Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01548909 = product of:
  0.069700904 = sum of:
    0.024937542 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024937542 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.106595136 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035239052 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
    0.044763364 = product of:
      0.06714504 = sum of:
        0.033724207 = weight(_text_:29 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033724207 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.123959966 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035239052 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
        0.033420835 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033420835 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12340116 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035239052 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Moderne Verfahren des Information Retrieval verlangen nach aussagekräftigen und detailliert relationierten Dokumentationssprachen. Der selektive Transfer einzelner Modellierungsstrategien aus dem Bereich semantischer Technologien für die Gestaltung und Relationierung bestehender Dokumentationssprachen wird diskutiert. In Form einer Taxonomie wird ein hierarchisch strukturiertes Relationeninventar definiert, welches sowohl hinreichend allgemeine als auch zahlreiche spezifische Relationstypen enthält, die eine detaillierte und damit aussagekräftige Relationierung des Vokabulars ermöglichen. Das bringt einen Zugewinn an Übersichtlichkeit und Funktionalität. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Ansätzen und Überlegungen zur Schaffung von Relationeninventaren entwickelt der vorgestellte Vorschlag das Relationeninventar aus der Begriffsmenge eines bestehenden Gegenstandsbereichs heraus.

Date

2. 3.2013 12:29:05

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.0068912273 = product of:
  0.031010523 = sum of:
    0.021375036 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021375036 = score(doc=4642,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.106595136 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035239052 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4642, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4642)
    0.009635488 = product of:
      0.028906463 = sum of:
        0.028906463 = weight(_text_:29 in 4642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028906463 = score(doc=4642,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.123959966 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035239052 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4642, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4642)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Thesauri can be useful resources for indexing and retrieval on the Semantic Web, but often they are not published in RDF/OWL. To convert thesauri to RDF for use in Semantic Web applications and to ensure the quality and utility of the conversion a structured method is required. Moreover, if different thesauri are to be interoperable without complicated mappings, a standard schema for thesauri is required. This paper presents a method for conversion of thesauri to the SKOS RDF/OWL schema, which is a proposal for such a standard under development by W3Cs Semantic Web Best Practices Working Group. We apply the method to three thesauri: IPSV, GTAA and MeSH. With these case studies we evaluate our method and the applicability of SKOS for representing thesauri.

Date

29. 7.2011 14:44:56

0.005726638 = product of:
  0.02576987 = sum of:
    0.01781253 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01781253 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.106595136 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035239052 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1670, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1670)
    0.007957342 = product of:
      0.023872025 = sum of:
        0.023872025 = weight(_text_:22 in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023872025 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12340116 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035239052 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1670, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1670)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Es ist ein semantisches Netz für den Gegenstandsbereich Luftfahrt modelliert worden, welches Unternehmensinformationen, Organisationen, Fluglinien, Flughäfen, etc. enthält, Diese sind 10 Hauptkategorien zugeordnet worden, die untergliedert nach Facetten sind. Die Begriffe des Gegenstandsbereiches sind mit 23 unterschiedlichen Relationen verknüpft worden (Z. B.: 'hat Standort in', bietet an, 'ist Homebase von', etc). Der Schwerpunkt der Betrachtung liegt auf dem Unterschied zwischen den drei klassischen Standardrelationen und den zusätzlich eingerichteten Relationen, bezüglich ihrem Nutzen für ein effizientes Retrieval. Die angelegten Kategorien und Relationen sind sowohl für eine kognitive als auch für eine maschinelle Verarbeitung geeignet.

Date

26. 9.2006 21:00:22

0.003358763 = product of:
  0.030228866 = sum of:
    0.030228866 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030228866 = score(doc=2176,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.106595136 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035239052 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2176, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2176)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The ISO 2788 guidelines for monolingual thesauri contain a differentiation of "the hierarchical relationship" into "generic", "partitive", and "instance", which, for purposes of document retrieval, was deemed adequate. However, ontologies, designed as language inventories for a wider scope of knowledge representation, are based on all these and some more logical differentiations. Rereading the ISO 2788 standard and inspecting the published Cyc Upper Ontology, it is argued that the adoption of the document-retrieval definition of subsumption generally prevents the conception or use of a thesaurus as a substructure of an ontology of the new kind as constructed for AI applications. When a thesaurus is used for fact description and inference on fact descriptions, the instance-of relationship too should be reconsidered: It may also link concepts and metaconcepts, and then its distinction from subsumption is needed. The treatment of the instance-of relationship in thesauri, the Cyc Upper Ontology, and WordNet is described from this perspective

0.002798969 = product of:
  0.02519072 = sum of:
    0.02519072 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02519072 = score(doc=3276,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.106595136 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035239052 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The originality of this book, which deals with such a new subject matter, lies in the application of methods and concepts never used before - such as Ontologies and Taxonomies, as well as Thesauri - to the ordering of knowledge based on primary information. Chapters in the book also examine the study of Ontologies, Taxonomies and Thesauri from the perspective of Systematics and General Systems Theory. "Ontologies, Taxonomy and Thesauri in Information Organisation and Retrieval" will be extremely useful to those operating within the network of related fields, which includes Documentation and Information Science.

0.002770838 = product of:
  0.024937542 = sum of:
    0.024937542 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024937542 = score(doc=2461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.106595136 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035239052 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 2461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2461)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Moderne Verfahren des Information Retrieval verlangen nach aussagekräftigen und detailliert relationierten Dokumentationssprachen. Der selektive Transfer einzelner Modellierungsstrategien aus dem Bereich semantischer Technologien für die Gestaltung und Relationierung bestehender Dokumentationssprachen wird diskutiert. Am Beispiel des Gegenstandsbereichs "Theater" der Schlagwortnormdatei wird ein hierarchisch strukturiertes Relationeninventar definiert, welches sowohl hinreichend allgemeine als auch zahlreiche spezifische Relationstypen enthält, welche eine detaillierte und damit funktionale Relationierung des Vokabulars ermöglichen. Die Relationierung des Gegenstandsbereichs wird als Ontologie im OWL-Format modelliert. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Ansätzen und Überlegungen zur Schaffung von Relationeninventaren entwickelt der vorgestellte Vorschlag das Relationeninventar aus der Begriffsmenge eines vorgegebenen Gegenstandsbereichs heraus. Das entwickelte Inventar wird als eine hierarchisch strukturierte Taxonomie gestaltet, was einen Zugewinn an Übersichtlichkeit und Funktionalität bringt.

0.002770838 = product of:
  0.024937542 = sum of:
    0.024937542 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024937542 = score(doc=572,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.106595136 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035239052 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

We consider use of ontological background knowledge in intelligent information systems and analyze directions of their reduction in compliance with specifics of particular user task. Such reduction is aimed at simplification of knowledge processing without loss of significant information. We propose methods of generation of task thesauri based on domain ontology that contain such subset of ontological concepts and relations that can be used in task solving. Combinatorial optimization is used for minimization of task thesaurus. In this approach, semantic similarity estimates are used for determination of concept significance for user task. Some practical examples of optimized thesauri application for semantic retrieval and competence analysis demonstrate efficiency of proposed approach.

0.0026553352 = product of:
  0.023898017 = sum of:
    0.023898017 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023898017 = score(doc=1169,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.106595136 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035239052 = queryNorm
        0.22419426 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

T.1: Today's thesauri are mostly electronic tools, having moved on from the paper-based era when thesaurus standards were first developed. They are built and maintained with the support of software and need to integrate with other software, such as search engines and content management systems. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals trained in indexing and searching, today there is a demand for vocabularies that untrained users will find to be intuitive. ISO 25964 makes the transition needed for the world of electronic information management. However, part 1 retains the assumption that human intellect is usually involved in the selection of indexing terms and in the selection of search terms. If both the indexer and the searcher are guided to choose the same term for the same concept, then relevant documents will be retrieved. This is the main principle underlying thesaurus design, even though a thesaurus built for human users may also be applied in situations where computers make the choices. Efficient exchange of data is a vital component of thesaurus management and exploitation. Hence the inclusion in this standard of recommendations for exchange formats and protocols. Adoption of these will facilitate interoperability between thesaurus management systems and the other computer applications, such as indexing and retrieval systems, that will utilize the data. Thesauri are typically used in post-coordinate retrieval systems, but may also be applied to hierarchical directories, pre-coordinate indexes and classification systems. Increasingly, thesaurus applications need to mesh with others, such as automatic categorization schemes, free-text search systems, etc. Part 2 of ISO 25964 describes additional types of structured vocabulary and gives recommendations to enable interoperation of the vocabularies at all stages of the information storage and retrieval process.
T.2: The ability to identify and locate relevant information among vast collections and other resources is a major and pressing challenge today. Several different types of vocabulary are in use for this purpose. Some of the most widely used vocabularies were designed a hundred years ago and have been evolving steadily. A different generation of vocabularies is now emerging, designed to exploit the electronic media more effectively. A good understanding of the previous generation is still essential for effective access to collections indexed with them. An important object of ISO 25964 as a whole is to support data exchange and other forms of interoperability in circumstances in which more than one structured vocabulary is applied within one retrieval system or network. Sometimes one vocabulary has to be mapped to another, and it is important to understand both the potential and the limitations of such mappings. In other systems, a thesaurus is mapped to a classification scheme, or an ontology to a thesaurus. Comprehensive interoperability needs to cover the whole range of vocabulary types, whether young or old. Concepts in different vocabularies are related only in that they have the same or similar meaning. However, the meaning can be found in a number of different aspects within each particular type of structured vocabulary: - within terms or captions selected in different languages; - in the notation assigned indicating a place within a larger hierarchy; - in the definition, scope notes, history notes and other notes that explain the significance of that concept; and - in explicit relationships to other concepts or entities within the same vocabulary. In order to create mappings from one structured vocabulary to another it is first necessary to understand, within the context of each different type of structured vocabulary, the significance and relative importance of each of the different elements in defining the meaning of that particular concept. ISO 25964-1 describes the key characteristics of thesauri along with additional advice on best practice. ISO 25964-2 focuses on other types of vocabulary and does not attempt to cover all aspects of good practice. It concentrates on those aspects which need to be understood if one of the vocabularies is to work effectively alongside one or more of the others. Recognizing that a new standard cannot be applied to some existing vocabularies, this part of ISO 25964 provides informative description alongside the recommendations, the aim of which is to enable users and system developers to interpret and implement the existing vocabularies effectively. The remainder of ISO 25964-2 deals with the principles and practicalities of establishing mappings between vocabularies.

Issue

Pt.1: Thesauri for information retrieval - Pt.2: Interoperability with other vocabularies.

0.002375004 = product of:
  0.021375036 = sum of:
    0.021375036 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021375036 = score(doc=1837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.106595136 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035239052 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1837)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Moderne Verfahren des Information Retrieval verlangen nach aussagekräftigen und detailliert relationierten Dokumentationssprachen. Der selektive Transfer einzelner Modellierungsstrategien aus dem Bereich semantischer Technologien für die Gestaltung und Relationierung bestehender Dokumentationssprachen wird diskutiert. Am Beispiel des Gegenstandsbereichs "Theater" der Schlagwortnormdatei wird ein hierarchisch strukturiertes Relationeninventar definiert, welches sowohl hinreichend allgemeine als auch zahlreiche spezifische Relationstypen enthält, welche eine detaillierte und damit funktionale Relationierung des Vokabulars ermöglichen. Die Relationierung des Gegenstandsbereichs wird als Ontologie im OWL-Format modelliert. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Ansätzen und Überlegungen zur Schaffung von Relationeninventaren entwickelt der vorgestellte Vorschlag das Relationeninventar aus der Begriffsmenge eines vorgegebenen Gegenstandsbereichs heraus. Das entwickelte Inventar wird als eine hierarchisch strukturierte Taxonomie gestaltet, was einen Zugewinn an Übersichtlichkeit und Funktionalität bringt.

0.0022622533 = product of:
  0.02036028 = sum of:
    0.02036028 = weight(_text_:internet in 32) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02036028 = score(doc=32,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10403413 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035239052 = queryNorm
        0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 32, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=32)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

0.00197917 = product of:
  0.01781253 = sum of:
    0.01781253 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01781253 = score(doc=3695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.106595136 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035239052 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3695)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The concepts of simplicity and complexity play major roles in information storage and retrieval in knowledge organizations. This paper reports an investigation of these concepts in the structure of descriptors. The main purpose of simplicity is to decrease the number of words in the construction of descriptors as this idea affects semantic relations, recall and precision. ISO 25964 has affirmed the purpose of simplicity by requiring splitting compound terms into simpler concepts. This work aims to elaborate the standard methods of evaluation by providing a more detailed evaluation of the descriptors structure and identifying effective factors in simplicity and complexity results in the structure of thesauri descriptors. The research population is taken from the descriptors of the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Thesaurus, the Persian Cultural Thesaurus (ASFA) and the Chemical Thesaurus. This research was conducted using the statistical and content analysis method. In this research we propose a new quantitative approach as well as novel indicators and indices involving Simplicity and Factoring Ratios to evaluate the descriptors structure. The results will be useful in the verification, selection and maintenance purposes in knowledge organizations and the inquiry method can be further developed in the field of ontology evaluation.

0.00197917 = product of:
  0.01781253 = sum of:
    0.01781253 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01781253 = score(doc=592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.106595136 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035239052 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify the most important factors and features in the evolution of thesauri and ontologies through a dialectic model. This model relies on a dialectic process or idea which could be discovered via a dialectic method. This method has focused on identifying the logical relationship between a beginning proposition, or an idea called a thesis, a negation of that idea called the antithesis, and the result of the conflict between the two ideas, called a synthesis. During the creation of knowl­edge organization systems (KOSs), the identification of logical relations between different ideas has been made possible through the consideration and use of the most influential methods and tools such as dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, thesaurus, micro-, macro- and metathesauri, ontology, lower, middle and upper level ontologies. The analysis process has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a dialectic method and documentary method as the reasoning process. This supports our arguments and synthesizes a method for the analysis of research results. Confirmed by the research results, the principle of unity has shown to be the most important factor in the development and evolution of the structure of knowl­edge organization systems and their types. There are various types of unity when considering the analysis of logical relations. These include the principle of unity of alphabetical order, unity of science, semantic unity, structural unity and conceptual unity. The results have clearly demonstrated a movement from plurality to unity in the assembling of the complex structure of knowl­edge organization systems to increase information and knowl­edge storage and retrieval performance.

0.0017682982 = product of:
  0.015914684 = sum of:
    0.015914684 = product of:
      0.04774405 = sum of:
        0.04774405 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04774405 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12340116 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035239052 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:07

0.001583336 = product of:
  0.014250024 = sum of:
    0.014250024 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014250024 = score(doc=4800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.106595136 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035239052 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The usefulness of online geological maps is hindered by linguistic barriers. Multilingual geoscience thesauri alleviate linguistic barriers of geological maps. However, the benefits of multilingual geoscience thesauri for online geological maps are less studied. In this regard, we developed a multilingual thesaurus of geological time scale (GTS) to alleviate linguistic barriers of GTS records among online geological maps. We extended the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) model to represent the ordinal hierarchical structure of GTS terms. We collected GTS terms in seven languages and encoded them into a thesaurus by using the extended SKOS model. We implemented methods of characteristic-oriented term retrieval in JavaScript programs for accessing Web Map Services (WMS), recognizing GTS terms, and making translations. With the developed thesaurus and programs, we set up a pilot system to test recognitions and translations of GTS terms in online geological maps. Results of this pilot system proved the accuracy of the developed thesaurus and the functionality of the developed programs. Therefore, with proper deployments, SKOS-based multilingual geoscience thesauri can be functional for alleviating linguistic barriers among online geological maps and, thus, improving their interoperability.

0.0014274797 = product of:
  0.012847317 = sum of:
    0.012847317 = product of:
      0.03854195 = sum of:
        0.03854195 = weight(_text_:29 in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03854195 = score(doc=4695,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.123959966 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035239052 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 4695, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4695)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei

0.001385419 = product of:
  0.012468771 = sum of:
    0.012468771 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012468771 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.106595136 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035239052 = queryNorm
        0.11697317 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The paper analysed here is a kind of position paper. In order to get a better under-standing of the reported work I used the retrieval interface of the thesaurus, the so-called NCI DTS Browser accessible via the Web3, and I perused the cited OWL file4 with numerous "Find" and "Find next" string searches. In addition the file was im-ported into Protégé 2000, Release 2.0, with OWL Plugin 1.0 and Racer Plugin 1.7.14. At the end of the paper's introduction the authors say: "In the following sections, this paper will describe the terminology development process at NCI, and the issues associated with converting a description logic based nomenclature to a semantically rich OWL ontology." While I will not deal with the first part, i.e. the terminology development process at NCI, I do not see the thesaurus as a description logic based nomenclature, or its cur-rent state and conversion already result in a "rich" OWL ontology. What does "rich" mean here? According to my view there is a great quantity of concepts and links but a very poor description logic structure which enables inferences. And what does the fol-lowing really mean, which is said a few lines previously: "Although editors have defined a number of named ontologic relations to support the description-logic based structure of the Thesaurus, additional relation-ships are considered for inclusion as required to support dependent applications."

0.0012490448 = product of:
  0.0112414025 = sum of:
    0.0112414025 = product of:
      0.033724207 = sum of:
        0.033724207 = weight(_text_:29 in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033724207 = score(doc=4644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.123959966 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035239052 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

29. 7.2011 14:44:56

0.0010706098 = product of:
  0.009635488 = sum of:
    0.009635488 = product of:
      0.028906463 = sum of:
        0.028906463 = weight(_text_:29 in 4641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028906463 = score(doc=4641,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.123959966 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035239052 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4641, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4641)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

29. 7.2011 14:44:56

7.1373984E-4 = product of:
  0.0064236587 = sum of:
    0.0064236587 = product of:
      0.019270975 = sum of:
        0.019270975 = weight(_text_:29 in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019270975 = score(doc=4639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.123959966 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035239052 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

29. 7.2011 14:44:56