Search (39 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Semantic Web"
  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. ¬The Semantic Web - ISWC 2010 : 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, Shanghai, China, November 7-11, 2010, Revised Selected Papers, Part 2. (2010) 0.12 
    0.117110744 = product of:
  0.23422149 = sum of:
    0.06812209 = weight(_text_:wide in 4706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06812209 = score(doc=4706,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.34615302 = fieldWeight in 4706, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4706)
    0.11975578 = weight(_text_:web in 4706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11975578 = score(doc=4706,freq=42.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.8261705 = fieldWeight in 4706, product of:
          6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
            42.0 = termFreq=42.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4706)
    0.04634362 = weight(_text_:computer in 4706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04634362 = score(doc=4706,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28550854 = fieldWeight in 4706, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4706)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    The two-volume set LNCS 6496 and 6497 constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, held in Shanghai, China, during November 7-11, 2010. Part I contains 51 papers out of 578 submissions to the research track. Part II contains 18 papers out of 66 submissions to the semantic Web in-use track, 6 papers out of 26 submissions to the doctoral consortium track, and also 4 invited talks. Each submitted paper were carefully reviewed. The International Semantic Web Conferences (ISWC) constitute the major international venue where the latest research results and technical innovations on all aspects of the Semantic Web are presented. ISWC brings together researchers, practitioners, and users from the areas of artificial intelligence, databases, social networks, distributed computing, Web engineering, information systems, natural language processing, soft computing, and human computer interaction to discuss the major challenges and proposed solutions, the success stories and failures, as well the visions that can advance research and drive innovation in the Semantic Web.
    RSWK
    Semantic Web / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Semantic Web / Ontologie <Wissensverarbeitung> / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Semantic Web / Datenverwaltung / Wissensmanagement / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Semantic Web / Anwendungssystem / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Semantic Web / World Wide Web 2.0 / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; 6497
    Subject
    Semantic Web / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Semantic Web / Ontologie <Wissensverarbeitung> / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Semantic Web / Datenverwaltung / Wissensmanagement / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Semantic Web / Anwendungssystem / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Semantic Web / World Wide Web 2.0 / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  2. ¬The Semantic Web - ISWC 2010 : 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, Shanghai, China, November 7-11, 2010, Revised Selected Papers, Part I. (2010) 0.09 
    0.09368859 = product of:
  0.18737718 = sum of:
    0.05449767 = weight(_text_:wide in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05449767 = score(doc=4707,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.2769224 = fieldWeight in 4707, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4707)
    0.095804624 = weight(_text_:web in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095804624 = score(doc=4707,freq=42.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.6609364 = fieldWeight in 4707, product of:
          6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
            42.0 = termFreq=42.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4707)
    0.037074894 = weight(_text_:computer in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037074894 = score(doc=4707,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.22840683 = fieldWeight in 4707, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4707)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    The two-volume set LNCS 6496 and 6497 constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, held in Shanghai, China, during November 7-11, 2010. Part I contains 51 papers out of 578 submissions to the research track. Part II contains 18 papers out of 66 submissions to the semantic Web in-use track, 6 papers out of 26 submissions to the doctoral consortium track, and also 4 invited talks. Each submitted paper were carefully reviewed. The International Semantic Web Conferences (ISWC) constitute the major international venue where the latest research results and technical innovations on all aspects of the Semantic Web are presented. ISWC brings together researchers, practitioners, and users from the areas of artificial intelligence, databases, social networks, distributed computing, Web engineering, information systems, natural language processing, soft computing, and human computer interaction to discuss the major challenges and proposed solutions, the success stories and failures, as well the visions that can advance research and drive innovation in the Semantic Web.
    RSWK
    Semantic Web / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Semantic Web / Ontologie <Wissensverarbeitung> / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Semantic Web / Datenverwaltung / Wissensmanagement / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Semantic Web / Anwendungssystem / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Semantic Web / World Wide Web 2.0 / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; 6496
    Subject
    Semantic Web / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Semantic Web / Ontologie <Wissensverarbeitung> / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Semantic Web / Datenverwaltung / Wissensmanagement / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Semantic Web / Anwendungssystem / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Semantic Web / World Wide Web 2.0 / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  3. Weller, K.: Knowledge representation in the Social Semantic Web (2010) 0.08 
    0.0845676 = product of:
  0.1691352 = sum of:
    0.04768546 = weight(_text_:wide in 4515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04768546 = score(doc=4515,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.2423071 = fieldWeight in 4515, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4515)
    0.09851081 = weight(_text_:web in 4515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09851081 = score(doc=4515,freq=58.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.67960584 = fieldWeight in 4515, product of:
          7.615773 = tf(freq=58.0), with freq of:
            58.0 = termFreq=58.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4515)
    0.02293892 = weight(_text_:computer in 4515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02293892 = score(doc=4515,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.14131951 = fieldWeight in 4515, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4515)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    The main purpose of this book is to sum up the vital and highly topical research issue of knowledge representation on the Web and to discuss novel solutions by combining benefits of folksonomies and Web 2.0 approaches with ontologies and semantic technologies. This book contains an overview of knowledge representation approaches in past, present and future, introduction to ontologies, Web indexing and in first case the novel approaches of developing ontologies. This title combines aspects of knowledge representation for both the Semantic Web (ontologies) and the Web 2.0 (folksonomies). Currently there is no monographic book which provides a combined overview over these topics. focus on the topic of using knowledge representation methods for document indexing purposes. For this purpose, considerations from classical librarian interests in knowledge representation (thesauri, classification schemes etc.) are included, which are not part of most other books which have a stronger background in computer science.
    Footnote
    Rez. in: iwp 62(2011) H.4, S.205-206 (C. Carstens): "Welche Arten der Wissensrepräsentation existieren im Web, wie ausgeprägt sind semantische Strukturen in diesem Kontext, und wie können soziale Aktivitäten im Sinne des Web 2.0 zur Strukturierung von Wissen im Web beitragen? Diesen Fragen widmet sich Wellers Buch mit dem Titel Knowledge Representation in the Social Semantic Web. Der Begriff Social Semantic Web spielt einerseits auf die semantische Strukturierung von Daten im Sinne des Semantic Web an und deutet andererseits auf die zunehmend kollaborative Inhaltserstellung im Social Web hin. Weller greift die Entwicklungen in diesen beiden Bereichen auf und beleuchtet die Möglichkeiten und Herausforderungen, die aus der Kombination der Aktivitäten im Semantic Web und im Social Web entstehen. Der Fokus des Buches liegt dabei primär auf den konzeptuellen Herausforderungen, die sich in diesem Kontext ergeben. So strebt die originäre Vision des Semantic Web die Annotation aller Webinhalte mit ausdrucksstarken, hochformalisierten Ontologien an. Im Social Web hingegen werden große Mengen an Daten von Nutzern erstellt, die häufig mithilfe von unkontrollierten Tags in Folksonomies annotiert werden. Weller sieht in derartigen kollaborativ erstellten Inhalten und Annotationen großes Potenzial für die semantische Indexierung, eine wichtige Voraussetzung für das Retrieval im Web. Das Hauptinteresse des Buches besteht daher darin, eine Brücke zwischen den Wissensrepräsentations-Methoden im Social Web und im Semantic Web zu schlagen. Um dieser Fragestellung nachzugehen, gliedert sich das Buch in drei Teile. . . .
    Insgesamt besticht das Buch insbesondere durch seine breite Sichtweise, die Aktualität und die Fülle an Referenzen. Es ist somit sowohl als Überblickswerk geeignet, das umfassend über aktuelle Entwicklungen und Trends der Wissensrepräsentation im Semantic und Social Web informiert, als auch als Lektüre für Experten, für die es vor allem als kontextualisierte und sehr aktuelle Sammlung von Referenzen eine wertvolle Ressource darstellt." Weitere Rez. in: Journal of Documentation. 67(2011), no.5, S.896-899 (P. Rafferty)
    LCSH
    Semantic Web
    Object
    Web 2.0
    RSWK
    Semantic Web
    World Wide Web 2.0
    Subject
    Semantic Web
    World Wide Web 2.0
    Semantic Web
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  4. Reasoning Web : Semantic Interoperability on the Web, 13th International Summer School 2017, London, UK, July 7-11, 2017, Tutorial Lectures (2017) 0.05 
    0.05331619 = product of:
  0.15994857 = sum of:
    0.08667288 = weight(_text_:web in 3934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08667288 = score(doc=3934,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.59793836 = fieldWeight in 3934, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3934)
    0.07327569 = weight(_text_:computer in 3934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07327569 = score(doc=3934,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.45142862 = fieldWeight in 3934, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3934)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    This volume contains the lecture notes of the 13th Reasoning Web Summer School, RW 2017, held in London, UK, in July 2017. In 2017, the theme of the school was "Semantic Interoperability on the Web", which encompasses subjects such as data integration, open data management, reasoning over linked data, database to ontology mapping, query answering over ontologies, hybrid reasoning with rules and ontologies, and ontology-based dynamic systems. The papers of this volume focus on these topics and also address foundational reasoning techniques used in answer set programming and ontologies.
    Content
    Neumaier, Sebastian (et al.): Data Integration for Open Data on the Web - Stamou, Giorgos (et al.): Ontological Query Answering over Semantic Data - Calì, Andrea: Ontology Querying: Datalog Strikes Back - Sequeda, Juan F.: Integrating Relational Databases with the Semantic Web: A Reflection - Rousset, Marie-Christine (et al.): Datalog Revisited for Reasoning in Linked Data - Kaminski, Roland (et al.): A Tutorial on Hybrid Answer Set Solving with clingo - Eiter, Thomas (et al.): Answer Set Programming with External Source Access - Lukasiewicz, Thomas: Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web - Calvanese, Diego (et al.): OBDA for Log Extraction in Process Mining
    LCSH
    Computer science
    Computer Science
    RSWK
    Ontologie <Wissensverarbeitung> / Semantic Web
    Series
    Lecture Notes in Computer Scienc;10370 )(Information Systems and Applications, incl. Internet/Web, and HCI
    Subject
    Ontologie <Wissensverarbeitung> / Semantic Web
    Computer science
    Computer Science
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  5. Lukasiewicz, T.: Uncertainty reasoning for the Semantic Web (2017) 0.05 
    0.05187861 = product of:
  0.15563582 = sum of:
    0.10975798 = weight(_text_:web in 3939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10975798 = score(doc=3939,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.75719774 = fieldWeight in 3939, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3939)
    0.04587784 = weight(_text_:computer in 3939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04587784 = score(doc=3939,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28263903 = fieldWeight in 3939, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3939)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    The Semantic Web has attracted much attention, both from academia and industry. An important role in research towards the Semantic Web is played by formalisms and technologies for handling uncertainty and/or vagueness. In this paper, I first provide some motivating examples for handling uncertainty and/or vagueness in the Semantic Web. I then give an overview of some own formalisms for handling uncertainty and/or vagueness in the Semantic Web.
    Series
    Lecture Notes in Computer Scienc;10370) (Information Systems and Applications, incl. Internet/Web, and HCI
    Source
    Reasoning Web: Semantic Interoperability on the Web, 13th International Summer School 2017, London, UK, July 7-11, 2017, Tutorial Lectures. Eds.: Ianni, G. et al
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  6. Wright, H.: Semantic Web and ontologies (2018) 0.05 
    0.049748734 = product of:
  0.1492462 = sum of:
    0.067437425 = weight(_text_:wide in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067437425 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
    0.081808776 = weight(_text_:web in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081808776 = score(doc=80,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.5643819 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    The Semantic Web and ontologies can help archaeologists combine and share data, making it more open and useful. Archaeologists create diverse types of data, using a wide variety of technologies and methodologies. Like all research domains, these data are increasingly digital. The creation of data that are now openly and persistently available from disparate sources has also inspired efforts to bring archaeological resources together and make them more interoperable. This allows functionality such as federated cross-search across different datasets, and the mapping of heterogeneous data to authoritative structures to build a single data source. Ontologies provide the structure and relationships for Semantic Web data, and have been developed for use in cultural heritage applications generally, and archaeology specifically. A variety of online resources for archaeology now incorporate Semantic Web principles and technologies.
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  7. Semantic applications (2018) 0.04 
    0.04318398 = product of:
  0.12955193 = sum of:
    0.064012155 = weight(_text_:web in 5204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064012155 = score(doc=5204,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 5204, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5204)
    0.06553978 = weight(_text_:computer in 5204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06553978 = score(doc=5204,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.40377006 = fieldWeight in 5204, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5204)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Content
    Introduction.- Ontology Development.- Compliance using Metadata.- Variety Management for Big Data.- Text Mining in Economics.- Generation of Natural Language Texts.- Sentiment Analysis.- Building Concise Text Corpora from Web Contents.- Ontology-Based Modelling of Web Content.- Personalized Clinical Decision Support for Cancer Care.- Applications of Temporal Conceptual Semantic Systems.- Context-Aware Documentation in the Smart Factory.- Knowledge-Based Production Planning for Industry 4.0.- Information Exchange in Jurisdiction.- Supporting Automated License Clearing.- Managing cultural assets: Implementing typical cultural heritage archive's usage scenarios via Semantic Web technologies.- Semantic Applications for Process Management.- Domain-Specific Semantic Search Applications.
    LCSH
    Computer science
    Computer Science
    RSWK
    Semantic Web
    Subject
    Semantic Web
    Computer science
    Computer Science
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  8. Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M.; Bar-Ilan, J.: Towards maximal unification of semantically diverse ontologies for controversial domains (2014) 0.04 
    0.040068593 = product of:
  0.080137186 = sum of:
    0.03853567 = weight(_text_:wide in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03853567 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
    0.029565949 = weight(_text_:web in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029565949 = score(doc=1634,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
    0.012035574 = product of:
      0.024071148 = sum of:
        0.024071148 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024071148 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    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
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  9. Hollink, L.; Assem, M. van: Estimating the relevance of search results in the Culture-Web : a study of semantic distance measures (2010) 0.04 
    0.03737721 = product of:
  0.112131625 = sum of:
    0.094078265 = weight(_text_:web in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.094078265 = score(doc=4649,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.64902663 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
    0.01805336 = product of:
      0.03610672 = sum of:
        0.03610672 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610672 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    More and more cultural heritage institutions publish their collections, vocabularies and metadata on the Web. The resulting Web of linked cultural data opens up exciting new possibilities for searching and browsing through these cultural heritage collections. We report on ongoing work in which we investigate the estimation of relevance in this Web of Culture. We study existing measures of semantic distance and how they apply to two use cases. The use cases relate to the structured, multilingual and multimodal nature of the Culture Web. We distinguish between measures using the Web, such as Google distance and PMI, and measures using the Linked Data Web, i.e. the semantic structure of metadata vocabularies. We perform a small study in which we compare these semantic distance measures to human judgements of relevance. Although it is too early to draw any definitive conclusions, the study provides new insights into the applicability of semantic distance measures to the Web of Culture, and clear starting points for further research.
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:40:22
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  10. Menzel, C.: Knowledge representation, the World Wide Web, and the evolution of logic (2011) 0.04 
    0.03737321 = product of:
  0.11211963 = sum of:
    0.057803504 = weight(_text_:wide in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057803504 = score(doc=761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
    0.054316122 = weight(_text_:web in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054316122 = score(doc=761,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    In this paper, I have traced a series of evolutionary adaptations of FOL motivated entirely by its use by knowledge engineers to represent and share information on the Web culminating in the development of Common Logic. While the primary goal in this paper has been to document this evolution, it is arguable, I think that CL's syntactic and semantic egalitarianism better realizes the goal "topic neutrality" that a logic should ideally exemplify - understood, at least in part, as the idea that logic should as far as possible not itself embody any metaphysical presuppositions. Instead of retaining the traditional metaphysical divisions of FOL that reflect its Fregean origins, CL begins as it were with a single, metaphysically homogeneous domain in which, potentially, anything can play the traditional roles of object, property, relation, and function. Note that the effect of this is not to destroy traditional metaphysical divisions. Rather, it simply to refrain from building those divisions explicitly into one's logic; instead, such divisions are left to the user to introduce and enforce axiomatically in an explicit metaphysical theory.
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  11. Fernández, M.; Cantador, I.; López, V.; Vallet, D.; Castells, P.; Motta, E.: Semantically enhanced Information Retrieval : an ontology-based approach (2011) 0.03 
    0.033748515 = product of:
  0.10124554 = sum of:
    0.05449767 = weight(_text_:wide in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05449767 = score(doc=230,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.2769224 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
    0.04674787 = weight(_text_:web in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04674787 = score(doc=230,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.32250395 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Currently, techniques for content description and query processing in Information Retrieval (IR) are based on keywords, and therefore provide limited capabilities to capture the conceptualizations associated with user needs and contents. Aiming to solve the limitations of keyword-based models, the idea of conceptual search, understood as searching by meanings rather than literal strings, has been the focus of a wide body of research in the IR field. More recently, it has been used as a prototypical scenario (or even envisioned as a potential "killer app") in the Semantic Web (SW) vision, since its emergence in the late nineties. However, current approaches to semantic search developed in the SW area have not yet taken full advantage of the acquired knowledge, accumulated experience, and technological sophistication achieved through several decades of work in the IR field. Starting from this position, this work investigates the definition of an ontology-based IR model, oriented to the exploitation of domain Knowledge Bases to support semantic search capabilities in large document repositories, stressing on the one hand the use of fully fledged ontologies in the semantic-based perspective, and on the other hand the consideration of unstructured content as the target search space. The major contribution of this work is an innovative, comprehensive semantic search model, which extends the classic IR model, addresses the challenges of the massive and heterogeneous Web environment, and integrates the benefits of both keyword and semantic-based search. Additional contributions include: an innovative rank fusion technique that minimizes the undesired effects of knowledge sparseness on the yet juvenile SW, and the creation of a large-scale evaluation benchmark, based on TREC IR evaluation standards, which allows a rigorous comparison between IR and SW approaches. Conducted experiments show that our semantic search model obtained comparable and better performance results (in terms of MAP and P@10 values) than the best TREC automatic system.
    Source
    Web semantics: science, services and agents on the World Wide Web. 9(2011) no.4, S.434-452
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  12. Corcho, O.; Poveda-Villalón, M.; Gómez-Pérez, A.: Ontology engineering in the era of linked data (2015) 0.03 
    0.03253942 = product of:
  0.09761825 = sum of:
    0.05174041 = weight(_text_:web in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05174041 = score(doc=3293,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 3293, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3293)
    0.04587784 = weight(_text_:computer in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04587784 = score(doc=3293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28263903 = fieldWeight in 3293, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3293)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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.
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  13. Manaf, N.A. Abdul; Bechhofer, S.; Stevens, R.: ¬The current state of SKOS vocabularies on the Web (2012) 0.03 
    0.032260682 = product of:
  0.09678204 = sum of:
    0.064012155 = weight(_text_:web in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064012155 = score(doc=266,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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.
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; 7295
    Source
    9th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), 2012-05-27/2012-05-31 in Hersonissos, Crete, Greece. Eds.: Elena Simperl et al
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  14. Rousset, M.-C.; Atencia, M.; David, J.; Jouanot, F.; Ulliana, F.; Palombi, O.: Datalog revisited for reasoning in linked data (2017) 0.03 
    0.032260682 = product of:
  0.09678204 = sum of:
    0.064012155 = weight(_text_:web in 3936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064012155 = score(doc=3936,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 3936, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3936)
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 3936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=3936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 3936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3936)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Linked Data provides access to huge, continuously growing amounts of open data and ontologies in RDF format that describe entities, links and properties on those entities. Equipping Linked Data with inference paves the way to make the Semantic Web a reality. In this survey, we describe a unifying framework for RDF ontologies and databases that we call deductive RDF triplestores. It consists in equipping RDF triplestores with Datalog inference rules. This rule language allows to capture in a uniform manner OWL constraints that are useful in practice, such as property transitivity or symmetry, but also domain-specific rules with practical relevance for users in many domains of interest. The expressivity and the genericity of this framework is illustrated for modeling Linked Data applications and for developing inference algorithms. In particular, we show how it allows to model the problem of data linkage in Linked Data as a reasoning problem on possibly decentralized data. We also explain how it makes possible to efficiently extract expressive modules from Semantic Web ontologies and databases with formal guarantees, whilst effectively controlling their succinctness. Experiments conducted on real-world datasets have demonstrated the feasibility of this approach and its usefulness in practice for data integration and information extraction.
    Series
    Lecture Notes in Computer Scienc;10370) (Information Systems and Applications, incl. Internet/Web, and HCI
    Source
    Reasoning Web: Semantic Interoperability on the Web, 13th International Summer School 2017, London, UK, July 7-11, 2017, Tutorial Lectures. Eds.: Ianni, G. et al
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  15. Semantische Technologien : Grundlagen - Konzepte - Anwendungen (2012) 0.03 
    0.028060317 = product of:
  0.08418095 = sum of:
    0.05174041 = weight(_text_:web in 167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05174041 = score(doc=167,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 167, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=167)
    0.032440536 = weight(_text_:computer in 167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032440536 = score(doc=167,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.19985598 = fieldWeight in 167, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=167)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Dieses Lehrbuch bietet eine umfassende Einführung in Grundlagen, Potentiale und Anwendungen Semantischer Technologien. Es richtet sich an Studierende der Informatik und angrenzender Fächer sowie an Entwickler, die Semantische Technologien am Arbeitsplatz oder in verteilten Applikationen nutzen möchten. Mit seiner an praktischen Beispielen orientierten Darstellung gibt es aber auch Anwendern und Entscheidern in Unternehmen einen breiten Überblick über Nutzen und Möglichkeiten dieser Technologie. Semantische Technologien versetzen Computer in die Lage, Informationen nicht nur zu speichern und wieder zu finden, sondern sie ihrer Bedeutung entsprechend auszuwerten, zu verbinden, zu Neuem zu verknüpfen, und so flexibel und zielgerichtet nützliche Leistungen zu erbringen. Das vorliegende Buch stellt im ersten Teil die als Semantische Technologien bezeichneten Techniken, Sprachen und Repräsentationsformalismen vor. Diese Elemente erlauben es, das in Informationen enthaltene Wissen formal und damit für den Computer verarbeitbar zu beschreiben, Konzepte und Beziehungen darzustellen und schließlich Inhalte zu erfragen, zu erschließen und in Netzen zugänglich zu machen. Der zweite Teil beschreibt, wie mit Semantischen Technologien elementare Funktionen und umfassende Dienste der Informations- und Wissensverarbeitung realisiert werden können. Hierzu gehören etwa die Annotation und das Erschließen von Information, die Suche in den resultierenden Strukturen, das Erklären von Bedeutungszusammenhängen sowie die Integration einzelner Komponenten in komplexe Ablaufprozesse und Anwendungslösungen. Der dritte Teil beschreibt schließlich vielfältige Anwendungsbeispiele in unterschiedlichen Bereichen und illustriert so Mehrwert, Potenzial und Grenzen von Semantischen Technologien. Die dargestellten Systeme reichen von Werkzeugen für persönliches, individuelles Informationsmanagement über Unterstützungsfunktionen für Gruppen bis hin zu neuen Ansätzen im Internet der Dinge und Dienste, einschließlich der Integration verschiedener Medien und Anwendungen von Medizin bis Musik.
    Content
    Inhalt: 1. Einleitung (A. Dengel, A. Bernardi) 2. Wissensrepräsentation (A. Dengel, A. Bernardi, L. van Elst) 3. Semantische Netze, Thesauri und Topic Maps (O. Rostanin, G. Weber) 4. Das Ressource Description Framework (T. Roth-Berghofer) 5. Ontologien und Ontologie-Abgleich in verteilten Informationssystemen (L. van Elst) 6. Anfragesprachen und Reasoning (M. Sintek) 7. Linked Open Data, Semantic Web Datensätze (G.A. Grimnes, O. Hartig, M. Kiesel, M. Liwicki) 8. Semantik in der Informationsextraktion (B. Adrian, B. Endres-Niggemeyer) 9. Semantische Suche (K. Schumacher, B. Forcher, T. Tran) 10. Erklärungsfähigkeit semantischer Systeme (B. Forcher, T. Roth-Berghofer, S. Agne) 11. Semantische Webservices zur Steuerung von Prooduktionsprozessen (M. Loskyll, J. Schlick, S. Hodeck, L. Ollinger, C. Maxeiner) 12. Wissensarbeit am Desktop (S. Schwarz, H. Maus, M. Kiesel, L. Sauermann) 13. Semantische Suche für medizinische Bilder (MEDICO) (M. Möller, M. Sintek) 14. Semantische Musikempfehlungen (S. Baumann, A. Passant) 15. Optimierung von Instandhaltungsprozessen durch Semantische Technologien (P. Stephan, M. Loskyll, C. Stahl, J. Schlick)
    RSWK
    Semantic Web / Information Extraction / Suche / Wissensbasiertes System / Aufsatzsammlung
    Semantic Web / Web Services / Semantische Modellierung / Ontologie <Wissensverarbeitung> / Suche / Navigieren / Anwendungsbereich / Aufsatzsammlung
    Subject
    Semantic Web / Information Extraction / Suche / Wissensbasiertes System / Aufsatzsammlung
    Semantic Web / Web Services / Semantische Modellierung / Ontologie <Wissensverarbeitung> / Suche / Navigieren / Anwendungsbereich / Aufsatzsammlung
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  16. Allocca, C.; Aquin, M.d'; Motta, E.: Impact of using relationships between ontologies to enhance the ontology search results (2012) 0.03 
    0.026011107 = product of:
  0.07803332 = sum of:
    0.045263432 = weight(_text_:web in 264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045263432 = score(doc=264,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 264, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=264)
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 264, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=264)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Using semantic web search engines, such as Watson, Swoogle or Sindice, to find ontologies is a complex exploratory activity. It generally requires formulating multiple queries, browsing pages of results, and assessing the returned ontologies against each other to obtain a relevant and adequate subset of ontologies for the intended use. Our hypothesis is that at least some of the difficulties related to searching ontologies stem from the lack of structure in the search results, where ontologies that are implicitly related to each other are presented as disconnected and shown on different result pages. In earlier publications we presented a software framework, Kannel, which is able to automatically detect and make explicit relationships between ontologies in large ontology repositories. In this paper, we present a study that compares the use of the Watson ontology search engine with an extension,Watson+Kannel, which provides information regarding the various relationships occurring between the result ontologies. We evaluate Watson+Kannel by demonstrating through various indicators that explicit relationships between ontologies improve users' efficiency in ontology search, thus validating our hypothesis.
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; 7295
    Source
    9th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), 2012-05-27/2012-05-31 in Hersonissos, Crete, Greece. Eds.: Elena Simperl et al
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  17. Boer, V. de; Wielemaker, J.; Gent, J. van; Hildebrand, M.; Isaac, A.; Ossenbruggen, J. van; Schreiber, G.: Supporting linked data production for cultural heritage institutes : the Amsterdam Museum case study (2012) 0.03 
    0.026011107 = product of:
  0.07803332 = sum of:
    0.045263432 = weight(_text_:web in 265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045263432 = score(doc=265,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 265, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=265)
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=265,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 265, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=265)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Within the cultural heritage field, proprietary metadata and vocabularies are being transformed into public Linked Data. These efforts have mostly been at the level of large-scale aggregators such as Europeana where the original data is abstracted to a common format and schema. Although this approach ensures a level of consistency and interoperability, the richness of the original data is lost in the process. In this paper, we present a transparent and interactive methodology for ingesting, converting and linking cultural heritage metadata into Linked Data. The methodology is designed to maintain the richness and detail of the original metadata. We introduce the XMLRDF conversion tool and describe how it is integrated in the ClioPatria semantic web toolkit. The methodology and the tools have been validated by converting the Amsterdam Museum metadata to a Linked Data version. In this way, the Amsterdam Museum became the first 'small' cultural heritage institution with a node in the Linked Data cloud.
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; 7295
    Source
    9th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), 2012-05-27/2012-05-31 in Hersonissos, Crete, Greece. Eds.: Elena Simperl et al
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  18. Kara, S.: ¬An ontology-based retrieval system using semantic indexing (2012) 0.02 
    0.023561096 = product of:
  0.070683286 = sum of:
    0.031359423 = weight(_text_:web in 3829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031359423 = score(doc=3829,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3829, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3829)
    0.039323866 = weight(_text_:computer in 3829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039323866 = score(doc=3829,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24226204 = fieldWeight in 3829, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3829)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Content
    Thesis submitted to the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Middle East Technical University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of science in Computer Engineering (XII, 57 S.)
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  19. Monireh, E.; Sarker, M.K.; Bianchi, F.; Hitzler, P.; Doran, D.; Xie, N.: Reasoning over RDF knowledge bases using deep learning (2018) 0.02 
    0.020102633 = product of:
  0.060307898 = sum of:
    0.045263432 = weight(_text_:web in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045263432 = score(doc=4553,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
    0.0150444675 = product of:
      0.030088935 = sum of:
        0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030088935 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Semantic Web knowledge representation standards, and in particular RDF and OWL, often come endowed with a formal semantics which is considered to be of fundamental importance for the field. Reasoning, i.e., the drawing of logical inferences from knowledge expressed in such standards, is traditionally based on logical deductive methods and algorithms which can be proven to be sound and complete and terminating, i.e. correct in a very strong sense. For various reasons, though, in particular the scalability issues arising from the ever increasing amounts of Semantic Web data available and the inability of deductive algorithms to deal with noise in the data, it has been argued that alternative means of reasoning should be investigated which bear high promise for high scalability and better robustness. From this perspective, deductive algorithms can be considered the gold standard regarding correctness against which alternative methods need to be tested. In this paper, we show that it is possible to train a Deep Learning system on RDF knowledge graphs, such that it is able to perform reasoning over new RDF knowledge graphs, with high precision and recall compared to the deductive gold standard.
    Date
    16.11.2018 14:22:01
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  20. Weller, K.: Anforderungen an die Wissensrepräsentation im Social Semantic Web (2010) 0.02 
    0.018292997 = product of:
  0.10975798 = sum of:
    0.10975798 = weight(_text_:web in 4061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10975798 = score(doc=4061,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.75719774 = fieldWeight in 4061, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4061)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Dieser Artikel gibt einen Einblick in die aktuelle Verschmelzung von Web 2.0-und Semantic Web-Ansätzen, die als Social Semantic Web beschrieben werden kann. Die Grundidee des Social Semantic Web wird beschrieben und einzelne erste Anwendungsbeispiele vorgestellt. Ein wesentlicher Schwerpunkt dieser Entwicklung besteht in der Umsetzung neuer Methoden und Herangehensweisen im Bereich der Wissensrepräsentation. Dieser Artikel stellt vier Schwerpunkte vor, in denen sich die Wissensrepräsentationsmethoden im Social Semantic Web weiterentwickeln müssen und geht dabei jeweils auf den aktuellen Stand ein.
    Object
    Web 2.0
    Source
    Semantic web & linked data: Elemente zukünftiger Informationsinfrastrukturen ; 1. DGI-Konferenz ; 62. Jahrestagung der DGI ; Frankfurt am Main, 7. - 9. Oktober 2010 ; Proceedings / Deutsche Gesellschaft für Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis. Hrsg.: M. Ockenfeld
    Theme
    Semantic Web

Authors

Languages

  • e 34
  • d 5

Types

  • a 23
  • el 13
  • m 7
  • s 5
  • x 3
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications