Search (24 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0013294776 = product of:
  0.021271642 = sum of:
    0.021271642 = product of:
      0.042543285 = sum of:
        0.042543285 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042543285 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10995905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:07

4.0092488E-4 = product of:
  0.006414798 = sum of:
    0.006414798 = weight(_text_:information in 756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006414798 = score(doc=756,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 756, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=756)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Footnote

Preprint. To be published as Vol 122 in the Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology Series by the Australian Computer Society Inc. http://crpit.com/.

4.0092488E-4 = product of:
  0.006414798 = sum of:
    0.006414798 = weight(_text_:information in 4641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006414798 = score(doc=4641,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4641, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4641)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

This paper presents an overview of the work in progress at the W3C to produce a standard conversion of WordNet to the RDF/OWL representation language in use in the SemanticWeb community. Such a standard representation is useful to provide application developers a high-quality resource and to promote interoperability. Important requirements in this conversion process are that it should be complete and should stay close to WordNet's conceptual model. The paper explains the steps taken to produce the conversion and details design decisions such as the composition of the class hierarchy and properties, the addition of suitable OWL semantics and the chosen format of the URIs. Additional topics include a strategy to incorporate OWL and RDFS semantics in one schema such that both RDF(S) infrastructure and OWL infrastructure can interpret the information correctly, problems encountered in understanding the Prolog source files and the description of the two versions that are provided (Basic and Full) to accommodate different usages of WordNet.

2.6728326E-4 = product of:
  0.004276532 = sum of:
    0.004276532 = weight(_text_:information in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004276532 = score(doc=549,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

LCSH is known as such since 1975. It always has created headings to serve the LC collections instead of a theoretical basis. It started to replace cross reference codes by thesaural codes in 1986, in a mechanical fashion. It was in no way transformed into a thesaurus. Its encyclopedic coverage, its pre-coordinate concepts make it substantially distinct, considering that thesauri usually map a restricted field of knowledge and use uniterms. The questions raised are whether the new symbols comply with thesaurus standards and if they are true to one or to several models. Explanations and definitions from other lists of subject headings and thesauri, literature in the field of classification and subject indexing will provide some answers. For instance, see refers from a subject heading not used to another or others used. Exceptionally it will lead from a specific term to a more general one. Some equate a see reference with the equivalence relationship. Such relationships are pointed by USE in LCSH. See also references are made from the broader subject to narrower parts of it and also between associated subjects. They suggest lateral or vertical connexions as well as reciprocal relationships. They serve a coordination purpose for some, lay down a methodical search itinerary for others. Since their inception in the 1950's thesauri have been devised for indexing and retrieving information in the fields of science and technology. Eventually they attended to a number of social sciences and humanities. Research derived from thesauri was voluminous. Numerous guidelines are designed. They did not discriminate between the "hard" sciences and the social sciences. RT relationships are widely but diversely used in numerous controlled vocabularies. LCSH's aim is to achieve a list almost free of RT and SA references. It thus restricts relationships to BT/NT, USE and UF. This raises the question as to whether all fields of knowledge can "fit" in the Procrustean bed of RT/NT, i.e., genus/species relationships. Standard codes were devised. It was soon realized that BT/NT, well suited to the genus/species couple could not signal a whole-part relationship. In LCSH, BT and NT function as reciprocals, the whole-part relationship is taken into account by ISO. It is amply elaborated upon by authors. The part-whole connexion is sometimes studied apart. The decision to replace cross reference codes was an improvement. Relations can now be distinguished through the distinct needs of numerous fields of knowledge are not attended to. Topic inclusion, and topic-subtopic, could provide the missing link where genus/species or whole/part are inadequate. Distinct codes, BT/NT and whole/part, should be provided. Sorting relationships with mechanical means can only lead to confusion.