Search (55 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Semantic Web"
  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Baumer, C.; Reichenberger, K.: Business Semantics - Praxis und Perspektiven (2006) 0.02 
    0.015671818 = product of:
  0.043097496 = sum of:
    0.007251961 = product of:
      0.014503922 = sum of:
        0.014503922 = weight(_text_:h in 6020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014503922 = score(doc=6020,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.21959636 = fieldWeight in 6020, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6020)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0031240587 = weight(_text_:a in 6020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0031240587 = score(doc=6020,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 6020, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6020)
    0.0027776284 = weight(_text_:s in 6020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027776284 = score(doc=6020,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 6020, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6020)
    0.02994385 = weight(_text_:k in 6020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02994385 = score(doc=6020,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.31552678 = fieldWeight in 6020, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6020)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.6/7, S.359-366
    Type
    a
  2. Davies, J.; Weeks, R.; Krohn, U.: QuizRDF: search technology for the Semantic Web (2004) 0.01 
    0.011651179 = product of:
  0.03204074 = sum of:
    0.0051806658 = weight(_text_:a in 4406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051806658 = score(doc=4406,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.16900843 = fieldWeight in 4406, 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=4406)
    0.012874164 = weight(_text_:r in 4406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012874164 = score(doc=4406,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14629413 = fieldWeight in 4406, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4406)
    0.0013888142 = weight(_text_:s in 4406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0013888142 = score(doc=4406,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 4406, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4406)
    0.012597097 = weight(_text_:u in 4406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012597097 = score(doc=4406,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14471136 = fieldWeight in 4406, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4406)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    Important information is often scattered across Web and/or intranet resources. Traditional search engines return ranked retrieval lists that offer little or no information on the semantic relationships among documents. Knowledge workers spend a substantial amount of their time browsing and reading to find out how documents are related to one another and where each falls into the overall structure of the problem domain. Yet only when knowledge workers begin to locate the similarities and differences among pieces of information do they move into an essential part of their work: building relationships to create new knowledge. Information retrieval traditionally focuses on the relationship between a given query (or user profile) and the information store. On the other hand, exploitation of interrelationships between selected pieces of information (which can be facilitated by the use of ontologies) can put otherwise isolated information into a meaningful context. The implicit structures so revealed help users use and manage information more efficiently. Knowledge management tools are needed that integrate the resources dispersed across Web resources into a coherent corpus of interrelated information. Previous research in information integration has largely focused on integrating heterogeneous databases and knowledge bases, which represent information in a highly structured way, often by means of formal languages. In contrast, the Web consists to a large extent of unstructured or semi-structured natural language texts. As we have seen, ontologies offer an alternative way to cope with heterogeneous representations of Web resources. The domain model implicit in an ontology can be taken as a unifying structure for giving information a common representation and semantics. Once such a unifying structure exists, it can be exploited to improve browsing and retrieval performance in information access tools. QuizRDF is an example of such a tool.
    Pages
    S.133-144
    Type
    a
  3. Iosif, V.; Mika, P.; Larsson, R.; Akkermans, H.: Field experimenting with Semantic Web tools in a virtual organization (2004) 0.01 
    0.011233349 = product of:
  0.030891709 = sum of:
    0.0054389704 = product of:
      0.010877941 = sum of:
        0.010877941 = weight(_text_:h in 4412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010877941 = score(doc=4412,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 4412, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4412)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0040582716 = weight(_text_:a in 4412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040582716 = score(doc=4412,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4412, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4412)
    0.019311246 = weight(_text_:r in 4412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019311246 = score(doc=4412,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 4412, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4412)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 4412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=4412,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4412, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4412)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    How do we test Semantic Web tools? How can we know that they perform better than current technologies for knowledge management? What does 'better' precisely mean? How can we operationalize and measure this? Some of these questions may be partially answered by simulations in lab experiments that for example look at the speed or scalability of algorithms. However, it is not clear in advance to what extent such laboratory results carry over to the real world. Quality is in the eye of the beholder, and so the quality of Semantic Web methods will very much depend on the perception of their usefulness as seen by tool users. This can only be tested by carefully designed field experiments. In this chapter, we discuss the design considerations and set-up of field experiments with Semantic Web tools, and illustrate these with case examples from a virtual organization in industrial research.
    Pages
    S.219-244
    Type
    a
  4. Davies, J.; Weeks, R.: QuizRDF: search technology for the Semantic Web (2004) 0.01 
    0.009812856 = product of:
  0.026985355 = sum of:
    0.004532476 = product of:
      0.009064952 = sum of:
        0.009064952 = weight(_text_:h in 4320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009064952 = score(doc=4320,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 4320, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4320)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0039050733 = weight(_text_:a in 4320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039050733 = score(doc=4320,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4320, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4320)
    0.016092705 = weight(_text_:r in 4320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016092705 = score(doc=4320,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 4320, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4320)
    0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 4320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024550997 = score(doc=4320,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 4320, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4320)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    An information-seeking system is described which combines traditional keyword querying of WWW resources with the ability to browse and query against RD annotations of those resources. RDF(S) and RDF are used to specify and populate an ontology and the resultant RDF annotations are then indexed along with the full text of the annotated resources. The resultant index allows both keyword querying against the full text of the document and the literal values occurring in the RDF annotations, along with the ability to browse and query the ontology. We motivate our approach as a key enabler for fully exploiting the Semantic Web in the area of knowledge management and argue that the ability to combine searching and browsing behaviours more fully supports a typical information-seeking task. The approach is characterised as "low threshold, high ceiling" in the sense that where RDF annotations exist they are exploited for an improved information-seeking experience but where they do not yet exist, a search capability is still available.
    Content
    Vgl.: http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/proceedings/h#4.
    Pages
    S.40112
    Type
    a
  5. Hausenblas, M.: Anreicherung von Webinhalten mit Semantik : Microformats und RDFa (2009) 0.01 
    0.008833611 = product of:
  0.03238991 = sum of:
    0.0044180867 = weight(_text_:a in 4862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044180867 = score(doc=4862,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 4862, 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=4862)
    0.0027776284 = weight(_text_:s in 4862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027776284 = score(doc=4862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 4862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4862)
    0.025194194 = weight(_text_:u in 4862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025194194 = score(doc=4862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.28942272 = fieldWeight in 4862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4862)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Pages
    S.147-158
    Source
    Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini
    Type
    a
  6. Pattuelli, M.C.; Rubinow, S.: Charting DBpedia : towards a cartography of a major linked dataset (2012) 0.01 
    0.008775782 = product of:
  0.032177866 = sum of:
    0.006695806 = weight(_text_:a in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006695806 = score(doc=829,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 829, 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=829)
    0.00343714 = weight(_text_:s in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00343714 = score(doc=829,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.118916616 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
    0.02204492 = weight(_text_:u in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02204492 = score(doc=829,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.25324488 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    This paper provides an analysis of the knowledge structure underlying DBpedia, one of the largest and most heavily used datasets in the current Linked Data landscape. The study reveals an evolving knowledge representation environment where different descriptive and classification approaches are employed concurrently. This analysis opens up a new area of research to which the knowledge organization community can make a significant contribution.
    Pages
    S.75-82
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
    Type
    a
  7. Fensel, D.; Staab, S.; Studer, R.; Harmelen, F. van; Davies, J.: ¬A future perspective : exploiting peer-to-peer and the Semantic Web for knowledge management (2004) 0.01 
    0.008572917 = product of:
  0.03143403 = sum of:
    0.005467103 = weight(_text_:a in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005467103 = score(doc=2262,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2262, 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=2262)
    0.022529786 = weight(_text_:r in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022529786 = score(doc=2262,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.25601473 = fieldWeight in 2262, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2262)
    0.00343714 = weight(_text_:s in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00343714 = score(doc=2262,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.118916616 = fieldWeight in 2262, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2262)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Over the past few years, we have seen a growing interest in the potential of both peer-to-peer (P2P) computing and the use of more formal approaches to knowledge management, involving the development of ontologies. This penultimate chapter discusses possibilities that both approaches may offer for more effective and efficient knowledge management. In particular, we investigate how the two paradigms may be combined. In this chapter, we describe our vision in terms of a set of future steps that need to be taken to bring the results described in earlier chapters to their full potential.
    Pages
    S.245-264
    Type
    a
  8. Weller, K.: Anforderungen an die Wissensrepräsentation im Social Semantic Web (2010) 0.01 
    0.00855405 = product of:
  0.031364847 = sum of:
    0.0027335514 = weight(_text_:a in 4061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027335514 = score(doc=4061,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 4061, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4061)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 4061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=4061,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 4061, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4061)
    0.02620087 = weight(_text_:k in 4061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02620087 = score(doc=4061,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.27608594 = fieldWeight in 4061, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4061)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Pages
    S.33-44
    Type
    a
  9. Wielinga, B.; Wielemaker, J.; Schreiber, G.; Assem, M. van: Methods for porting resources to the Semantic Web (2004) 0.01 
    0.0075287945 = product of:
  0.027605578 = sum of:
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=4640,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
    0.019311246 = weight(_text_:r in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019311246 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
    0.0036082454 = weight(_text_:s in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0036082454 = score(doc=4640,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.124836445 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Ontologies will play a central role in the development of the Semantic Web. It is unrealistic to assume that such ontologies will be developed from scratch. Rather, we assume that existing resources such as thesauri and lexical data bases will be reused in the development of ontologies for the Semantic Web. In this paper we describe a method for converting existing source material to a representation that is compatible with Semantic Web languages such as RDF(S) and OWL. The method is illustrated with three case studies: converting Wordnet, AAT and MeSH to RDF(S) and OWL.
    Source
    Proceedings of the First European Semantic Web Symposium (ESWS2004), Eds.: C. Bussler, J. Davies, D. Fensel and R. Studer. 2004. S.299-311
    Type
    a
  10. Zhang, L.; Liu, Q.L.; Zhang, J.; Wang, H.F.; Pan, Y.; Yu, Y.: Semplore: an IR approach to scalable hybrid query of Semantic Web data (2007) 0.01 
    0.006768254 = product of:
  0.02481693 = sum of:
    0.0043660053 = weight(_text_:a in 231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0043660053 = score(doc=231,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 231, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=231)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=231)
    0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018714907 = score(doc=231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=231)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    As an extension to the current Web, Semantic Web will not only contain structured data with machine understandable semantics but also textual information. While structured queries can be used to find information more precisely on the Semantic Web, keyword searches are still needed to help exploit textual information. It thus becomes very important that we can combine precise structured queries with imprecise keyword searches to have a hybrid query capability. In addition, due to the huge volume of information on the Semantic Web, the hybrid query must be processed in a very scalable way. In this paper, we define such a hybrid query capability that combines unary tree-shaped structured queries with keyword searches. We show how existing information retrieval (IR) index structures and functions can be reused to index semantic web data and its textual information, and how the hybrid query is evaluated on the index structure using IR engines in an efficient and scalable manner. We implemented this IR approach in an engine called Semplore. Comprehensive experiments on its performance show that it is a promising approach. It leads us to believe that it may be possible to evolve current web search engines to query and search the Semantic Web. Finally, we briefy describe how Semplore is used for searching Wikipedia and an IBM customer's product information.
    Pages
    S.652-665
    Source
    Proceeding ISWC'07/ASWC'07 : Proceedings of the 6th international The semantic web and 2nd Asian conference on Asian semantic web conference. Ed.: K. Aberer et al
    Type
    a
  11. Manaf, N.A. Abdul; Bechhofer, S.; Stevens, R.: ¬The current state of SKOS vocabularies on the Web (2012) 0.01 
    0.0064673815 = product of:
  0.023713732 = sum of:
    0.0051659266 = weight(_text_:a in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051659266 = score(doc=266,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
    0.016092705 = weight(_text_:r in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016092705 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
    0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024550997 = score(doc=266,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    We present a survey of the current state of Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) vocabularies on the Web. Candidate vocabularies were gathered through collections and web crawling, with 478 identified as complying to a given definition of a SKOS vocabulary. Analyses were then conducted that included investigation of the use of SKOS constructs; the use of SKOS semantic relations and lexical labels; and the structure of vocabularies in terms of the hierarchical and associative relations, branching factors and the depth of the vocabularies. Even though SKOS concepts are considered to be the core of SKOS vocabularies, our findings were that not all SKOS vocabularies published explicitly declared SKOS concepts in the vocabularies. Almost one-third of th SKOS vocabularies collected fall into the category of term lists, with no use of any SKOS semantic relations. As concept labelling is core to SKOS vocabularies, a surprising find is that not all SKOS vocabularies use SKOS lexical labels, whether skos:prefLabel or skos:altLabel, for their concepts. The branching factors and maximum depth of the vocabularies have no direct relationship to the size of the vocabularies. We also observed some common modelling slips found in SKOS vocabularies. The survey is useful when considering, for example, converting artefacts such as OWL ontologies into SKOS, where a definition of typicality of SKOS vocabularies could be used to guide the conversion. Moreover, the survey results can serve to provide a better understanding of the modelling styles of the SKOS vocabularies published on the Web, especially when considering the creation of applications that utilize these vocabularies.
    Pages
    S.270-284
    Type
    a
  12. Soergel, D.: SemWeb: proposal for an open, multifunctional, multilingual system for integrated access to knowledge about concepts and terminology (1996) 0.01 
    0.0061667566 = product of:
  0.022611441 = sum of:
    0.004782719 = weight(_text_:a in 3575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004782719 = score(doc=3575,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 3575, 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=3575)
    0.016092705 = weight(_text_:r in 3575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016092705 = score(doc=3575,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 3575, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3575)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 3575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=3575,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3575, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3575)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Presents a proposal for the long-range development of an open, multifunctional, multilingual system for integrated access to many kinds of knowledge about concepts and terminology. The system would draw on existing knowledge bases that are accessible through the Internet or on CD-ROM and on a common integrated distributed knowledge base that would grow incrementally over time. Existing knowledge bases would be accessed througha common interface that would search several knowledge bases, collate the data into a common format, and present them to the user. The common integrated distributed knowldge base would provide an environment in which many contributors could carry out classification and terminological projects more efficiently, with the results available in a common format. Over time, data from other knowledge bases could be incorporated into the common knowledge base, either by actual transfer (provided the knowledge base producers are willing) or by reference through a link. Either way, such incorporation requires intellectual work but allows for tighter integration than common interface access to multiple knowledge bases. Each piece of information in the common knowledge base will have all its sources attached, providing an acknowledgment mechanism that gives due credit to all contributors. The whole system would be designed to be usable by many levels of users for improved information exchange.
    Pages
    S.165-173
    Source
    Knowledge organization and change: Proceedings of the Fourth International ISKO Conference, 15-18 July 1996, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Ed.: R. Green
    Type
    a
  13. Corcho, O.; Poveda-Villalón, M.; Gómez-Pérez, A.: Ontology engineering in the era of linked data (2015) 0.01 
    0.0060178763 = product of:
  0.022065546 = sum of:
    0.006695806 = weight(_text_:a in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006695806 = score(doc=3293,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 3293, 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=3293)
    0.012939317 = product of:
      0.05175727 = sum of:
        0.05175727 = weight(_text_:o in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05175727 = score(doc=3293,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13338262 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.38803607 = fieldWeight in 3293, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3293)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=3293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 3293, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3293)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Ontology engineering encompasses the method, tools and techniques used to develop ontologies. Without requiring ontologies, linked data is driving a paradigm shift, bringing benefits and drawbacks to the publishing world. Ontologies may be heavyweight, supporting deep understanding of a domain, or lightweight, suited to simple classification of concepts and more adaptable for linked data. They also vary in domain specificity, usability and reusabilty. Hybrid vocabularies drawing elements from diverse sources often suffer from internally incompatible semantics. To serve linked data purposes, ontology engineering teams require a range of skills in philosophy, computer science, web development, librarianship and domain expertise.
    Footnote
    Contribution to a special section "Linked data and the charm of weak semantics".
    Source
    Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 41(2015) no.4, S.13-17
    Type
    a
  14. Guns, R.: Tracing the origins of the semantic web (2013) 0.01 
    0.005784713 = product of:
  0.021210615 = sum of:
    0.0033818933 = weight(_text_:a in 1093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033818933 = score(doc=1093,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 1093, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1093)
    0.016092705 = weight(_text_:r in 1093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016092705 = score(doc=1093,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 1093, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1093)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 1093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=1093,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1093, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1093)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    The Semantic Web has been criticized for not being semantic. This article examines the questions of why and how the Web of Data, expressed in the Resource Description Framework (RDF), has come to be known as the Semantic Web. Contrary to previous papers, we deliberately take a descriptive stance and do not start from preconceived ideas about the nature of semantics. Instead, we mainly base our analysis on early design documents of the (Semantic) Web. The main determining factor is shown to be link typing, coupled with the influence of online metadata. Both factors already were present in early web standards and drafts. Our findings indicate that the Semantic Web is directly linked to older artificial intelligence work, despite occasional claims to the contrary. Because of link typing, the Semantic Web can be considered an example of a semantic network. Originally network representations of the meaning of natural language utterances, semantic networks have eventually come to refer to any networks with typed (usually directed) links. We discuss possible causes for this shift and suggest that it may be due to confounding paradigmatic and syntagmatic semantic relations.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.10, S.2173-2181
    Type
    a
  15. Synak, M.; Dabrowski, M.; Kruk, S.R.: Semantic Web and ontologies (2009) 0.01 
    0.005538839 = product of:
  0.020309076 = sum of:
    0.0031240587 = weight(_text_:a in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0031240587 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
    0.0027776284 = weight(_text_:s in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027776284 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
    0.014407388 = product of:
      0.028814776 = sum of:
        0.028814776 = weight(_text_:22 in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028814776 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3376, 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=3376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Date
    31. 7.2010 16:58:22
    Pages
    S.41-54
    Type
    a
  16. Sure, Y.; Erdmann, M.; Studer, R.: OntoEdit: collaborative engineering of ontologies (2004) 0.01 
    0.0053939493 = product of:
  0.019777814 = sum of:
    0.004939571 = weight(_text_:a in 4405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004939571 = score(doc=4405,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 4405, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4405)
    0.012874164 = weight(_text_:r in 4405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012874164 = score(doc=4405,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14629413 = fieldWeight in 4405, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4405)
    0.00196408 = weight(_text_:s in 4405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00196408 = score(doc=4405,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.06795235 = fieldWeight in 4405, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4405)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Developing ontologies is central to our vision of Semantic Web-based knowledge management. The methodology described in Chapter 3 guides the development of ontologies for different applications. However, because of the size of ontologies, their complexity, their formal underpinnings and the necessity to come towards a shared understanding within a group of people when defining an ontology, ontology construction is still far from being a well-understood process. Concerning the methodology, OntoEdit focuses on three of the main steps for ontology development (the methodology is described in Chapter 3), viz. the kick off, refinement, and evaluation. We describe the steps supported by OntoEdit and focus on collaborative aspects that occur during each of the step. First, all requirements of the envisaged ontology are collected during the kick off phase. Typically for ontology engineering, ontology engineers and domain experts are joined in a team that works together on a description of the domain and the goal of the ontology, design guidelines, available knowledge sources (e.g. re-usable ontologies and thesauri, etc.), potential users and use cases and applications supported by the ontology. The output of this phase is a semiformal description of the ontology. Second, during the refinement phase, the team extends the semi-formal description in several iterations and formalizes it in an appropriate representation language like RDF(S) or, more advanced, DAML1OIL. The output of this phase is a mature ontology (the 'target ontology'). Third, the target ontology needs to be evaluated according to the requirement specifications. Typically this phase serves as a proof for the usefulness of ontologies (and ontology-based applications) and may involve the engineering team as well as end users of the targeted application. The output of this phase is an evaluated ontology, ready for roll-out into a productive environment. Support for these collaborative development steps within the ontology development methodology is crucial in order to meet the conflicting needs for ease of use and construction of complex ontology structures. We now illustrate OntoEdit's support for each of the supported steps. The examples shown are taken from the Swiss Life case study on skills management (cf. Chapter 12).
    Pages
    S.117-132
    Type
    a
  17. Gendt, M. van; Isaac, I.; Meij, L. van der; Schlobach, S.: Semantic Web techniques for multiple views on heterogeneous collections : a case study (2006) 0.01 
    0.005028477 = product of:
  0.018437749 = sum of:
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=2418,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2418, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2418)
    0.00294612 = weight(_text_:s in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00294612 = score(doc=2418,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 2418, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2418)
    0.010805541 = product of:
      0.021611081 = sum of:
        0.021611081 = weight(_text_:22 in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021611081 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2418, 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=2418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Integrated digital access to multiple collections is a prominent issue for many Cultural Heritage institutions. The metadata describing diverse collections must be interoperable, which requires aligning the controlled vocabularies that are used to annotate objects from these collections. In this paper, we present an experiment where we match the vocabularies of two collections by applying the Knowledge Representation techniques established in recent Semantic Web research. We discuss the steps that are required for such matching, namely formalising the initial resources using Semantic Web languages, and running ontology mapping tools on the resulting representations. In addition, we present a prototype that enables the user to browse the two collections using the obtained alignment while still providing her with the original vocabulary structures.
    Pages
    S.426-437
    Source
    Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006
    Type
    a
  18. Prud'hommeaux, E.; Gayo, E.: RDF ventures to boldly meet your most pedestrian needs (2015) 0.00 
    0.004621919 = product of:
  0.016947035 = sum of:
    0.0040582716 = weight(_text_:a in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040582716 = score(doc=2024,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2024, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2024)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2024, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2024)
    0.010805541 = product of:
      0.021611081 = sum of:
        0.021611081 = weight(_text_:22 in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021611081 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2024, 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=2024)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Defined in 1999 and paired with XML, the Resource Description Framework (RDF) has been cast as an RDF Schema, producing data that is well-structured but not validated, permitting certain illogical relationships. When stakeholders convened in 2014 to consider solutions to the data validation challenge, a W3C working group proposed Resource Shapes and Shape Expressions to describe the properties expected for an RDF node. Resistance rose from concerns about data and schema reuse, key principles in RDF. Ideally data types and properties are designed for broad use, but they are increasingly adopted with local restrictions for specific purposes. Resource Shapes are commonly treated as record classes, standing in for data structures but losing flexibility for later reuse. Of various solutions to the resulting tensions, the concept of record classes may be the most reasonable basis for agreement, satisfying stakeholders' objectives while allowing for variations with constraints.
    Footnote
    Contribution to a special section "Linked data and the charm of weak semantics".
    Source
    Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 41(2015) no.4, S.18-22
    Type
    a
  19. Zeng, M.L.; Fan, W.; Lin, X.: SKOS for an integrated vocabulary structure (2008) 0.00 
    0.0044352175 = product of:
  0.016262464 = sum of:
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=2654,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
    0.0013888142 = weight(_text_:s in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0013888142 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
    0.010187562 = product of:
      0.020375123 = sum of:
        0.020375123 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020375123 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.21886435 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    In order to transfer the Chinese Classified Thesaurus (CCT) into a machine-processable format and provide CCT-based Web services, a pilot study has been conducted in which a variety of selected CCT classes and mapped thesaurus entries are encoded with SKOS. OWL and RDFS are also used to encode the same contents for the purposes of feasibility and cost-benefit comparison. CCT is a collected effort led by the National Library of China. It is an integration of the national standards Chinese Library Classification (CLC) 4th edition and Chinese Thesaurus (CT). As a manually created mapping product, CCT provides for each of the classes the corresponding thesaurus terms, and vice versa. The coverage of CCT includes four major clusters: philosophy, social sciences and humanities, natural sciences and technologies, and general works. There are 22 main-classes, 52,992 sub-classes and divisions, 110,837 preferred thesaurus terms, 35,690 entry terms (non-preferred terms), and 59,738 pre-coordinated headings (Chinese Classified Thesaurus, 2005) Major challenges of encoding this large vocabulary comes from its integrated structure. CCT is a result of the combination of two structures (illustrated in Figure 1): a thesaurus that uses ISO-2788 standardized structure and a classification scheme that is basically enumerative, but provides some flexibility for several kinds of synthetic mechanisms Other challenges include the complex relationships caused by differences of granularities of two original schemes and their presentation with various levels of SKOS elements; as well as the diverse coordination of entries due to the use of auxiliary tables and pre-coordinated headings derived from combining classes, subdivisions, and thesaurus terms, which do not correspond to existing unique identifiers. The poster reports the progress, shares the sample SKOS entries, and summarizes problems identified during the SKOS encoding process. Although OWL Lite and OWL Full provide richer expressiveness, the cost-benefit issues and the final purposes of encoding CCT raise questions of using such approaches.
    Pages
    S.200-201
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
    Type
    a
  20. Gómez-Pérez, A.; Corcho, O.: Ontology languages for the Semantic Web (2015) 0.00 
    0.0044029946 = product of:
  0.016144313 = sum of:
    0.0051659266 = weight(_text_:a in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051659266 = score(doc=3297,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
    0.00924237 = product of:
      0.03696948 = sum of:
        0.03696948 = weight(_text_:o in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03696948 = score(doc=3297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13338262 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.27716863 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=3297,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Ontologies have proven to be an essential element in many applications. They are used in agent systems, knowledge management systems, and e-commerce platforms. They can also generate natural language, integrate intelligent information, provide semantic-based access to the Internet, and extract information from texts in addition to being used in many other applications to explicitly declare the knowledge embedded in them. However, not only are ontologies useful for applications in which knowledge plays a key role, but they can also trigger a major change in current Web contents. This change is leading to the third generation of the Web-known as the Semantic Web-which has been defined as "the conceptual structuring of the Web in an explicit machine-readable way."1 This definition does not differ too much from the one used for defining an ontology: "An ontology is an explicit, machinereadable specification of a shared conceptualization."2 In fact, new ontology-based applications and knowledge architectures are developing for this new Web. A common claim for all of these approaches is the need for languages to represent the semantic information that this Web requires-solving the heterogeneous data exchange in this heterogeneous environment. Here, we don't decide which language is best of the Semantic Web. Rather, our goal is to help developers find the most suitable language for their representation needs. The authors analyze the most representative ontology languages created for the Web and compare them using a common framework.
    Source
    IEEE intelligent systems 2002, Jan./Feb., S.54-60
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 49
  • d 6

Types

Themes