determines possible inconsistencies in the state of the ontology, which result from the user's actions, and suggests ways to remedy these inconsistencies. PROMPT is based on an extremely general knowledge model and therefore can be applied across various platforms. Our formative evaluation showed that a human expert followed 90% of the suggestions that PROMPT generated and that 74% of the total knowledge-base operations invoked by the user were suggested by PROMPT.

0.027487947 = product of:
  0.08246384 = sum of:
    0.036585998 = weight(_text_:web in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036585998 = score(doc=4644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
    0.04587784 = weight(_text_:computer in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04587784 = score(doc=4644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28263903 = fieldWeight in 4644, 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=4644)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Series

Lecture notes in computer science; no.3298

Source

Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC'04). Eds. D. Plexousakis and F. van Harmelen

0.024555234 = product of:
  0.0736657 = sum of:
    0.05561234 = weight(_text_:computer in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05561234 = score(doc=4820,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.34261024 = fieldWeight in 4820, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4820)
    0.01805336 = product of:
      0.03610672 = sum of:
        0.03610672 = weight(_text_:22 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610672 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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(2/6)

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