Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.034428895 = sum of:
  0.020477217 = product of:
    0.08190887 = sum of:
      0.08190887 = weight(_text_:authors in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08190887 = score(doc=1634,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23472176 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05148746 = queryNorm
          0.34896153 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01395168 = product of:
    0.02790336 = sum of:
      0.02790336 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02790336 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18030031 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05148746 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - Ontologies are prone to wide semantic variability due to subjective points of view of their composers. The purpose of this paper is to propose a new approach for maximal unification of diverse ontologies for controversial domains by their relations. Design/methodology/approach - Effective matching or unification of multiple ontologies for a specific domain is crucial for the success of many semantic web applications, such as semantic information retrieval and organization, document tagging, summarization and search. To this end, numerous automatic and semi-automatic techniques were proposed in the past decade that attempt to identify similar entities, mostly classes, in diverse ontologies for similar domains. Apparently, matching individual entities cannot result in full integration of ontologies' semantics without matching their inter-relations with all other-related classes (and instances). However, semantic matching of ontological relations still constitutes a major research challenge. Therefore, in this paper the authors propose a new paradigm for assessment of maximal possible matching and unification of ontological relations. To this end, several unification rules for ontological relations were devised based on ontological reference rules, and lexical and textual entailment. These rules were semi-automatically implemented to extend a given ontology with semantically matching relations from another ontology for a similar domain. Then, the ontologies were unified through these similar pairs of relations. The authors observe that these rules can be also facilitated to reveal the contradictory relations in different ontologies. Findings - To assess the feasibility of the approach two experiments were conducted with different sets of multiple personal ontologies on controversial domains constructed by trained subjects. The results for about 50 distinct ontology pairs demonstrate a good potential of the methodology for increasing inter-ontology agreement. Furthermore, the authors show that the presented methodology can lead to a complete unification of multiple semantically heterogeneous ontologies. Research limitations/implications - This is a conceptual study that presents a new approach for semantic unification of ontologies by a devised set of rules along with the initial experimental evidence of its feasibility and effectiveness. However, this methodology has to be fully automatically implemented and tested on a larger dataset in future research. Practical implications - This result has implication for semantic search, since a richer ontology, comprised of multiple aspects and viewpoints of the domain of knowledge, enhances discoverability and improves search results. Originality/value - To the best of the knowledge, this is the first study to examine and assess the maximal level of semantic relation-based ontology unification.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.010463759 = product of:
  0.020927519 = sum of:
    0.020927519 = product of:
      0.041855037 = sum of:
        0.041855037 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041855037 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18030031 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05148746 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4649, 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=4649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26.12.2011 13:40:22

0.010463759 = product of:
  0.020927519 = sum of:
    0.020927519 = product of:
      0.041855037 = sum of:
        0.041855037 = weight(_text_:22 in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041855037 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18030031 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05148746 = 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(1/2)

Source

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

0.0087198 = product of:
  0.0174396 = sum of:
    0.0174396 = product of:
      0.0348792 = sum of:
        0.0348792 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0348792 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18030031 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05148746 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16.11.2018 14:22:01

0.007389079 = product of:
  0.014778158 = sum of:
    0.014778158 = product of:
      0.05911263 = sum of:
        0.05911263 = weight(_text_:authors in 97) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05911263 = score(doc=97,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23472176 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05148746 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 97, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=97)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Robertson and Spärck Jones pioneered experimental probabilistic models (Binary Independence Model) with both a typology generalizing the Boolean model, a frequency counting to calculate elementary weightings, and their combination into a global probabilistic estimation. However, this model did not consider indexing terms dependencies. An extension to mixture models (e.g., using a 2-Poisson law) made it possible to take into account these dependencies from a macroscopic point of view (BM25), as well as a shallow linguistic processing of co-references. New approaches (language models, for example "bag of words" models, probabilistic dependencies between requests and documents, and consequently Bayesian inference using Dirichlet prior conjugate) furnished new solutions for documents structuring (categorization) and for index smoothing. Presently, in these probabilistic models the main issues have been addressed from a formal point of view only. Thus, linguistic properties are neglected in the indexing language. The authors examine how a linguistic and semantic modeling can be integrated in indexing languages and set up a hybrid model that makes it possible to deal with different information retrieval problems in a unified way.

0.007389079 = product of:
  0.014778158 = sum of:
    0.014778158 = product of:
      0.05911263 = sum of:
        0.05911263 = weight(_text_:authors in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05911263 = score(doc=3297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23472176 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05148746 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.