Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.016424723 = product of:
  0.06569889 = sum of:
    0.06569889 = weight(_text_:soziale in 4515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06569889 = score(doc=4515,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2780798 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045514934 = queryNorm
        0.23625913 = fieldWeight in 4515, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4515)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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. . . .

0.0049464838 = product of:
  0.019785935 = sum of:
    0.019785935 = product of:
      0.03957187 = sum of:
        0.03957187 = weight(_text_:software in 99) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03957187 = score(doc=99,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 99, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=99)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A new model is proposed to retrieve information by building automatically a semantic metatext structure for texts that allow searching and extracting discourse and semantic information according to certain linguistic categorizations. This paper presents approaches for searching and mining full text with semantic categories. The model is built up from two engines: The first one, called EXCOM (Djioua et al., 2006; Alrahabi, 2010), is an automatic system for text annotation, related to discourse and semantic maps, which are specification of general linguistic ontologies founded on the Applicative and Cognitive Grammar. The annotation layer uses a linguistic method called Contextual Exploration, which handles the polysemic values of a term in texts. Several 'semantic maps' underlying 'point of views' for text mining guide this automatic annotation process. The second engine uses semantic annotated texts, produced previously in order to create a semantic inverted index, which is able to retrieve relevant documents for queries associated with discourse and semantic categories such as definition, quotation, causality, relations between concepts, etc. (Djioua & Desclés, 2007). This semantic indexation process builds a metatext layer for textual contents. Some data and linguistic rules sets as well as the general architecture that extend third-party software are expressed as supplementary information.

0.0049464838 = product of:
  0.019785935 = sum of:
    0.019785935 = product of:
      0.03957187 = sum of:
        0.03957187 = weight(_text_:software in 264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03957187 = score(doc=264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 264, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0049464838 = product of:
  0.019785935 = sum of:
    0.019785935 = product of:
      0.03957187 = sum of:
        0.03957187 = weight(_text_:software in 5204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03957187 = score(doc=5204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 5204, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5204)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This book describes proven methodologies for developing semantic applications: software applications which explicitly or implicitly uses the semantics (i.e., the meaning) of a domain terminology in order to improve usability, correctness, and completeness. An example is semantic search, where synonyms and related terms are used for enriching the results of a simple text-based search. Ontologies, thesauri or controlled vocabularies are the centerpiece of semantic applications. The book includes technological and architectural best practices for corporate use.

0.0046249838 = product of:
  0.018499935 = sum of:
    0.018499935 = product of:
      0.03699987 = sum of:
        0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03699987 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26.12.2011 13:40:22

0.0046249838 = product of:
  0.018499935 = sum of:
    0.018499935 = product of:
      0.03699987 = sum of:
        0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03699987 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

16.11.2018 14:22:01

0.0030833227 = product of:
  0.012333291 = sum of:
    0.012333291 = product of:
      0.024666581 = sum of:
        0.024666581 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024666581 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22