Search (82 results, page 3 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Formale Begriffsanalyse"
  1. Working with conceptual structures : contributions to ICCS 2000. 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures: Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues. Darmstadt, August 14-18, 2000 (2000) 0.00 
    8.4795E-4 = product of:
  0.0033918 = sum of:
    0.0033918 = product of:
      0.0101753995 = sum of:
        0.0101753995 = weight(_text_:a in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0101753995 = score(doc=5089,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.1838419 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures - Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues (ICCS 2000) brings together a wide range of researchers and practitioners working with conceptual structures. During the last few years, the ICCS conference series has considerably widened its scope on different kinds of conceptual structures, stimulating research across domain boundaries. We hope that this stimulation is further enhanced by ICCS 2000 joining the long tradition of conferences in Darmstadt with extensive, lively discussions. This volume consists of contributions presented at ICCS 2000, complementing the volume "Conceptual Structures: Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues" (B. Ganter, G.W. Mineau (Eds.), LNAI 1867, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg 2000). It contains submissions reviewed by the program committee, and position papers. We wish to express our appreciation to all the authors of submitted papers, to the general chair, the program chair, the editorial board, the program committee, and to the additional reviewers for making ICCS 2000 a valuable contribution in the knowledge processing research field. Special thanks go to the local organizers for making the conference an enjoyable and inspiring event. We are grateful to Darmstadt University of Technology, the Ernst Schröder Center for Conceptual Knowledge Processing, the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Technology, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Land Hessen, and NaviCon GmbH for their generous support
    Content
    Concepts & Language: Knowledge organization by procedures of natural language processing. A case study using the method GABEK (J. Zelger, J. Gadner) - Computer aided narrative analysis using conceptual graphs (H. Schärfe, P. 0hrstrom) - Pragmatic representation of argumentative text: a challenge for the conceptual graph approach (H. Irandoust, B. Moulin) - Conceptual graphs as a knowledge representation core in a complex language learning environment (G. Angelova, A. Nenkova, S. Boycheva, T. Nikolov) - Conceptual Modeling and Ontologies: Relationships and actions in conceptual categories (Ch. Landauer, K.L. Bellman) - Concept approximations for formal concept analysis (J. Saquer, J.S. Deogun) - Faceted information representation (U. Priß) - Simple concept graphs with universal quantifiers (J. Tappe) - A framework for comparing methods for using or reusing multiple ontologies in an application (J. van ZyI, D. Corbett) - Designing task/method knowledge-based systems with conceptual graphs (M. Leclère, F.Trichet, Ch. Choquet) - A logical ontology (J. Farkas, J. Sarbo) - Algorithms and Tools: Fast concept analysis (Ch. Lindig) - A framework for conceptual graph unification (D. Corbett) - Visual CP representation of knowledge (H.D. Pfeiffer, R.T. Hartley) - Maximal isojoin for representing software textual specifications and detecting semantic anomalies (Th. Charnois) - Troika: using grids, lattices and graphs in knowledge acquisition (H.S. Delugach, B.E. Lampkin) - Open world theorem prover for conceptual graphs (J.E. Heaton, P. Kocura) - NetCare: a practical conceptual graphs software tool (S. Polovina, D. Strang) - CGWorld - a web based workbench for conceptual graphs management and applications (P. Dobrev, K. Toutanova) - Position papers: The edition project: Peirce's existential graphs (R. Mülller) - Mining association rules using formal concept analysis (N. Pasquier) - Contextual logic summary (R Wille) - Information channels and conceptual scaling (K.E. Wolff) - Spatial concepts - a rule exploration (S. Rudolph) - The TEXT-TO-ONTO learning environment (A. Mädche, St. Staab) - Controlling the semantics of metadata on audio-visual documents using ontologies (Th. Dechilly, B. Bachimont) - Building the ontological foundations of a terminology from natural language to conceptual graphs with Ribosome, a knowledge extraction system (Ch. Jacquelinet, A. Burgun) - CharGer: some lessons learned and new directions (H.S. Delugach) - Knowledge management using conceptual graphs (W.K. Pun)
  2. Reinartz, T.P.; Zickwolff, M.: ¬Two conceptual approaches to acquire human expert knowledge in a complex real world domain (1996) 0.00 
    8.309842E-4 = product of:
  0.0033239368 = sum of:
    0.0033239368 = product of:
      0.0099718105 = sum of:
        0.0099718105 = weight(_text_:a in 5908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0099718105 = score(doc=5908,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5908, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5908)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  3. Carpineto, C.; Romano, G.: Order-theoretical ranking (2000) 0.00 
    8.309842E-4 = product of:
  0.0033239368 = sum of:
    0.0033239368 = product of:
      0.0099718105 = sum of:
        0.0099718105 = weight(_text_:a in 4766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0099718105 = score(doc=4766,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 4766, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4766)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
    Type
    a
  4. Ganter, B.; Wille, R.: Conceptual scaling (1989) 0.00 
    8.2263234E-4 = product of:
  0.0032905294 = sum of:
    0.0032905294 = product of:
      0.009871588 = sum of:
        0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 3138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009871588 = score(doc=3138,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3138, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3138)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  5. Kollewe, W.: Data representation by nested line diagrams illustrated by a survey of pensioners (1991) 0.00 
    8.2263234E-4 = product of:
  0.0032905294 = sum of:
    0.0032905294 = product of:
      0.009871588 = sum of:
        0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 5230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009871588 = score(doc=5230,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5230, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5230)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    With formal concept analysis surveys are analyzable in the way that a meaningful picture of the answers of the interviewed persons is available. Line diagrams of large concept lattices might become less readable up to the point that it is impossible to pursue the line segments with the eyes. Nested line diagrams give the opportunity to overcome these difficulties. The main idea of nested line diagrams is to partition the line diagram into boxes so that line segments between two boxes are all parallel and may be replaced by one line segment. The possibility to draw line diagrams with more than two factors does allow it to describe concept lattices with many hundred or thousand concepts in a clear structure. In practice it has often been proven useful to take standardized scales for the single levels
    Type
    a
  6. Zickwolff, M.: Zur Rolle der Formalen Begriffsanalyse in der Wissensakquisition (1994) 0.00 
    8.2263234E-4 = product of:
  0.0032905294 = sum of:
    0.0032905294 = product of:
      0.009871588 = sum of:
        0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 8938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009871588 = score(doc=8938,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 8938, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8938)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  7. Wille, R.: Knowledge acquisition by methods of formal concept analysis (1989) 0.00 
    8.2263234E-4 = product of:
  0.0032905294 = sum of:
    0.0032905294 = product of:
      0.009871588 = sum of:
        0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009871588 = score(doc=594,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 594, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=594)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  8. Burmeister, P.: ConImp - Ein Programm zur Formalen Begriffsanalyse (2000) 0.00 
    8.2263234E-4 = product of:
  0.0032905294 = sum of:
    0.0032905294 = product of:
      0.009871588 = sum of:
        0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 2110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009871588 = score(doc=2110,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2110, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2110)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  9. Lengnink, K.: Ähnlichkeit als Distanz in Begriffsverbänden (2000) 0.00 
    8.2263234E-4 = product of:
  0.0032905294 = sum of:
    0.0032905294 = product of:
      0.009871588 = sum of:
        0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 4033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009871588 = score(doc=4033,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4033, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4033)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  10. Ganter, B.: Begriffe und Implikationen (2000) 0.00 
    8.2263234E-4 = product of:
  0.0032905294 = sum of:
    0.0032905294 = product of:
      0.009871588 = sum of:
        0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 4195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009871588 = score(doc=4195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4195, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4195)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  11. Pollandt, S.: Datenanalyse mit Fuzzy-Begriffen (2000) 0.00 
    8.2263234E-4 = product of:
  0.0032905294 = sum of:
    0.0032905294 = product of:
      0.009871588 = sum of:
        0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 4196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009871588 = score(doc=4196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4196, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4196)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  12. Prediger, S.: Terminologische Merkmalslogik in der Formalen Begriffsanalyse (2000) 0.00 
    8.2263234E-4 = product of:
  0.0032905294 = sum of:
    0.0032905294 = product of:
      0.009871588 = sum of:
        0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009871588 = score(doc=4197,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4197, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4197)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  13. Wille, R.; Zickwolff, M.: Grundlagen einer Triadischen Begriffsanalyse (2000) 0.00 
    8.2263234E-4 = product of:
  0.0032905294 = sum of:
    0.0032905294 = product of:
      0.009871588 = sum of:
        0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009871588 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  14. Lindig, C.; Snelting, G.: Formale Begriffsnalyse im Software Engineering (2000) 0.00 
    8.2263234E-4 = product of:
  0.0032905294 = sum of:
    0.0032905294 = product of:
      0.009871588 = sum of:
        0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 4199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009871588 = score(doc=4199,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4199, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4199)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  15. Rock, T.; Wille, R.: ¬Ein TOSCANA-Erkundungssystem zur Literatursuche (2000) 0.00 
    8.2263234E-4 = product of:
  0.0032905294 = sum of:
    0.0032905294 = product of:
      0.009871588 = sum of:
        0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 4202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009871588 = score(doc=4202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4202)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  16. Sedelow, S.Y.; Sedelow, W.A.: Thesauri and concept-lattice semantic nets (1994) 0.00 
    8.141949E-4 = product of:
  0.0032567796 = sum of:
    0.0032567796 = product of:
      0.009770338 = sum of:
        0.009770338 = weight(_text_:a in 7733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009770338 = score(doc=7733,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 7733, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7733)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Formal concept lattices are a promising vehicle for the construction of rigorous and empirically accurate semantic nets. Presented here are results of initial experiments with concept lattices as representations of semantic relationships in the implicit structure of a large database (e.g. Roget's thesaurus)
    Type
    a
  17. Kent, R.E.: Implications and rules in thesauri (1994) 0.00 
    8.141949E-4 = product of:
  0.0032567796 = sum of:
    0.0032567796 = product of:
      0.009770338 = sum of:
        0.009770338 = weight(_text_:a in 3457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009770338 = score(doc=3457,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 3457, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3457)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    A central consideration in the study of whole language semantic space as encoded in thesauri is word sense comparability. Shows how word sense comparability can be adequately expressed by the logical implications and rules from Formal Concept Analysis. Formal concept analysis, a new approach to formal logic initiated by Rudolf Wille, has been used for data modelling, analysis and interpretation, and also for knowledge representation and knowledge discovery
    Type
    a
  18. Priss, U.: Comparing classification systems using facets (2000) 0.00 
    8.141949E-4 = product of:
  0.0032567796 = sum of:
    0.0032567796 = product of:
      0.009770338 = sum of:
        0.009770338 = weight(_text_:a in 6485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009770338 = score(doc=6485,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 6485, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6485)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper describes a qualitative methodology for comparing and analyzing classification schemes. Theoretical facets are modeled as concept lattices in the sense of formal concept analysis and are used as 'ground' on which the underlying conceptual facets of a classification scheme are visually represented as 'figures'.
    Type
    a
  19. Ganter, B.: Computing with conceptual structures (2000) 0.00 
    7.883408E-4 = product of:
  0.0031533632 = sum of:
    0.0031533632 = product of:
      0.00946009 = sum of:
        0.00946009 = weight(_text_:a in 5088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00946009 = score(doc=5088,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 5088, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5088)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    We give an overview over the computational tools for conceptional structures that have emerged from the theory of Formal Concept Analysis, with emphasis on basic ideas rather than technical details. We describe what we mean by conceptual computations, and try to convince the reader that an elaborate formalization is a necessary precondition. Claiming that Formal Concept Analysis provides such a formal background, we present as examples two well known algorithms in very simple pseudo code. These earl be used for navigating in a lattice, thereby supporting some prototypical tasks of conceptual computation. We refer to some of the many more advanced methods, discuss how to compute with limited precision and explain why in the case of incomplete knowledge the conceptual approach is more efficient than a combinatorial one. Utilizing this efficiency requires skillful use of the formalism. We present two results that lead in this direction
    Type
    a
  20. Negm, E.; AbdelRahman, S.; Bahgat, R.: PREFCA: a portal retrieval engine based on formal concept analysis (2017) 0.00 
    7.795323E-4 = product of:
  0.0031181292 = sum of:
    0.0031181292 = product of:
      0.009354387 = sum of:
        0.009354387 = weight(_text_:a in 3291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009354387 = score(doc=3291,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.16900843 = fieldWeight in 3291, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3291)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The web is a network of linked sites whereby each site either forms a physical portal or a standalone page. In the former case, the portal presents an access point to its embedded web pages that coherently present a specific topic. In the latter case, there are millions of standalone web pages, that are scattered throughout the web, having the same topic and could be conceptually linked together to form virtual portals. Search engines have been developed to help users in reaching the adequate pages in an efficient and effective manner. All the known current search engine techniques rely on the web page as the basic atomic search unit. They ignore the conceptual links, that reveal the implicit web related meanings, among the retrieved pages. However, building a semantic model for the whole portal may contain more semantic information than a model of scattered individual pages. In addition, user queries can be poor and contain imprecise terms that do not reflect the real user intention. Consequently, retrieving the standalone individual pages that are directly related to the query may not satisfy the user's need. In this paper, we propose PREFCA, a Portal Retrieval Engine based on Formal Concept Analysis that relies on the portal as the main search unit. PREFCA consists of three phases: First, the information extraction phase that is concerned with extracting portal's semantic data. Second, the formal concept analysis phase that utilizes formal concept analysis to discover the conceptual links among portal and attributes. Finally, the information retrieval phase where we propose a portal ranking method to retrieve ranked pairs of portals and embedded pages. Additionally, we apply the network analysis rules to output some portal characteristics. We evaluated PREFCA using two data sets, namely the Forum for Information Retrieval Evaluation 2010 and ClueWeb09 (category B) test data, for physical and virtual portals respectively. PREFCA proves higher F-measure accuracy, better Mean Average Precision ranking and comparable network analysis and efficiency results than other search engine approaches, namely Term Frequency Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF), Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA), and BM25 techniques. As well, it gains high Mean Average Precision in comparison with learning to rank techniques. Moreover, PREFCA also gains better reach time than Carrot as a well-known topic-based search engine.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 43
  • d 38

Types

  • a 70
  • m 7
  • p 3
  • s 3
  • el 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications