Search (28 results, page 1 of 2)

0.04215513 = product of:
  0.08431026 = sum of:
    0.036966458 = weight(_text_:technology in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036966458 = score(doc=4407,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 4407, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4407)
    0.047343805 = product of:
      0.09468761 = sum of:
        0.09468761 = weight(_text_:management in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09468761 = score(doc=4407,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15891297 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.5958457 = fieldWeight in 4407, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The global economy is rapidly becoming more and more knowledge intensive. Knowledge is now widely recognized as the fourth production factor, on an equal footing with the traditional production factors of labour, capital and materials. Managing knowledge is as important as the traditional management of labour, capital and materials. In this book, we have shown how Semantic Web technology can make an important contribution to knowledge management.

Source

Towards the semantic Web: ontology-driven knowledge management. Eds.: J. Davies, u.a

0.023443995 = product of:
  0.04688799 = sum of:
    0.027724843 = weight(_text_:technology in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027724843 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2418)
    0.019163147 = product of:
      0.038326293 = sum of:
        0.038326293 = weight(_text_:22 in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038326293 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16509943 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006

0.023443995 = product of:
  0.04688799 = sum of:
    0.027724843 = weight(_text_:technology in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027724843 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2024, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2024)
    0.019163147 = product of:
      0.038326293 = sum of:
        0.038326293 = weight(_text_:22 in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038326293 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16509943 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 41(2015) no.4, S.18-22

0.02178672 = product of:
  0.04357344 = sum of:
    0.016172826 = weight(_text_:technology in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016172826 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.115173936 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
    0.027400613 = product of:
      0.054801226 = sum of:
        0.054801226 = weight(_text_:management in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054801226 = score(doc=4409,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.15891297 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.34485054 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

We saw in the introduction how the Semantic Web makes possible a new generation of knowledge management tools. We now turn our attention more specifically to Semantic Web based support for virtual communities of practice. The notion of communities of practice has attracted much attention in the field of knowledge management. Communities of practice are groups within (or sometimes across) organizations who share a common set of information needs or problems. They are typically not a formal organizational unit but an informal network, each sharing in part a common agenda and shared interests or issues. In one example it was found that a lot of knowledge sharing among copier engineers took place through informal exchanges, often around a water cooler. As well as local, geographically based communities, trends towards flexible working and globalisation have led to interest in supporting dispersed communities using Internet technology. The challenge for organizations is to support such communities and make them effective. Provided with an ontology meeting the needs of a particular community of practice, knowledge management tools can arrange knowledge assets into the predefined conceptual classes of the ontology, allowing more natural and intuitive access to knowledge. Knowledge management tools must give users the ability to organize information into a controllable asset. Building an intranet-based store of information is not sufficient for knowledge management; the relationships within the stored information are vital. These relationships cover such diverse issues as relative importance, context, sequence, significance, causality and association. The potential for knowledge management tools is vast; not only can they make better use of the raw information already available, but they can sift, abstract and help to share new information, and present it to users in new and compelling ways.

Source

Towards the semantic Web: ontology-driven knowledge management. Eds.: J. Davies, u.a

0.018949486 = product of:
  0.037898973 = sum of:
    0.023104034 = weight(_text_:technology in 4320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023104034 = score(doc=4320,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 4320, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4320)
    0.014794939 = product of:
      0.029589878 = sum of:
        0.029589878 = weight(_text_:management in 4320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029589878 = score(doc=4320,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15891297 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 4320, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4320)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.018949486 = product of:
  0.037898973 = sum of:
    0.023104034 = weight(_text_:technology in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023104034 = score(doc=4749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 4749, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4749)
    0.014794939 = product of:
      0.029589878 = sum of:
        0.029589878 = weight(_text_:management in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029589878 = score(doc=4749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15891297 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 4749, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4749)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Overlapping structures in XML are not symptoms of a misunderstanding of the intrinsic characteristics of a text document nor evidence of extreme scholarly requirements far beyond those needed by the most common XML-based applications. On the contrary, overlaps have started to appear in a large number of incredibly popular applications hidden under the guise of syntactical tricks to the basic hierarchy of the XML data format. Unfortunately, syntactical tricks have the drawback that the affected structures require complicated workarounds to support even the simplest query or usage. In this article, we present Extremely Annotational Resource Description Framework (RDF) Markup (EARMARK), an approach to overlapping markup that simplifies and streamlines the management of multiple hierarchies on the same content, and provides an approach to sophisticated queries and usages over such structures without the need of ad-hoc applications, simply by using Semantic Web tools and languages. We compare how relevant tasks (e.g., the identification of the contribution of an author in a word processor document) are of some substantial complexity when using the original data format and become more or less trivial when using EARMARK. We finally evaluate positively the memory and disk requirements of EARMARK documents in comparison to Open Office and Microsoft Word XML-based formats.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.9, S.1696-1716

0.017610896 = product of:
  0.035221793 = sum of:
    0.018483229 = weight(_text_:technology in 4406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018483229 = score(doc=4406,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 4406, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4406)
    0.016738564 = product of:
      0.033477128 = sum of:
        0.033477128 = weight(_text_:management in 4406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033477128 = score(doc=4406,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15891297 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.21066327 = fieldWeight in 4406, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4406)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

Source

Towards the semantic Web: ontology-driven knowledge management. Eds.: J. Davies, u.a

0.01515959 = product of:
  0.03031918 = sum of:
    0.018483229 = weight(_text_:technology in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018483229 = score(doc=4404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
    0.011835951 = product of:
      0.023671903 = sum of:
        0.023671903 = weight(_text_:management in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023671903 = score(doc=4404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15891297 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Thus, there is a clear need for the web to become more semantic. The aim of introducing semantics into the web is to enhance the precision of search, but also enable the use of logical reasoning on web contents in order to answer queries. The CORPORUM OntoBuilder toolset is developed specifically for this task. It consists of a set of applications that can fulfil a variety of tasks, either as stand-alone tools, or augmenting each other. Important tasks that are dealt with by CORPORUM are related to document and information retrieval (find relevant documents, or support the user finding them), as well as information extraction (building a knowledge base from web documents to answer queries), information dissemination (summarizing strategies and information visualization), and automated document classification strategies. First versions of the toolset are encouraging in that they show large potential as a supportive technology for building up the Semantic Web. In this chapter, methods for transforming the current web into a semantic web are discussed, as well as a technical solution that can perform this task: the CORPORUM tool set. First, the toolset is introduced; followed by some pragmatic issues relating to the approach; then there will be a short overview of the theory in relation to CognIT's vision; and finally, a discussion on some of the applications that arose from the project.

Source

Towards the semantic Web: ontology-driven knowledge management. Eds.: J. Davies, u.a

0.012305692 = product of:
  0.049222767 = sum of:
    0.049222767 = sum of:
      0.023671903 = weight(_text_:management in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023671903 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15891297 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04714662 = queryNorm
          0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
      0.025550865 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025550865 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16509943 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04714662 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 66(2014) no.5, S.494-518

0.010356457 = product of:
  0.041425828 = sum of:
    0.041425828 = product of:
      0.082851656 = sum of:
        0.082851656 = weight(_text_:management in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.082851656 = score(doc=2262,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15891297 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.521365 = fieldWeight in 2262, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

Source

Towards the semantic Web: ontology-driven knowledge management. Eds.: J. Davies, u.a

0.008086413 = product of:
  0.032345653 = sum of:
    0.032345653 = weight(_text_:technology in 4329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032345653 = score(doc=4329,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 4329, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4329)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Plenty of contemporary attempts to search exist that are associated with the area of Semantic Web. But which of them qualify as information retrieval for the Semantic Web? Do such approaches exist? To answer these questions we take a look at the nature of the Semantic Web and Semantic Desktop and at definitions for information and data retrieval. We survey current approaches referred to by their authors as information retrieval for the Semantic Web or that use Semantic Web technology for search.

0.008086413 = product of:
  0.032345653 = sum of:
    0.032345653 = weight(_text_:technology in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032345653 = score(doc=3293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 3293, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3293)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 41(2015) no.4, S.13-17

0.0076876767 = product of:
  0.030750707 = sum of:
    0.030750707 = product of:
      0.061501414 = sum of:
        0.061501414 = weight(_text_:management in 229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061501414 = score(doc=229,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15891297 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.38701317 = fieldWeight in 229, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

While much of a company's knowledge can be found in text repositories, current content management systems have limited capabilities for structuring and interpreting documents. In the emerging Semantic Web, search, interpretation and aggregation can be addressed by ontology-based semantic mark-up. In this paper, we examine semantic annotation, identify a number of requirements, and review the current generation of semantic annotation systems. This analysis shows that, while there is still some way to go before semantic annotation tools will be able to address fully all the knowledge management needs, research in the area is active and making good progress.

0.006931211 = product of:
  0.027724843 = sum of:
    0.027724843 = weight(_text_:technology in 3731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027724843 = score(doc=3731,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3731, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3731)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of information technology research. 2(2009) no.4, p.37-53

0.006931211 = product of:
  0.027724843 = sum of:
    0.027724843 = weight(_text_:technology in 1526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027724843 = score(doc=1526,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 1526, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1526)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.11, S.2293-2305

0.006387716 = product of:
  0.025550865 = sum of:
    0.025550865 = product of:
      0.05110173 = sum of:
        0.05110173 = weight(_text_:22 in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05110173 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16509943 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

31. 7.2010 16:58:22

0.0062769614 = product of:
  0.025107846 = sum of:
    0.025107846 = product of:
      0.05021569 = sum of:
        0.05021569 = weight(_text_:management in 4412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05021569 = score(doc=4412,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15891297 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.31599492 = fieldWeight in 4412, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4412)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

Source

Towards the semantic Web: ontology-driven knowledge management. Eds.: J. Davies, u.a

0.0057760086 = product of:
  0.023104034 = sum of:
    0.023104034 = weight(_text_:technology in 1093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023104034 = score(doc=1093,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14042088 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04714662 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 1093, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1093)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.10, S.2173-2181

0.005230801 = product of:
  0.020923205 = sum of:
    0.020923205 = product of:
      0.04184641 = sum of:
        0.04184641 = weight(_text_:management in 3084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04184641 = score(doc=3084,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15891297 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 3084, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3084)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ontologies have moved beyond the domains of library science, philosophy, and knowledge representation. They are now the concerns of marketing departments, CEOs, and mainstream business. Research analyst companies such as Forrester Research report on the critical roles of ontologies in support of browsing and search for e-commerce and in support of interoperability for facilitation of knowledge management and configuration. One now sees ontologies used as central controlled vocabularies that are integrated into catalogues, databases, web publications, knowledge management applications, etc. Large ontologies are essential components in many online applications including search (such as Yahoo and Lycos), e-commerce (such as Amazon and eBay), configuration (such as Dell and PC-Order), etc. One also sees ontologies that have long life spans, sometimes in multiple projects (such as UMLS, SIC codes, etc.). Such diverse usage generates many implications for ontology environments. In this paper, we will discuss ontologies and requirements in their current instantiations on the web today. We will describe some desirable properties of ontologies. We will also discuss how both simple and complex ontologies are being and may be used to support varied applications. We will conclude with a discussion of emerging trends in ontologies and their environments and briefly mention our evolving ontology evolution environment.

0.0051251175 = product of:
  0.02050047 = sum of:
    0.02050047 = product of:
      0.04100094 = sum of:
        0.04100094 = weight(_text_:management in 4405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04100094 = score(doc=4405,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15891297 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04714662 = queryNorm
            0.25800878 = fieldWeight in 4405, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4405)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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).

Source

Towards the semantic Web: ontology-driven knowledge management. Eds.: J. Davies, u.a