-
Priss, U.: Faceted information representation (2000)
0.04
0.043804124 = product of:
0.08760825 = sum of:
0.08760825 = sum of:
0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038116705 = score(doc=5095,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 5095, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5095)
0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049491543 = score(doc=5095,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5095, 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=5095)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper presents an abstract formalization of the notion of "facets". Facets are relational structures of units, relations and other facets selected for a certain purpose. Facets can be used to structure large knowledge representation systems into a hierarchical arrangement of consistent and independent subsystems (facets) that facilitate flexibility and combinations of different viewpoints or aspects. This paper describes the basic notions, facet characteristics and construction mechanisms. It then explicates the theory in an example of a faceted information retrieval system (FaIR)
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 17:47:06
-
Eschenfelder, D.; Kollewe, W.; Skorsky, M.; Wille, R.: ¬Ein Erkundungssystem zum Baurecht : Methoden der Entwicklung eines TOSCANA-Systems (2000)
0.02
0.01633573 = product of:
0.03267146 = sum of:
0.03267146 = product of:
0.06534292 = sum of:
0.06534292 = weight(_text_:systems in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06534292 = score(doc=4203,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Priss, U.: Comparing classification systems using facets (2000)
0.01
0.010890487 = product of:
0.021780973 = sum of:
0.021780973 = product of:
0.043561947 = sum of:
0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 6485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043561947 = score(doc=6485,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 6485, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6485)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Carpineto, C.; Romano, G.: Order-theoretical ranking (2000)
0.01
0.0068065543 = product of:
0.013613109 = sum of:
0.013613109 = product of:
0.027226217 = sum of:
0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 4766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027226217 = score(doc=4766,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 4766, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4766)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Current best-match ranking (BMR) systems perform well but cannot handle word mismatch between a query and a document. The best known alternative ranking method, hierarchical clustering-based ranking (HCR), seems to be more robust than BMR with respect to this problem, but it is hampered by theoretical and practical limitations. We present an approach to document ranking that explicitly addresses the word mismatch problem by exploiting interdocument similarity information in a novel way. Document ranking is seen as a query-document transformation driven by a conceptual representation of the whole document collection, into which the query is merged. Our approach is nased on the theory of concept (or Galois) lattices, which, er argue, provides a powerful, well-founded, and conputationally-tractable framework to model the space in which documents and query are represented and to compute such a transformation. We compared information retrieval using concept lattice-based ranking (CLR) to BMR and HCR. The results showed that HCR was outperformed by CLR as well as BMR, and suggested that, of the two best methods, BMR achieved better performance than CLR on the whole document set, whereas CLR compared more favorably when only the first retrieved documents were used for evaluation. We also evaluated the three methods' specific ability to rank documents that did not match the query, in which case the speriority of CLR over BMR and HCR was apparent
-
Hereth, J.; Stumme, G.; Wille, R.; Wille, U.: Conceptual knowledge discovery and data analysis (2000)
0.01
0.0068065543 = product of:
0.013613109 = sum of:
0.013613109 = product of:
0.027226217 = sum of:
0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027226217 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this paper, we discuss Conceptual Knowledge Discovery in Databases (CKDD) in its connection with Data Analysis. Our approach is based on Formal Concept Analysis, a mathematical theory which has been developed and proven useful during the last 20 years. Formal Concept Analysis has led to a theory of conceptual information systems which has been applied by using the management system TOSCANA in a wide range of domains. In this paper, we use such an application in database marketing to demonstrate how methods and procedures of CKDD can be applied in Data Analysis. In particular, we show the interplay and integration of data mining and data analysis techniques based on Formal Concept Analysis. The main concern of this paper is to explain how the transition from data to knowledge can be supported by a TOSCANA system. To clarify the transition steps we discuss their correspondence to the five levels of knowledge representation established by R. Brachman and to the steps of empirically grounded theory building proposed by A. Strauss and J. Corbin
