Search (42 results, page 2 of 3)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Wicaksana, I.W.S.; Wahyudi, B.: Comparison Latent Semantic and WordNet approach for semantic similarity calculation (2011) 0.00
    0.0018306099 = product of:
      0.021967318 = sum of:
        0.021967318 = weight(_text_:internet in 689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021967318 = score(doc=689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.22832564 = fieldWeight in 689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=689)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Abstract
    Information exchange among many sources in Internet is more autonomous, dynamic and free. The situation drive difference view of concepts among sources. For example, word 'bank' has meaning as economic institution for economy domain, but for ecology domain it will be defined as slope of river or lake. In this paper, we will evaluate latent semantic and WordNet approach to calculate semantic similarity. The evaluation will be run for some concepts from different domain with reference by expert or human. Result of the evaluation can provide a contribution for mapping of concept, query rewriting, interoperability, etc.
  2. Sojka, P.; Liska, M.: ¬The art of mathematics retrieval (2011) 0.00
    0.0018212418 = product of:
      0.021854902 = sum of:
        0.021854902 = product of:
          0.043709803 = sum of:
            0.043709803 = weight(_text_:22 in 3450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043709803 = score(doc=3450,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.032588977 = queryNorm
                0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 3450, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3450)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Content
    Vgl.: DocEng2011, September 19-22, 2011, Mountain View, California, USA Copyright 2011 ACM 978-1-4503-0863-2/11/09
    Date
    22. 2.2017 13:00:42
  3. Dobreski, B.: Authority and universalism : conventional values in descriptive catalog codes (2017) 0.00
    0.0016567691 = product of:
      0.019881228 = sum of:
        0.019881228 = product of:
          0.039762456 = sum of:
            0.039762456 = weight(_text_:allgemein in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.039762456 = score(doc=3876,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17123379 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.254347 = idf(docFreq=627, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.032588977 = queryNorm
                0.23221152 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.254347 = idf(docFreq=627, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Theme
    Katalogfragen allgemein
  4. Hyning, V. Van; Lintott, C.; Blickhan, S.; Trouille, L.: Transforming libraries and archives through crowdsourcing (2017) 0.00
    0.0015690941 = product of:
      0.01882913 = sum of:
        0.01882913 = weight(_text_:internet in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01882913 = score(doc=2526,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 2526, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2526)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Theme
    Internet
  5. Danowski, P.: Step one: blow up the silo! : Open bibliographic data, the first step towards Linked Open Data (2010) 0.00
    0.0015690941 = product of:
      0.01882913 = sum of:
        0.01882913 = weight(_text_:internet in 3962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01882913 = score(doc=3962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 3962, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3962)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Theme
    Internet
  6. Hannemann, J.; Kett, J.: Linked data for libraries (2010) 0.00
    0.0015690941 = product of:
      0.01882913 = sum of:
        0.01882913 = weight(_text_:internet in 3964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01882913 = score(doc=3964,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 3964, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3964)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Theme
    Internet
  7. Gore, E.; Bitta, M.D.; Cohen, D.: ¬The Digital Public Library of America and the National Digital Platform (2017) 0.00
    0.0015690941 = product of:
      0.01882913 = sum of:
        0.01882913 = weight(_text_:internet in 3655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01882913 = score(doc=3655,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 3655, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3655)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Theme
    Internet
  8. Mitchell, J.S.; Zeng, M.L.; Zumer, M.: Modeling classification systems in multicultural and multilingual contexts (2012) 0.00
    0.0015610645 = product of:
      0.018732773 = sum of:
        0.018732773 = product of:
          0.037465546 = sum of:
            0.037465546 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037465546 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.032588977 = queryNorm
                0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Abstract
    This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.
  9. Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013) 0.00
    0.0014717856 = product of:
      0.017661426 = sum of:
        0.017661426 = product of:
          0.035322852 = sum of:
            0.035322852 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035322852 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.032588977 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Date
    17.12.2013 11:02:22
  10. Gómez-Pérez, A.; Corcho, O.: Ontology languages for the Semantic Web (2015) 0.00
    0.0013075785 = product of:
      0.015690941 = sum of:
        0.015690941 = weight(_text_:internet in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015690941 = score(doc=3297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    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.
  11. Hollink, L.; Assem, M. van: Estimating the relevance of search results in the Culture-Web : a study of semantic distance measures (2010) 0.00
    0.0011038391 = product of:
      0.01324607 = sum of:
        0.01324607 = product of:
          0.02649214 = sum of:
            0.02649214 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02649214 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.032588977 = 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)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:40:22
  12. Delsey, T.: ¬The Making of RDA (2016) 0.00
    0.0011038391 = product of:
      0.01324607 = sum of:
        0.01324607 = product of:
          0.02649214 = sum of:
            0.02649214 = weight(_text_:22 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02649214 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.032588977 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2946, 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=2946)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Date
    17. 5.2016 19:22:40
  13. Voß, J.: Classification of knowledge organization systems with Wikidata (2016) 0.00
    0.0011038391 = product of:
      0.01324607 = sum of:
        0.01324607 = product of:
          0.02649214 = sum of:
            0.02649214 = weight(_text_:22 in 3082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02649214 = score(doc=3082,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.032588977 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3082, 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=3082)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Pages
    S.15-22
  14. Zanibbi, R.; Yuan, B.: Keyword and image-based retrieval for mathematical expressions (2011) 0.00
    0.0011038391 = product of:
      0.01324607 = sum of:
        0.01324607 = product of:
          0.02649214 = sum of:
            0.02649214 = weight(_text_:22 in 3449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02649214 = score(doc=3449,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.032588977 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3449, 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=3449)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Date
    22. 2.2017 12:53:49
  15. Putkey, T.: Using SKOS to express faceted classification on the Semantic Web (2011) 0.00
    0.0010460628 = product of:
      0.012552753 = sum of:
        0.012552753 = weight(_text_:internet in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012552753 = score(doc=311,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.1304718 = fieldWeight in 311, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=311)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Abstract
    This paper looks at Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) to investigate how a faceted classification can be expressed in RDF and shared on the Semantic Web. Statement of the Problem Faceted classification outlines facets as well as subfacets and facet values. Hierarchical relationships and associative relationships are established in a faceted classification. RDF is used to describe how a specific URI has a relationship to a facet value. Not only does RDF decompose "information into pieces," but by incorporating facet values RDF also given the URI the hierarchical and associative relationships expressed in the faceted classification. Combining faceted classification and RDF creates more knowledge than if the two stood alone. An application understands the subjectpredicate-object relationship in RDF and can display hierarchical and associative relationships based on the object (facet) value. This paper continues to investigate if the above idea is indeed useful, used, and applicable. If so, how can a faceted classification be expressed in RDF? What would this expression look like? Literature Review This paper used the same articles as the paper A Survey of Faceted Classification: History, Uses, Drawbacks and the Semantic Web (Putkey, 2010). In that paper, appropriate resources were discovered by searching in various databases for "faceted classification" and "faceted search," either in the descriptor or title fields. Citations were also followed to find more articles as well as searching the Internet for the same terms. To retrieve the documents about RDF, searches combined "faceted classification" and "RDF, " looking for these words in either the descriptor or title.
  16. Hawking, S.: This is the most dangerous time for our planet (2016) 0.00
    9.245976E-4 = product of:
      0.011095171 = sum of:
        0.011095171 = weight(_text_:internet in 3273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011095171 = score(doc=3273,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.11532187 = fieldWeight in 3273, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3273)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Content
    This in turn will accelerate the already widening economic inequality around the world. The internet and the platforms which it makes possible allow very small groups of individuals to make enormous profits while employing very few people. This is inevitable, it is progress, but it is also socially destructive. We need to put this alongside the financial crash, which brought home to people that a very few individuals working in the financial sector can accrue huge rewards and that the rest of us underwrite that success and pick up the bill when their greed leads us astray. So taken together we are living in a world of widening, not diminishing, financial inequality, in which many people can see not just their standard of living, but their ability to earn a living at all, disappearing. It is no wonder then that they are searching for a new deal, which Trump and Brexit might have appeared to represent. It is also the case that another unintended consequence of the global spread of the internet and social media is that the stark nature of these inequalities are far more apparent than they have been in the past. For me, the ability to use technology to communicate has been a liberating and positive experience. Without it, I would not have been able to continue working these many years past. But it also means that the lives of the richest people in the most prosperous parts of the world are agonisingly visible to anyone, however poor and who has access to a phone. And since there are now more people with a telephone than access to clean water in Sub-Saharan Africa, this will shortly mean nearly everyone on our increasingly crowded planet will not be able to escape the inequality.
  17. Open MIND (2015) 0.00
    9.19866E-4 = product of:
      0.011038392 = sum of:
        0.011038392 = product of:
          0.022076784 = sum of:
            0.022076784 = weight(_text_:22 in 1648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022076784 = score(doc=1648,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.032588977 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1648, 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=1648)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Date
    27. 1.2015 11:48:22
  18. Dowding, H.; Gengenbach, M.; Graham, B.; Meister, S.; Moran, J.; Peltzman, S.; Seifert, J.; Waugh, D.: OSS4EVA: using open-source tools to fulfill digital preservation requirements (2016) 0.00
    9.19866E-4 = product of:
      0.011038392 = sum of:
        0.011038392 = product of:
          0.022076784 = sum of:
            0.022076784 = weight(_text_:22 in 3200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022076784 = score(doc=3200,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.032588977 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3200, 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=3200)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Date
    28.10.2016 18:22:33
  19. Roy, W.; Gray, C.: Preparing existing metadata for repository batch import : a recipe for a fickle food (2018) 0.00
    9.19866E-4 = product of:
      0.011038392 = sum of:
        0.011038392 = product of:
          0.022076784 = sum of:
            0.022076784 = weight(_text_:22 in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022076784 = score(doc=4550,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.032588977 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4550, 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=4550)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Date
    10.11.2018 16:27:22
  20. Monireh, E.; Sarker, M.K.; Bianchi, F.; Hitzler, P.; Doran, D.; Xie, N.: Reasoning over RDF knowledge bases using deep learning (2018) 0.00
    9.19866E-4 = product of:
      0.011038392 = sum of:
        0.011038392 = product of:
          0.022076784 = sum of:
            0.022076784 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022076784 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.032588977 = 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)
      0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
    
    Date
    16.11.2018 14:22:01

Types

  • a 30
  • m 2
  • s 2
  • More… Less…

Classifications