Search (92 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Hollink, L.; Assem, M. van: Estimating the relevance of search results in the Culture-Web : a study of semantic distance measures (2010) 0.03 
    0.025096897 = product of:
  0.07529069 = sum of:
    0.037123807 = product of:
      0.07424761 = sum of:
        0.07424761 = weight(_text_:web in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07424761 = score(doc=4649,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.03816688 = product of:
      0.05725032 = sum of:
        0.028754493 = weight(_text_:29 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028754493 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
        0.028495826 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028495826 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1227524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  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
    29. 7.2011 14:44:56
    26.12.2011 13:40:22
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  2. OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases (2004) 0.02 
    0.016519586 = product of:
  0.049558755 = sum of:
    0.03689394 = product of:
      0.07378788 = sum of:
        0.07378788 = weight(_text_:web in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07378788 = score(doc=4685,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.012664813 = product of:
      0.037994437 = sum of:
        0.037994437 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037994437 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1227524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
  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
  3. Mayfield, J.; Finin, T.: Information retrieval on the Semantic Web : integrating inference and retrieval 0.02 
    0.0154816955 = product of:
  0.046445087 = sum of:
    0.035363376 = product of:
      0.07072675 = sum of:
        0.07072675 = weight(_text_:web in 4330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07072675 = score(doc=4330,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.01108171 = product of:
      0.03324513 = sum of:
        0.03324513 = weight(_text_:22 in 4330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03324513 = score(doc=4330,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1227524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
  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
  4. Wielinga, B.; Wielemaker, J.; Schreiber, G.; Assem, M. van: Methods for porting resources to the Semantic Web (2004) 0.01 
    0.013298765 = product of:
  0.039896294 = sum of:
    0.030311465 = product of:
      0.06062293 = sum of:
        0.06062293 = weight(_text_:web in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06062293 = score(doc=4640,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.5299281 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009584831 = product of:
      0.028754493 = sum of:
        0.028754493 = weight(_text_:29 in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028754493 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Ontologies will play a central role in the development of the Semantic Web. It is unrealistic to assume that such ontologies will be developed from scratch. Rather, we assume that existing resources such as thesauri and lexical data bases will be reused in the development of ontologies for the Semantic Web. In this paper we describe a method for converting existing source material to a representation that is compatible with Semantic Web languages such as RDF(S) and OWL. The method is illustrated with three case studies: converting Wordnet, AAT and MeSH to RDF(S) and OWL.
    Date
    29. 7.2011 14:44:56
    Source
    Proceedings of the First European Semantic Web Symposium (ESWS2004), Eds.: C. Bussler, J. Davies, D. Fensel and R. Studer. 2004. S.299-311
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  5. Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies (2008) 0.01 
    0.012062661 = product of:
  0.036187984 = sum of:
    0.025005683 = product of:
      0.050011367 = sum of:
        0.050011367 = weight(_text_:web in 4471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050011367 = score(doc=4471,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 4471, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4471)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.011182303 = product of:
      0.033546906 = sum of:
        0.033546906 = weight(_text_:29 in 4471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033546906 = score(doc=4471,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4471, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4471)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    This document describes best practice recipes for publishing vocabularies or ontologies on the Web (in RDF Schema or OWL). The features of each recipe are described in detail, so that vocabulary designers may choose the recipe best suited to their needs. Each recipe introduces general principles and an example configuration for use with an Apache HTTP server (which may be adapted to other environments). The recipes are all designed to be consistent with the architecture of the Web as currently specified, although the associated example configurations have been kept intentionally simple.
    Date
    14. 8.2011 14:29:06
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  6. Assem, M. van; Malaisé, V.; Miles, A.; Schreiber, G.: ¬A method to convert thesauri to SKOS (2006) 0.01 
    0.010339425 = product of:
  0.031018274 = sum of:
    0.021433443 = product of:
      0.042866886 = sum of:
        0.042866886 = weight(_text_:web in 4642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042866886 = score(doc=4642,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 4642, 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=4642)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009584831 = product of:
      0.028754493 = sum of:
        0.028754493 = weight(_text_:29 in 4642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028754493 = score(doc=4642,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4642, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4642)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Thesauri can be useful resources for indexing and retrieval on the Semantic Web, but often they are not published in RDF/OWL. To convert thesauri to RDF for use in Semantic Web applications and to ensure the quality and utility of the conversion a structured method is required. Moreover, if different thesauri are to be interoperable without complicated mappings, a standard schema for thesauri is required. This paper presents a method for conversion of thesauri to the SKOS RDF/OWL schema, which is a proposal for such a standard under development by W3Cs Semantic Web Best Practices Working Group. We apply the method to three thesauri: IPSV, GTAA and MeSH. With these case studies we evaluate our method and the applicability of SKOS for representing thesauri.
    Date
    29. 7.2011 14:44:56
  7. Schmitz-Esser, W.; Sigel, A.: Introducing terminology-based ontologies : Papers and Materials presented by the authors at the workshop "Introducing Terminology-based Ontologies" (Poli/Schmitz-Esser/Sigel) at the 9th International Conference of the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), Vienna, Austria, July 6th, 2006 (2006) 0.01 
    0.009028388 = product of:
  0.027085163 = sum of:
    0.017500332 = product of:
      0.035000663 = sum of:
        0.035000663 = weight(_text_:web in 1285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035000663 = score(doc=1285,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 1285, 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=1285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009584831 = product of:
      0.028754493 = sum of:
        0.028754493 = weight(_text_:29 in 1285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028754493 = score(doc=1285,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1285, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1285)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Content
    Inhalt: 1. From traditional Knowledge Organization Systems (authority files, classifications, thesauri) towards ontologies on the web (Alexander Sigel) (Tutorial. Paper with Slides interspersed) pp. 3-53 2. Introduction to Integrative Cross-Language Ontology (ICLO): Formalizing and interrelating textual knowledge to enable intelligent action and knowledge sharing (Winfried Schmitz-Esser) pp. 54-113 3. First Idea Sketch on Modelling ICLO with Topic Maps (Alexander Sigel) (Work in progress paper. Topic maps available from the author) pp. 114-130
    Date
    17. 7.2006 12:29:55
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  8. Schreiber, G.; Amin, A.; Assem, M. van; Boer, V. de; Hardman, L.; Hildebrand, M.; Hollink, L.; Huang, Z.; Kersen, J. van; Niet, M. de; Omelayenko, B.; Ossenbruggen, J. van; Siebes, R.; Taekema, J.; Wielemaker, J.; Wielinga, B.: MultimediaN E-Culture demonstrator (2006) 0.01 
    0.009028388 = product of:
  0.027085163 = sum of:
    0.017500332 = product of:
      0.035000663 = sum of:
        0.035000663 = weight(_text_:web in 4648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035000663 = score(doc=4648,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 4648, 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=4648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009584831 = product of:
      0.028754493 = sum of:
        0.028754493 = weight(_text_:29 in 4648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028754493 = score(doc=4648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4648, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4648)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    The main objective of the MultimediaN E-Culture project is to demonstrate how novel semantic-web and presentation technologies can be deployed to provide better indexing and search support within large virtual collections of culturalheritage resources. The architecture is fully based on open web standards in particular XML, SVG, RDF/OWL and SPARQL. One basic hypothesis underlying this work is that the use of explicit background knowledge in the form of ontologies/vocabularies/thesauri is in particular useful in information retrieval in knowledge-rich domains. This paper gives some details about the internals of the demonstrator.
    Date
    29. 7.2011 14:44:56
  9. Assem, M. van: Converting and integrating vocabularies for the Semantic Web (2010) 0.01 
    0.008865844 = product of:
  0.026597532 = sum of:
    0.020207644 = product of:
      0.040415287 = sum of:
        0.040415287 = weight(_text_:web in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040415287 = score(doc=4639,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.35328537 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0063898875 = product of:
      0.019169662 = sum of:
        0.019169662 = weight(_text_:29 in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019169662 = score(doc=4639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    This thesis focuses on conversion of vocabularies for representation and integration of collections on the Semantic Web. A secondary focus is how to represent metadata schemas (RDF Schemas representing metadata element sets) such that they interoperate with vocabularies. The primary domain in which we operate is that of cultural heritage collections. The background worldview in which a solution is sought is that of the Semantic Web research paradigmwith its associated theories, methods, tools and use cases. In other words, we assume the SemanticWeb is in principle able to provide the context to realize interoperable collections. Interoperability is dependent on the interplay between representations and the applications that use them. We mean applications in the widest sense, such as "search" and "annotation". These applications or tasks are often present in software applications, such as the E-Culture application. It is therefore necessary that applications requirements on the vocabulary representation are met. This leads us to formulate the following problem statement: HOW CAN EXISTING VOCABULARIES BE MADE AVAILABLE TO SEMANTIC WEB APPLICATIONS?
    We refine the problem statement into three research questions. The first two focus on the problem of conversion of a vocabulary to a Semantic Web representation from its original format. Conversion of a vocabulary to a representation in a Semantic Web language is necessary to make the vocabulary available to SemanticWeb applications. In the last question we focus on integration of collection metadata schemas in a way that allows for vocabulary representations as produced by our methods. Academisch proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad Doctor aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Dutch Research School for Information and Knowledge Systems.
    Date
    29. 7.2011 14:44:56
  10. Monireh, E.; Sarker, M.K.; Bianchi, F.; Hitzler, P.; Doran, D.; Xie, N.: Reasoning over RDF knowledge bases using deep learning (2018) 0.01 
    0.008592237 = product of:
  0.02577671 = sum of:
    0.017861202 = product of:
      0.035722405 = sum of:
        0.035722405 = weight(_text_:web in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035722405 = score(doc=4553,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 4553, 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=4553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.007915508 = product of:
      0.023746524 = sum of:
        0.023746524 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023746524 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1227524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  11. Assem, M. van; Menken, M.R.; Schreiber, G.; Wielemaker, J.; Wielinga, B.: ¬A method for converting thesauri to RDF/OWL (2004) 0.01 
    0.00853978 = product of:
  0.02561934 = sum of:
    0.0144370375 = product of:
      0.028874075 = sum of:
        0.028874075 = weight(_text_:web in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028874075 = score(doc=4644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.011182303 = product of:
      0.033546906 = sum of:
        0.033546906 = weight(_text_:29 in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033546906 = score(doc=4644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Date
    29. 7.2011 14:44:56
    Source
    Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC'04). Eds. D. Plexousakis and F. van Harmelen
  12. Assem, M. van; Rijgersberg, H.; Wigham, M.; Top, J.: Converting and annotating quantitative data tables (2010) 0.01 
    0.007523657 = product of:
  0.02257097 = sum of:
    0.01458361 = product of:
      0.02916722 = sum of:
        0.02916722 = weight(_text_:web in 4705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02916722 = score(doc=4705,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4705, 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=4705)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.00798736 = product of:
      0.023962079 = sum of:
        0.023962079 = weight(_text_:29 in 4705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023962079 = score(doc=4705,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4705, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4705)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Date
    29. 7.2011 14:44:56
    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
  13. Schreiber, G.; Amin, A.; Assem, M. van; Boer, V. de; Hardman, L.; Hildebrand, M.; Omelayenko, B.; Ossenbruggen, J. van; Wielemaker, J.; Wielinga, B.; Tordai, A.; Aroyoa, L.: Semantic annotation and search of cultural-heritage collections : the MultimediaN E-Culture demonstrator (2008) 0.01 
    0.0073198117 = product of:
  0.021959435 = sum of:
    0.012374603 = product of:
      0.024749206 = sum of:
        0.024749206 = weight(_text_:web in 4646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024749206 = score(doc=4646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4646, 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=4646)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009584831 = product of:
      0.028754493 = sum of:
        0.028754493 = weight(_text_:29 in 4646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028754493 = score(doc=4646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4646, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4646)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Date
    29. 7.2011 14:44:56
    Source
    Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the WorldWideWeb 6(2008) no.4, S.243-249
  14. Scheir, P.; Pammer, V.; Lindstaedt, S.N.: Information retrieval on the Semantic Web : does it exist? (2007) 0.01 
    0.0063661356 = product of:
  0.038196813 = sum of:
    0.038196813 = product of:
      0.07639363 = sum of:
        0.07639363 = weight(_text_:web in 4329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07639363 = score(doc=4329,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.6677857 = fieldWeight in 4329, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Plenty of contemporary attempts to search exist that are associated with the area of Semantic Web. But which of them qualify as information retrieval for the Semantic Web? Do such approaches exist? To answer these questions we take a look at the nature of the Semantic Web and Semantic Desktop and at definitions for information and data retrieval. We survey current approaches referred to by their authors as information retrieval for the Semantic Web or that use Semantic Web technology for search.
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  15. Zhang, L.; Liu, Q.L.; Zhang, J.; Wang, H.F.; Pan, Y.; Yu, Y.: Semplore: an IR approach to scalable hybrid query of Semantic Web data (2007) 0.01 
    0.005700267 = product of:
  0.0342016 = sum of:
    0.0342016 = product of:
      0.0684032 = sum of:
        0.0684032 = weight(_text_:web in 231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0684032 = score(doc=231,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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.
    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
  16. Resource Description Framework (RDF) (2004) 0.01 
    0.005499824 = product of:
  0.03299894 = sum of:
    0.03299894 = product of:
      0.06599788 = sum of:
        0.06599788 = weight(_text_:web in 3063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06599788 = score(doc=3063,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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
  17. OWL Web Ontology Language Use Cases and Requirements (2004) 0.01 
    0.005499824 = product of:
  0.03299894 = sum of:
    0.03299894 = product of:
      0.06599788 = sum of:
        0.06599788 = weight(_text_:web in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06599788 = score(doc=4686,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 4686, 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=4686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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.
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  18. Gómez-Pérez, A.; Corcho, O.: Ontology languages for the Semantic Web (2015) 0.01 
    0.005434991 = product of:
  0.032609943 = sum of:
    0.032609943 = product of:
      0.06521989 = sum of:
        0.06521989 = weight(_text_:web in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06521989 = score(doc=3297,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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.
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  19. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Document Overview (2009) 0.01 
    0.005380366 = product of:
  0.032282196 = sum of:
    0.032282196 = product of:
      0.06456439 = sum of:
        0.06456439 = weight(_text_:web in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06456439 = score(doc=3060,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.5643819 = fieldWeight in 3060, 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=3060)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    The OWL 2 Web Ontology Language, informally OWL 2, is an ontology language for the Semantic Web with formally defined meaning. OWL 2 ontologies provide classes, properties, individuals, and data values and are stored as Semantic Web documents. OWL 2 ontologies can be used along with information written in RDF, and OWL 2 ontologies themselves are primarily exchanged as RDF documents. This document serves as an introduction to OWL 2 and the various other OWL 2 documents. It describes the syntaxes for OWL 2, the different kinds of semantics, the available profiles (sub-languages), and the relationship between OWL 1 and OWL 2.
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  20. Bechhofer, S.; Harmelen, F. van; Hendler, J.; Horrocks, I.; McGuinness, D.L.; Patel-Schneider, P.F.; Stein, L.A.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference (2004) 0.01 
    0.005380366 = product of:
  0.032282196 = sum of:
    0.032282196 = product of:
      0.06456439 = sum of:
        0.06456439 = weight(_text_:web in 4684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06456439 = score(doc=4684,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 35
  • n 11
  • r 1
  • s 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes