Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019476341 = product of:
  0.038952682 = sum of:
    0.038952682 = product of:
      0.15581073 = sum of:
        0.15581073 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15581073 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4158516 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049050607 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F1627&ei=tAtYUYrBNoHKtQb3l4GYBw&usg=AFQjCNHeaxKkKU3-u54LWxMNYGXaaDLCGw&sig2=8WykXWQoDKjDSdGtAakH2Q&bvm=bv.44442042,d.Yms.

0.01329136 = product of:
  0.02658272 = sum of:
    0.02658272 = product of:
      0.05316544 = sum of:
        0.05316544 = weight(_text_:22 in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05316544 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17176686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049050607 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

31. 7.2010 16:58:22

0.01329136 = product of:
  0.02658272 = sum of:
    0.02658272 = product of:
      0.05316544 = sum of:
        0.05316544 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05316544 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17176686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049050607 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4685, 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=4685)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 8.2011 13:33:22

0.01194619 = product of:
  0.02389238 = sum of:
    0.02389238 = product of:
      0.09556952 = sum of:
        0.09556952 = weight(_text_:authors in 3731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09556952 = score(doc=3731,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22361259 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049050607 = queryNorm
            0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 3731, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3731)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata applications have evolved in time into highly structured "islands of information" about digital resources, often bearing a strong semantic interpretation. Scarcely however are these semantics being communicated in machine readable and understandable ways. At the same time, the process for transforming the implied metadata knowledge into explicit Semantic Web descriptions can be problematic and is not always evident. In this article we take upon the well-established Dublin Core metadata standard as well as other metadata schemata, which often appear in digital repositories set-ups, and suggest a proper Semantic Web OWL ontology. In this process the authors cope with discrepancies and incompatibilities, indicative of such attempts, in novel ways. Moreover, we show the potential and necessity of this approach by demonstrating inferences on the resulting ontology, instantiated with actual metadata records. The authors conclude by presenting a working prototype that provides for inference-based querying on top of digital repositories.

0.009968519 = product of:
  0.019937038 = sum of:
    0.019937038 = product of:
      0.039874077 = sum of:
        0.039874077 = weight(_text_:22 in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039874077 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17176686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049050607 = 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(1/2)

Source

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

0.009855104 = product of:
  0.019710207 = sum of:
    0.019710207 = product of:
      0.07884083 = sum of:
        0.07884083 = weight(_text_:authors in 4329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07884083 = score(doc=4329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22361259 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049050607 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 4329, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4329)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.009398411 = product of:
  0.018796822 = sum of:
    0.018796822 = product of:
      0.037593644 = sum of:
        0.037593644 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037593644 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17176686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049050607 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

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

0.008447232 = product of:
  0.016894463 = sum of:
    0.016894463 = product of:
      0.067577854 = sum of:
        0.067577854 = weight(_text_:authors in 1285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067577854 = score(doc=1285,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22361259 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049050607 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 1285, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1285)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)