Search (37 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Internet"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Wesch, M.: Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us (2006) 0.03 
    0.028787265 = product of:
  0.05757453 = sum of:
    0.05757453 = sum of:
      0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 3478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007654148 = score(doc=3478,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3478, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3478)
      0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 3478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04992038 = score(doc=3478,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3478, 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=3478)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Final version now available! http://youtube.com/watch?v=NLlGopyXT_g http://mediatedcultures.net A higher quality version is available for download here: http://www.mediafire.com/?6duzg3zioyd. Please note that this is the second draft and the final version will not be available until late February after I review all comments and revise the video. Please return for a new download link at that time.
    Date
    5. 1.2008 19:22:48
  2. Blosser, J.; Michaelson, R.; Routh. R.; Xia, P.: Defining the landscape of Web resources : Concluding Report of the BAER Web Resources Sub-Group (2000) 0.01 
    0.01482369 = product of:
  0.02964738 = sum of:
    0.02964738 = sum of:
      0.0046871896 = weight(_text_:a in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0046871896 = score(doc=1447,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.088261776 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The BAER Web Resources Group was charged in October 1999 with defining and describing the parameters of electronic resources that do not clearly belong to the categories being defined by the BAER Digital Group or the BAER Electronic Journals Group. After some difficulty identifying precisely which resources fell under the Group's charge, we finally named the following types of resources for our consideration: web sites, electronic texts, indexes, databases and abstracts, online reference resources, and networked and non-networked CD-ROMs. Electronic resources are a vast and growing collection that touch nearly every department within the Library. It is unrealistic to think one department can effectively administer all aspects of the collection. The Group then began to focus on the concern of bibliographic access to these varied resources, and to define parameters for handling or processing them within the Library. Some key elements became evident as the work progressed. * Selection process of resources to be acquired for the collection * Duplication of effort * Use of CORC * Resource Finder design * Maintenance of Resource Finder * CD-ROMs not networked * Communications * Voyager search limitations. An unexpected collaboration with the Web Development Committee on the Resource Finder helped to steer the Group to more detailed descriptions of bibliographic access. This collaboration included development of data elements for the Resource Finder database, and some discussions on Library staff processing of the resources. The Web Resources Group invited expert testimony to help the Group broaden its view to envision public use of the resources and discuss concerns related to technical services processing. The first testimony came from members of the Resource Finder Committee. Some background information on the Web Development Resource Finder Committee was shared. The second testimony was from librarians who select electronic texts. Three main themes were addressed: accessing CD-ROMs; the issue of including non-networked CD-ROMs in the Resource Finder; and, some special concerns about electronic texts. The third testimony came from librarians who select indexes and abstracts and also provide Reference services. Appendices to this report include minutes of the meetings with the experts (Appendix A), a list of proposed data elements to be used in the Resource Finder (Appendix B), and recommendations made to the Resource Finder Committee (Appendix C). Below are summaries of the key elements.
    Date
    21. 4.2002 10:22:31
  3. Schneider, R.: Bibliothek 1.0, 2.0 oder 3.0? (2008) 0.01 
    0.010920083 = product of:
  0.021840166 = sum of:
    0.021840166 = product of:
      0.043680333 = sum of:
        0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 6122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043680333 = score(doc=6122,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6122, 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=6122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Noch ist nicht entschieden mit welcher Vehemenz das sogenannte Web 2.0 die Bibliotheken verändern wird. Allerdings wird hier und da bereits mit Bezugnahme auf das sogenannte Semantic Web von einer dritten und mancherorts von einer vierten Generation des Web gesprochen. Der Vortrag hinterfragt kritisch, welche Konzepte sich hinter diesen Bezeichnungen verbergen und geht der Frage nach, welche Herausforderungen eine Übernahme dieser Konzepte für die Bibliothekswelt mit sich bringen würde. Vgl. insbes. Folie 22 mit einer Darstellung von der Entwicklung vom Web 1.0 zum Web 4.0
  4. Schetsche, M.: ¬Die ergoogelte Wirklichkeit : Verschwörungstheorien und das Internet (2005) 0.01 
    0.009360071 = product of:
  0.018720143 = sum of:
    0.018720143 = product of:
      0.037440285 = sum of:
        0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 3397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037440285 = score(doc=3397,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3397, 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=3397)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    "Zweimal täglich googeln" empfiehlt Mathias Bröckers in seinem Buch "Verschwörungen, Verschwörungstheorien und die Geheimnisse des 11.9.". Der Band gilt den gutbürgerlichen Medien von FAZ bis Spiegel als Musterbeispiel krankhafter Verschwörungstheorie. Dabei wollte der Autor - nach eigenem Bekunden - keine Verschwörungstheorie zum 11. September vorlegen, sondern lediglich auf Widersprüche und Fragwürdigkeiten in den amtlichen Darstellungen und Erklärungen der US-Regierung zu jenem Terroranschlag hinweisen. Unabhängig davon, wie ernst diese Einlassungen des Autors zu nehmen sind, ist der "Fall Bröckers" für die Erforschung von Verschwörungstheorien unter zwei Aspekten interessant: Erstens geht der Band auf ein [[extern] ] konspirologisches Tagebuch zurück, das der Autor zwischen dem 13. September 2001 und dem 22. März 2002 für das Online-Magazin Telepolis verfasst hat; zweitens behauptet Bröckers in der Einleitung zum Buch, dass er für seine Arbeit ausschließlich über das Netz zugängliche Quellen genutzt habe. Hierbei hätte ihm Google unverzichtbare Dienste geleistet: Um an die Informationen in diesem Buch zu kommen, musste ich weder über besondere Beziehungen verfügen, noch mich mit Schlapphüten und Turbanträgern zu klandestinen Treffen verabreden - alle Quellen liegen offen. Sie zu finden, leistete mir die Internet-Suchmaschine Google unschätzbare Dienste. Mathias Bröckers
  5. cis: Nationalbibliothek will das deutsche Internet kopieren (2008) 0.01 
    0.0054600416 = product of:
  0.010920083 = sum of:
    0.010920083 = product of:
      0.021840166 = sum of:
        0.021840166 = weight(_text_:22 in 4609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021840166 = score(doc=4609,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 4609, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4609)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    24.10.2008 14:19:22
  6. Wilson, R.: ¬The role of ontologies in teaching and learning (2004) 0.00 
    0.0033143433 = product of:
  0.0066286866 = sum of:
    0.0066286866 = product of:
      0.013257373 = sum of:
        0.013257373 = weight(_text_:a in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013257373 = score(doc=3387,freq=48.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.24964198 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
              6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
                48.0 = termFreq=48.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Ontologies are currently a buzzword in many communities, hailed as a mechanism for making better use of the Web. They offer a shared definition of a domain that can be understood by computers, enabling them to complete more meaningful tasks. Although ontologies of different descriptions have been in development and use for some time, it is their potential as a key technology in the Semantic Web which is responsible for the current wave of interest. Communities have different expectations of the Semantic Web and how it will be realised, but it is generally believed that ontologies will play a major role. In light of their potential in this new context, much current effort is focusing an developing languages and tools. OWL (Web Ontology Language) has recently become a standard, and builds an top of existing Web languages such as XML and RDF to offer a high degree of expressiveness. A variety of tools are emerging for creating, editing and managing ontologies in OWL. Ontologies have a range of potential benefits and applications in further and higher education, including the sharing of information across educational systems, providing frameworks for learning object reuse, and enabling intelligent and personalised student support. The difficulties inherent in creating a model of a domain are being tackled, and the communities involved in ontology development are working together to achieve their vision of the Semantic Web. This Technology and Standards Watch report discusses ontologies and their role in the Semantic Web, with a special focus an their implications for teaching and learning. This report will introduce ontologies to the further and higher education community, explaining why they are being developed, what they hope to achieve, and their potential benefits to the community. Current ontology tools and standards will be described, and the emphasis will be an introducing the technology to a new audience and exploring its risks and potential applications in teaching and learning. At a time when educational programmes based an ontologies are starting to be developed, the author hopes to increase understanding of the key issues in the wider community.
    Content
    "Ontologies promise "a shared and common understanding of a domain that can be communicated between people and application systems" [1]. They attempt to formulate a thorough and rigorous representation of a domain by specifying all of its concepts, the relationships between them and the conditions and regulations of the domain. Ontologies can express hierarchical links between entities as well as other semantic relations. An example of part of an ontology is provided in Figure 1, in which it is specified not only that an author is a person and that a book is a publication, but also that an author writes a book and that a book has chapters."
  7. Choo, C.W.; Detlor, B.; Turnbull, D.: Information seeking on the Web : an integrated model of browsing and searching (2000) 0.00 
    0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 4438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=4438,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 4438, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4438)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper presents findings from a study of how knowledge workers use the Web to seek external information as part of their daily work. 34 users from 7 companies took part in the study. Participants were mainly IT-specialists, managers, and research/marketing/consulting staff working in organizations that included a large utility company; a major bank, and a consulting firm. Participants answered a detailed questionnaire and were interviewed individually in order to understand their information needs and information seeking preferences. A custom-developed WebTracker software application was installed on each of their work place PCs, and participants' Web-use activities were then recorded continuously during two-week periods
  8. Atkins, H.; Lyons, C.; Ratner, H.; Risher, C.; Shillum, C.; Sidman, D.; Stevens, A.: Reference linking with DOIs : a case study (2000) 0.00 
    0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=1229,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    DOI-X is a prototype metadata database designed to support DOI lookups. The prototype is intended to address the integration of metadata registration and maintenance with basic DOI registration and maintenance, enabling publishers to use a single mechanism and a single quality-assurance process to register both DOIs and their associated metadata. It also contains the lookup mechanisms necessary to access the journal article metadata, both on a single-item lookup basis and on a batch basis, such as would facilitate reference linking. The prototype database was introduced and demonstrated to attendees at the STM International Meeting and the Frankfurt Book Fair in October 1999. This paper discusses the background for the creation of DOI-X and its salient features.
    Type
    a
  9. Spink, A.; Gunar, O.: E-Commerce Web queries : Excite and AskJeeves study (2001) 0.00 
    0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=910,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 910, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=910)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  10. Warnick, W.L.; Leberman, A.; Scott, R.L.; Spence, K.J.; Johnsom, L.A.; Allen, V.S.: Searching the deep Web : directed query engine applications at the Department of Energy (2001) 0.00 
    0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 1215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=1215,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 1215, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Directed Query Engines, an emerging class of search engine specifically designed to access distributed resources on the deep web, offer the opportunity to create inexpensive digital libraries. Already, one such engine, Distributed Explorer, has been used to select and assemble high quality information resources and incorporate them into publicly available systems for the physical sciences. By nesting Directed Query Engines so that one query launches several other engines in a cascading fashion, enormous virtual collections may soon be assembled to form a comprehensive information infrastructure for the physical sciences. Once a Directed Query Engine has been configured for a set of information resources, distributed alerts tools can provide patrons with personalized, profile-based notices of recent additions to any of the selected resources. Due to the potentially enormous size and scope of Directed Query Engine applications, consideration must be given to issues surrounding the representation of large quantities of information from multiple, heterogeneous sources.
    Type
    a
  11. Cross, P.: DESIRE: making the most of the Web (2000) 0.00 
    0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 2146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=2146,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2146, 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=2146)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  12. Koch, T.; Ardö, A.: Automatic classification of full-text HTML-documents from one specific subject area : DESIRE II D3.6a, Working Paper 2 (2000) 0.00 
    0.0023435948 = product of:
  0.0046871896 = sum of:
    0.0046871896 = product of:
      0.009374379 = sum of:
        0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 1667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009374379 = score(doc=1667,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 1667, 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=1667)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    1 Introduction / 2 Method overview / 3 Ei thesaurus preprocessing / 4 Automatic classification process: 4.1 Matching -- 4.2 Weighting -- 4.3 Preparation for display / 5 Results of the classification process / 6 Evaluations / 7 Software / 8 Other applications / 9 Experiments with universal classification systems / References / Appendix A: Ei classification service: Software / Appendix B: Use of the classification software as subject filter in a WWW harvester.
  13. Jacobsen, G.: Webarchiving internationally : interoperability in the future? (2007) 0.00 
    0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=699,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 699, 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=699)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Several national libraries are collecting parts of the Internet or planning to do so, but in order to render a complete impression of the Internet, web archives must be interoperable, enabling a user to make seamless searches. A questionnaire on this issue was sent to 95 national libraries. The answers show agreement with this goal and that web archiving is becoming more common. Partnering is a key ingredient in moving forward and a useful distinction is suggested in the labels curatorial partners (archives, museums) and technical partners (private companies, universities, other research institutions). Working with private, for-profit companies may also force national libraries to leave room for unorthodox thinking and experimenting. The biggest challenge right now is to make legal deposit, copyright and other legislation adapt to an Internet world, so we can preserve it and make it available to present and future generation.
  14. OWLED 2009; OWL: Experiences and Directions, Sixth International Workshop, Chantilly, Virginia, USA, 23-24 October 2009, Co-located with ISWC 2009. (2009) 0.00 
    0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 3391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=3391,freq=40.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 3391, product of:
              6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
                40.0 = termFreq=40.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3391)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The W3C OWL Web Ontology Language has been a W3C recommendation since 2004, and specification of its successor OWL 2 is being finalised. OWL plays an important role in an increasing number and range of applications and as experience using the language grows, new ideas for further extending its reach continue to be proposed. The OWL: Experiences and Direction (OWLED) workshop series is a forum for practitioners in industry and academia, tool developers, and others interested in OWL to describe real and potential applications, to share experience, and to discuss requirements for language extensions and modifications. The workshop will bring users, implementors and researchers together to measure the state of need against the state of the art, and to set an agenda for research and deployment in order to incorporate OWL-based technologies into new applications. This year's 2009 OWLED workshop will be co-located with the Eighth International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), and the Third International Conference on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR2009). It will be held in Chantilly, VA, USA on October 23 - 24, 2009. The workshop will concentrate on issues related to the development and W3C standardization of OWL 2, and beyond, but other issues related to OWL are also of interest, particularly those related to the task forces set up at OWLED 2007. As usual, the workshop will try to encourage participants to work together and will give space for discussions on various topics, to be decided and published at some point in the future. We ask participants to have a look at these topics and the accepted submissions before the workshop, and to prepare single "slides" that can be presented during these discussions. There will also be formal presentation of submissions to the workshop.
    Content
    Long Papers * Suggestions for OWL 3, Pascal Hitzler. * BestMap: Context-Aware SKOS Vocabulary Mappings in OWL 2, Rinke Hoekstra. * Mechanisms for Importing Modules, Bijan Parsia, Ulrike Sattler and Thomas Schneider. * A Syntax for Rules in OWL 2, Birte Glimm, Matthew Horridge, Bijan Parsia and Peter Patel-Schneider. * PelletSpatial: A Hybrid RCC-8 and RDF/OWL Reasoning and Query Engine, Markus Stocker and Evren Sirin. * The OWL API: A Java API for Working with OWL 2 Ontologies, Matthew Horridge and Sean Bechhofer. * From Justifications to Proofs for Entailments in OWL, Matthew Horridge, Bijan Parsia and Ulrike Sattler. * A Solution for the Man-Man Problem in the Family History Knowledge Base, Dmitry Tsarkov, Ulrike Sattler and Robert Stevens. * Towards Integrity Constraints in OWL, Evren Sirin and Jiao Tao. * Processing OWL2 ontologies using Thea: An application of logic programming, Vangelis Vassiliadis, Jan Wielemaker and Chris Mungall. * Reasoning in Metamodeling Enabled Ontologies, Nophadol Jekjantuk, Gerd Gröner and Jeff Z. Pan.
    Short Papers * A Database Backend for OWL, Jörg Henss, Joachim Kleb and Stephan Grimm. * Unifying SysML and OWL, Henson Graves. * The OWLlink Protocol, Thorsten Liebig, Marko Luther and Olaf Noppens. * A Reasoning Broker Framework for OWL, Juergen Bock, Tuvshintur Tserendorj, Yongchun Xu, Jens Wissmann and Stephan Grimm. * Change Representation For OWL 2 Ontologies, Raul Palma, Peter Haase, Oscar Corcho and Asunción Gómez-Pérez. * Practical Aspects of Query Rewriting for OWL 2, Héctor Pérez-Urbina, Ian Horrocks and Boris Motik. * CSage: Use of a Configurable Semantically Attributed Graph Editor as Framework for Editing and Visualization, Lawrence Levin. * A Conformance Test Suite for the OWL 2 RL/RDF Rules Language and the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics, Michael Schneider and Kai Mainzer. * Improving the Data Quality of Relational Databases using OBDA and OWL 2 QL, Olivier Cure. * Temporal Classes and OWL, Natalya Keberle. * Using Ontologies for Medical Image Retrieval - An Experiment, Jasmin Opitz, Bijan Parsia and Ulrike Sattler. * Task Representation and Retrieval in an Ontology-Guided Modelling System, Yuan Ren, Jens Lemcke, Andreas Friesen, Tirdad Rahmani, Srdjan Zivkovic, Boris Gregorcic, Andreas Bartho, Yuting Zhao and Jeff Z. Pan. * A platform for reasoning with OWL-EL knowledge bases in a Peer-to-Peer environment, Alexander De Leon and Michel Dumontier. * Axiomé: a Tool for the Elicitation and Management of SWRL Rules, Saeed Hassanpour, Martin O'Connor and Amar Das. * SQWRL: A Query Language for OWL, Martin O'Connor and Amar Das. * Classifying ELH Ontologies In SQL Databases, Vincent Delaitre and Yevgeny Kazakov. * A Semantic Web Approach to Represent and Retrieve Information in a Corporate Memory, Ana B. Rios-Alvarado, R. Carolina Medina-Ramirez and Ricardo Marcelin-Jimenez. * Towards a Graphical Notation for OWL 2, Elisa Kendall, Roy Bell, Roger Burkhart, Mark Dutra and Evan Wallace.
    Demo/Position Papers * Conjunctive Query Answering in Distributed Ontology Systems for Ontologies with Large OWL ABoxes, Xueying Chen and Michel Dumontier. * Node-Link and Containment Methods in Ontology Visualization, Julia Dmitrieva and Fons J. Verbeek. * A JC3IEDM OWL-DL Ontology, Steven Wartik. * Semantically Enabled Temporal Reasoning in a Virtual Observatory, Patrick West, Eric Rozell, Stephan Zednik, Peter Fox and Deborah L. McGuinness. * Developing an Ontology from the Application Up, James Malone, Tomasz Adamusiak, Ele Holloway, Misha Kapushesky and Helen Parkinson.
  15. Robbio, A. de; Maguolo, D.; Marini, A.: Scientific and general subject classifications in the digital world (2001) 0.00 
    0.0022438213 = product of:
  0.0044876426 = sum of:
    0.0044876426 = product of:
      0.008975285 = sum of:
        0.008975285 = weight(_text_:a in 2) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008975285 = score(doc=2,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.16900843 = fieldWeight in 2, 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=2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In the present work we discuss opportunities, problems, tools and techniques encountered when interconnecting discipline-specific subject classifications, primarily organized as search devices in bibliographic databases, with general classifications originally devised for book shelving in public libraries. We first state the fundamental distinction between topical (or subject) classifications and object classifications. Then we trace the structural limitations that have constrained subject classifications since their library origins, and the devices that were used to overcome the gap with genuine knowledge representation. After recalling some general notions on structure, dynamics and interferences of subject classifications and of the objects they refer to, we sketch a synthetic overview on discipline-specific classifications in Mathematics, Computing and Physics, on one hand, and on general classifications on the other. In this setting we present The Scientific Classifications Page, which collects groups of Web pages produced by a pool of software tools for developing hypertextual presentations of single or paired subject classifications from sequential source files, as well as facilities for gathering information from KWIC lists of classification descriptions. Further we propose a concept-oriented methodology for interconnecting subject classifications, with the concrete support of a relational analysis of the whole Mathematics Subject Classification through its evolution since 1959. Finally, we recall a very basic method for interconnection provided by coreference in bibliographic records among index elements from different systems, and point out the advantages of establishing the conditions of a more widespread application of such a method. A part of these contents was presented under the title Mathematics Subject Classification and related Classifications in the Digital World at the Eighth International Conference Crimea 2001, "Libraries and Associations in the Transient World: New Technologies and New Forms of Cooperation", Sudak, Ukraine, June 9-17, 2001, in a special session on electronic libraries, electronic publishing and electronic information in science chaired by Bernd Wegner, Editor-in-Chief of Zentralblatt MATH.
  16. Dodge, M.: What does the Internet look like, Jellyfish perhaps? : Exploring a visualization of the Internet by Young Hyun of CAIDA (2001) 0.00 
    0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 1554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=1554,freq=56.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1554, product of:
              7.483315 = tf(freq=56.0), with freq of:
                56.0 = termFreq=56.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1554)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "The Internet is often likened to an organic entity and this analogy seems particularly appropriate in the light of some striking new visualizations of the complex mesh of Internet pathways. The images are results of a new graph visualization tool, code-named Walrus, being developed by researcher, Young Hyun, at the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA) [1]. Although Walrus is still in early days of development, I think these preliminary results are some of the most intriguing and evocative images of the Internet's structure that we have seen in last year or two. A few years back I spent an enjoyable afternoon at the Monterey Bay Aquarium and I particularly remember a stunning exhibit of jellyfish, which were illuminated with UV light to show their incredibly delicate organic structures, gently pulsing in tanks of inky black water. Jellyfish are some of the strangest, alien, and yet most beautiful, living creatures [2]. Having looked at the Walrus images I began to wonder, perhaps the backbone networks of the Internet look like jellyfish? The image above is a screengrab of a Walrus visualization of a huge graph. The graph data in this particular example depicts Internet topology, as measured by CAIDA's skitter monitor [3] based in London, showing 535,000-odd Internet nodes and over 600,000 links. The nodes, represented by the yellow dots, are a large sample of computers from across the whole range of Internet addresses. Walrus is an interactive visualization tool that allows the analyst to view massive graphs from any position. The graph is projected inside a 3D sphere using a special kind of space based hyperbolic geometry. This is a non-Euclidean space, which has useful distorting properties of making elements at the center of the display much larger than those on the periphery. You interact with the graph in Walrus by selecting a node of interest, which is smoothly moved into the center of the display, and that region of the graph becomes greatly enlarged, enabling you to focus on the fine detail. Yet the rest of the graph remains visible, providing valuable context of the overall structure. (There are some animations available on the website showing Walrus graphs being moved, which give some sense of what this is like.) Hyperbolic space projection is commonly know as "focus+context" in the field of information visualization and has been used to display all kinds of data that can be represented as large graphs in either two and three dimensions [4]. It can be thought of as a moveable fish-eye lens. The Walrus visualization tool draws much from the hyperbolic research by Tamara Munzner [5] as part of her PhD at Stanford. (Map of the Month examined some of Munzner's work from 1996 in an earlier article, Internet Arcs Around The Globe.) Walrus is being developed as a general-purpose visualization tool able to cope with massive directed graphs, in the order of a million nodes. Providing useful and interactively useable visualization of such large volumes of graph data is a tough challenge and is particularly apposite to the task of mapping of Internet backbone infrastructures. In a recent email Map of the Month asked Walrus developer Young Hyun what had been the hardest part of the project thus far. "The greatest difficulty was in determining precisely what Walrus should be about," said Hyun. Crucially "... we had to face the question of what it means to visualize a large graph. It would defeat the aim of a visualization to overload a user with the large volume of data that is likely to be associated with a large graph." I think the preliminary results available show that Walrus is heading in right direction tackling these challenges.
    However, Hyun points out that it is still early days and over the next six months or so Walrus will be extended to include core functions beyond just visualizing raw topology graphs. For CAIDA, it is important to see performance measurements associated with the links; as Hyun notes, "you can imagine how important this is to our visualizations, given that we are almost never interested in the mere topology of a network." Walrus has not revealed much new scientific knowledge of the Internet thus far, although Hyun commented that the current visualization of topology "did make it easy to see the degree to which the network is in tangles how some nodes form large clusters and how they are seemingly interconnected in random ways." This random connectedness is perhaps what gives the Internet its organic look and feel. Of course this is not real shape of the Internet. One must always be wary when viewing and interpreting any particular graph visualization as much of the final "look and feel" results from subjective decisions of the analyst, rather than inherent in the underlying phenomena. As Hyun pointed out, "... the organic quality of the images derives almost entirely from the particular combination of the layout algorithm used and hyperbolic distortion." There is no inherently "natural" shape when visualizing massive data, such as the topology of the global Internet, in an abstract space. Somewhat like a jellyfish, maybe? ----
    What Is CAIDA? Association for Internet Data Analysis, started in 1997 and is based in the San Diego Supercomputer Center. CAIDA is led by KC Claffy along with a staff of serious Net techie researchers and grad students, and they are one of the worlds leading teams of academic researchers studying how the Internet works [6] . Their mission is "to provide a neutral framework for promoting greater cooperation in developing and deploying Internet measurement, analysis, and visualization tools that will support engineering and maintaining a robust, scaleable global Internet infrastructure." In addition to the Walrus visualization tool and the skitter monitoring system which we have touched on here, CAIDA has many other interesting projects mapping the infrastructure and operations of the global Internet. Two of my particular favorite visualization projects developed at CAIDA are MAPNET and Plankton [7] . MAPNET provides a useful interactive tool for mapping ISP backbones onto real-world geography. You can select from a range of commercial and research backbones and compare their topology of links overlaid on the same map. (The major problem with MAPNET is that is based on static database of ISP backbones links, which has unfortunately become obsolete over time.) Plankton, developed by CAIDA researchers Bradley Huffaker and Jaeyeon Jung, is an interactive tool for visualizing the topology and traffic on the global hierarchy of Web caches.
  17. Alfaro, L.de: How (much) to trust Wikipedia (2008) 0.00 
    0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 2138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=2138,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2138, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2138)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia: anyone can contribute to its articles simply by clicking on an "edit'' button. The open nature of the Wikipedia has been key to its success, but has a flip side: if anyone can edit, how can readers know whether to trust its content? To help answer this question, we have developed a reputation system for Wikipedia authors, and a trust system for Wikipedia text. Authors gain reputation when their contributions are long-lived, and they lose reputation when their contributions are undone in short order. Each word in the Wikipedia is assigned a value of trust that depends on the reputation of its author, as well as on the reputation of the authors that subsequently revised the text where the word appears. To validate our algorithms, we show that reputation and trust have good predictive value: higher-reputation authors are more likely to give lasting contributions, and higher-trust text is less likely to be edited. The trust can be visualized via an intuitive coloring of the text background. The coloring provides an effective way of spotting attempts to tamper with Wikipedia information. A trust-colored version of the entire English Wikipedia can be browsed at http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/
  18. Bergman, M.K.: ¬The Deep Web : surfacing hidden value (2001) 0.00 
    0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 39) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=39,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 39, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=39)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  19. Rudner, L.: Who is going to mine digital library resources? : anf how? (2000) 0.00 
    0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 6800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=6800,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 6800, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6800)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  20. Beacom, M.: Crossing a digital divide : AACR2 and unaddressed problems of networked ressources (2000) 0.00 
    0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 6805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=6805,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 6805, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6805)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Authors

Languages

  • e 30
  • d 6
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Types

Themes