Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Auszeichnungssprachen"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Lee, M.; Baillie, S.; Dell'Oro, J.: TML: a Thesaural Markpup Language (200?) 0.00
    0.0030444188 = product of:
      0.0060888375 = sum of:
        0.0060888375 = product of:
          0.012177675 = sum of:
            0.012177675 = weight(_text_:a in 1622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.012177675 = score(doc=1622,freq=18.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 1622, product of:
                  4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                    18.0 = termFreq=18.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1622)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Thesauri are used to provide controlled vocabularies for resource classification. Their use can greatly assist document discovery because thesauri man date a consistent shared terminology for describing documents. A particular thesauras classifies documents according to an information community's needs. As a result, there are many different thesaural schemas. This has led to a proliferation of schema-specific thesaural systems. In our research, we exploit schematic regularities to design a generic thesaural ontology and specfiy it as a markup language. The language provides a common representational framework in which to encode the idiosyncrasies of specific thesauri. This approach has several advantages: it offers consistent syntax and semantics in which to express thesauri; it allows general purpose thesaural applications to leverage many thesauri; and it supports a single thesaural user interface by which information communities can consistently organise, score and retrieve electronic documents.
  2. Miller, D.R.: XML: Libraries' strategic opportunity (2001) 0.00
    0.0016913437 = product of:
      0.0033826875 = sum of:
        0.0033826875 = product of:
          0.006765375 = sum of:
            0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.006765375 = score(doc=1467,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    XML (eXtensible Markup Language) is fast gaining favor as the universal format for data and document exchange -- in effect becoming the lingua franca of the Information Age. Currently, "library information" is at a particular disadvantage on the rapidly evolving World Wide Web. Why? Despite libraries'explorations of web catalogs, scanning projects, digital data repositories, and creation of web pages galore, there remains a digital divide. The core of libraries' data troves are stored in proprietary formats of integrated library systems (ILS) and in the complex and arcane MARC formats -- both restricted chiefly to the province of technical services and systems librarians. Even they are hard-pressed to extract and integrate this wealth of data with resources from outside this rarefied environment. Segregation of library information underlies many difficulties: producing standard bibliographic citations from MARC data, automatically creating new materials lists (including new web resources) on a particular topic, exchanging data with our vendors, and even migrating from one ILS to another. Why do we continue to hobble our potential by embracing these self-imposed limitations? Most ILSs began in libraries, which soon recognized the pitfalls of do-it-yourself solutions. Thus, we wisely anticipated the necessity for standards. However, with the advent of the web, we soon found "our" collections and a flood of new resources appearing in digital format on opposite sides of the divide. If we do not act quickly to integrate library resources with mainstream web resources, we are in grave danger of becoming marginalized
  3. Pepper, S.; Moore, G.; TopicMaps.Org Authoring Group: XML Topic Maps (XTM) 1.0 : TopicMaps.Org Specification (2001) 0.00
    0.0014351527 = product of:
      0.0028703054 = sum of:
        0.0028703054 = product of:
          0.005740611 = sum of:
            0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 1623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.005740611 = score(doc=1623,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1623, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1623)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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.
  4. Christophides, V.; Plexousakis, D.; Scholl, M.; Tourtounis, S.: On labeling schemes for the Semantic Web (2003) 0.00
    0.0010148063 = product of:
      0.0020296127 = sum of:
        0.0020296127 = product of:
          0.0040592253 = sum of:
            0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 3393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0040592253 = score(doc=3393,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3393, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3393)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper focuses on the optimization of the navigation through voluminous subsumption hierarchies of topics employed by Portal Catalogs like Netscape Open Directory (ODP). We advocate for the use of labeling schemes for modeling these hierarchies in order to efficiently answer queries such as subsumption check, descendants, ancestors or nearest common ancestor, which usually require costly transitive closure computations. We first give a qualitative comparison of three main families of schemes, namely bit vector, prefix and interval based schemes. We then show that two labeling schemes are good candidates for an efficient implementation of label querying using standard relational DBMS, namely, the Dewey Prefix scheme [6] and an Interval scheme by Agrawal, Borgida and Jagadish [1]. We compare their storage and query evaluation performance for the 16 ODP hierarchies using the PostgreSQL engine.