Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.004082007 = product of:
  0.04082007 = sum of:
    0.04082007 = weight(_text_:web in 59) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04082007 = score(doc=59,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 59, 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=59)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Many Semantic Web applications provide access to their resources through text-based search queries, using explicit semantics to improve the search results. This paper provides an analysis of the current state of the art in semantic search, based on 35 existing systems. We identify different types of semantic search features that are used during query construction, the core search process, the presentation of the search results and user feedback on query and results. For each of these, we consider the functionality that the system provides and how this is made available through the user interface.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0034988632 = product of:
  0.03498863 = sum of:
    0.03498863 = weight(_text_:web in 2566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03498863 = score(doc=2566,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 2566, 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=2566)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

We determine analytically the modulus of the second eigenvalue for the web hyperlink matrix used by Google for computing PageRank. Specifically, we prove the following statement: "For any matrix A=(cP + (1-c)E)**T, where P is an nxn row-stochasticmatrix, E is a nonnegative nxn rank-one row-stochastic matrix, and 0<=c<=1, the second eigenvalue of A has modulus Betrag (Lambda_sub2)<=c. Furthermore, if P has at least two irreducible closed subsets, the second eigenvalue Lambda_sub2 = c." This statement has implications for the convergence rate of the standard PageRank algorithm as the web scales, for the stability of PageRank to perturbations to the link structure of the web, for the detection of Google spammers, and for the design of algorithms to speed up PageRank.

0.0020200694 = product of:
  0.020200694 = sum of:
    0.020200694 = weight(_text_:web in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020200694 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4723, 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=4723)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Content

(1) Knowledge organization systems: an overview; (2) Linking digital library resources to related resources; (3) Making resources accessible to other communities; (4) Planning and implementing knowledge organization systems in digital libraries; (5) The future of knowledge organization systems on the Web

0.0019045398 = product of:
  0.019045398 = sum of:
    0.019045398 = weight(_text_:web in 720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019045398 = score(doc=720,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 720, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=720)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Finding particular documents after they have been reviewed and stored has been a challenge since the advent of the printed word. "Findability" is emphatically more important as we deal with information overload in general and with the specific need to quickly find relevant background information to support business decisions in a networked environment. Because time is arguably the most valuable asset in today's economy, information users value tools that help them (1) quickly find the information they are seeking and (2) manage the quantity and quality of information they manipulate and work with on a regular basis. Although the term "indexing" may lack the cachet of some other terms we use to describe current information organization and management concepts, indexing is fundamental to precise information organization and retrieval, especially when dealing with large sets of documents. Power users find great value in using a known, granular indexing language that can surface the most relevant items and filter out items of peripheral or no interest. Web architects and interface designers can likewise take advantage of indexing labels to present only the information meeting certain requirements for users who do not wish to learn the indexing structure or taxonomy. The user finds what is needed while the indexing language is used behind the scenes and is transparent to the user.
The importance of indexing in developing a content navigation strategy for corporate intranets or portals and the value of high-quality indexing when retrieving information from external resources are reviewed in this white paper. Some general background information on indexing and the use of controlled vocabularies (or taxonomies) are included for a historical perspective. Factiva Intelligent Indexing-which incorporates the best indexing expertise from both Dow Jones Interactive and Reuters Business Briefing-is described, along with some novel customer applications that take advantage of Factiva's indexing to create or improve information products delivered to users. Examples from the Excite and Google web search engines and from Dow Jones Interactive and Reuters Business Briefing are included in an Appendix section to illustrate how indexing influences the amount and quality of information retrieved in a specific search.

0.0017494316 = product of:
  0.017494315 = sum of:
    0.017494315 = weight(_text_:web in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017494315 = score(doc=1271,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.18735787 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.
The Library of Congress must begin by prioritizing the recommendations that are directed in whole or in part at LC. Some define tasks that can be achieved immediately and with moderate effort; others will require analysis and planning that will have to be coordinated broadly and carefully. The Working Group has consciously not associated time frames with any of its recommendations. The recommendations fall into five general areas: 1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced throughout the entire "supply chain" for information resources. 2. Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by "exposing" rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, thus, underused. 3. Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways. 4. Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources. 5. Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future. The Working Group intends what follows to serve as a broad blueprint for the Library of Congress and its colleagues in the library and information technology communities for extending and promoting access to information resources.

0.001550583 = product of:
  0.015505831 = sum of:
    0.015505831 = product of:
      0.04651749 = sum of:
        0.04651749 = weight(_text_:22 in 234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04651749 = score(doc=234,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 234, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=234)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Pages

22 S

0.0013467129 = product of:
  0.013467129 = sum of:
    0.013467129 = weight(_text_:web in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013467129 = score(doc=5013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The destabilizing influences of the Web, widespread ownership of personal computers, and rising computer literacy have created an era of discontinuous change in research libraries a time when the cumulated assets of the past do not guarantee future success. The library catalog is such an asset. Today, a large and growing number of students and scholars routinely bypass library catalogs in favor of other discovery tools, and the catalog represents a shrinking proportion of the universe of scholarly information. The catalog is in decline, its processes and structures are unsustainable, and change needs to be swift. At the same time, books and serials are not dead, and they are not yet digital. Notwithstanding widespread expansion of digitization projects, ubiquitous e-journals, and a market that seems poised to move to e-books, the role of catalog records in discovery and retrieval of the world's library collections seems likely to continue for at least a couple of decades and probably longer. This report, commissioned by the Library of Congress (LC), offers an analysis of the current situation, options for revitalizing research library catalogs, a feasibility assessment, a vision for change, and a blueprint for action. Library decision makers are the primary audience for this report, whose aim is to elicit support, dialogue, collaboration, and movement toward solutions. Readers from the business community, particularly those that directly serve libraries, may find the report helpful for defining research and development efforts. The same is true for readers from membership organizations such as OCLC Online Computer Library Center, the Research Libraries Group, the Association for Research Libraries, the Council on Library and Information Resources, the Coalition for Networked Information, and the Digital Library Federation. Library managers and practitioners from all functional groups are likely to take an interest in the interview findings and in specific actions laid out in the blueprint.

0.0013467129 = product of:
  0.013467129 = sum of:
    0.013467129 = weight(_text_:web in 721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013467129 = score(doc=721,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 721, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=721)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

In 2000, Factiva published "The Value of Indexing," a white paper emphasizing the strategic importance of accurate categorization, based on a robust taxonomy for later retrieval of documents stored in commercial or in-house content repositories. Since that time, there has been resounding agreement between persons who use Web-based systems and those who design these systems that search engines alone are not the answer for effective information retrieval. High-quality categorization is crucial if users are to be able to find the right answers in repositories of articles and documents that are expanding at phenomenal rates. Companies continue to invest in technologies that will help them organize and integrate their content. A March 2002 article in EContent suggests a typical taxonomy implementation usually costs around $100,000. The article also cites a Merrill Lynch study that predicts the market for search and categorization products, now at about $600 million, will more than double by 2005. Classification activities are not new. In the third century B.C., Callimachus of Cyrene managed the ancient Library of Alexandria. To help scholars find items in the collection, he created an index of all the scrolls organized according to a subject taxonomy. Factiva's parent companies, Dow Jones and Reuters, each have more than 20 years of experience with developing taxonomies and painstaking manual categorization processes and also have a solid history with automated categorization techniques. This experience and expertise put Factiva at the leading edge of developing and applying categorization technology today. This paper will update readers about enhancements made to the Factiva Intelligent IndexingT taxonomy. It examines the value these enhancements bring to Factiva's news and business information service, and the value brought to clients who license the Factiva taxonomy as a fundamental component of their own Enterprise Knowledge Architecture. There is a behind-the-scenes-look at how Factiva classifies a huge stream of incoming articles published in a variety of formats and languages. The paper concludes with an overview of new Factiva services and solutions that are designed specifically to help clients improve productivity and make solid business decisions by precisely finding information in their own everexpanding content repositories.

0.0013467129 = product of:
  0.013467129 = sum of:
    0.013467129 = weight(_text_:web in 172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013467129 = score(doc=172,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 172, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=172)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

In this document we provide an overall view of the state of the art in ontology alignment. It is organised as a description of the need for ontology alignment, a presentation of the techniques currently in use for ontology alignment and a presentation of existing systems. The state of the art is not restricted to any discipline and consider as some form of ontology alignment the work made on schema matching within the database area for instance. Heterogeneity problems on the semantic web can be solved, for some of them, by aligning heterogeneous ontologies. This is illustrated through a number of use cases of ontology alignment. Aligning ontologies consists of providing the corresponding entities in these ontologies. This process is precisely defined in deliverable D2.2.1. The current deliverable presents the many techniques currently used for implementing this process. These techniques are classified along the many features that can be found in ontologies (labels, structures, instances, semantics). They resort to many different disciplines such as statistics, machine learning or data analysis. The alignment itself is obtained by combining these techniques towards a particular goal (obtaining an alignment with particular features, optimising some criterion). Several combination techniques are also presented. Finally, these techniques have been experimented in various systems for ontology alignment or schema matching. Several such systems are presented briefly in the last section and characterized by the above techniques they rely on. The conclusion is that many techniques are available for achieving ontology alignment and many systems have been developed based on these techniques. However, few comparisons and few integration is actually provided by these implementations. This deliverable serves as a basis for considering further action along these two lines. It provide a first inventory of what should be evaluated and suggests what evaluation criterion can be used.

6.51941E-4 = product of:
  0.00651941 = sum of:
    0.00651941 = product of:
      0.019558229 = sum of:
        0.019558229 = weight(_text_:29 in 2398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019558229 = score(doc=2398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2398, 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=2398)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

2.12.2015 11:29:57