Search (39 results, page 1 of 2)

0.025096897 = product of:
  0.07529069 = sum of:
    0.037123807 = product of:
      0.07424761 = sum of:
        0.07424761 = weight(_text_:web in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07424761 = score(doc=4649,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.03816688 = product of:
      0.05725032 = sum of:
        0.028754493 = weight(_text_:29 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028754493 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
        0.028495826 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028495826 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1227524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  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

29. 7.2011 14:44:56
26.12.2011 13:40:22

Theme

Semantic Web

0.018414553 = product of:
  0.055243656 = sum of:
    0.0472563 = product of:
      0.0945126 = sum of:
        0.0945126 = weight(_text_:web in 4706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0945126 = score(doc=4706,freq=42.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.00798736 = product of:
      0.023962079 = sum of:
        0.023962079 = weight(_text_:29 in 4706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023962079 = score(doc=4706,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4706, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4706)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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.

Date

29. 7.2011 14:44:56

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>

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

0.014731642 = product of:
  0.044194926 = sum of:
    0.03780504 = product of:
      0.07561008 = sum of:
        0.07561008 = weight(_text_:web in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07561008 = score(doc=4707,freq=42.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0063898875 = product of:
      0.019169662 = sum of:
        0.019169662 = weight(_text_:29 in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019169662 = score(doc=4707,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 4707, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4707)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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.

Date

29. 7.2011 14:44:56

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>

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

0.008592237 = product of:
  0.02577671 = sum of:
    0.017861202 = product of:
      0.035722405 = sum of:
        0.035722405 = weight(_text_:web in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035722405 = score(doc=4553,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.007915508 = product of:
      0.023746524 = sum of:
        0.023746524 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023746524 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1227524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  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

0.007291071 = product of:
  0.021873213 = sum of:
    0.012374603 = product of:
      0.024749206 = sum of:
        0.024749206 = weight(_text_:web in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024749206 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2024, 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=2024)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009498609 = product of:
      0.028495826 = sum of:
        0.028495826 = weight(_text_:22 in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028495826 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1227524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Source

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

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0072185183 = product of:
  0.043311108 = sum of:
    0.043311108 = product of:
      0.086622216 = sum of:
        0.086622216 = weight(_text_:web in 4061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.086622216 = score(doc=4061,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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

0.0072185183 = product of:
  0.043311108 = sum of:
    0.043311108 = product of:
      0.086622216 = sum of:
        0.086622216 = weight(_text_:web in 3939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.086622216 = score(doc=3939,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.0064788195 = product of:
  0.038872916 = sum of:
    0.038872916 = product of:
      0.07774583 = sum of:
        0.07774583 = weight(_text_:web in 4515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07774583 = score(doc=4515,freq=58.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.0059997654 = product of:
  0.017999295 = sum of:
    0.011666888 = product of:
      0.023333777 = sum of:
        0.023333777 = weight(_text_:web in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023333777 = score(doc=1634,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0063324063 = product of:
      0.018997218 = sum of:
        0.018997218 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018997218 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1227524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.005700267 = product of:
  0.0342016 = sum of:
    0.0342016 = product of:
      0.0684032 = sum of:
        0.0684032 = weight(_text_:web in 3934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0684032 = score(doc=3934,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

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

Theme

Semantic Web

0.005434991 = product of:
  0.032609943 = sum of:
    0.032609943 = product of:
      0.06521989 = sum of:
        0.06521989 = weight(_text_:web in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06521989 = score(doc=3297,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.005380366 = product of:
  0.032282196 = sum of:
    0.032282196 = product of:
      0.06456439 = sum of:
        0.06456439 = weight(_text_:web in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06456439 = score(doc=80,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.005156085 = product of:
  0.030936508 = sum of:
    0.030936508 = product of:
      0.061873015 = sum of:
        0.061873015 = weight(_text_:web in 1093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061873015 = score(doc=1093,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.5408555 = fieldWeight in 1093, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1093)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The Semantic Web has been criticized for not being semantic. This article examines the questions of why and how the Web of Data, expressed in the Resource Description Framework (RDF), has come to be known as the Semantic Web. Contrary to previous papers, we deliberately take a descriptive stance and do not start from preconceived ideas about the nature of semantics. Instead, we mainly base our analysis on early design documents of the (Semantic) Web. The main determining factor is shown to be link typing, coupled with the influence of online metadata. Both factors already were present in early web standards and drafts. Our findings indicate that the Semantic Web is directly linked to older artificial intelligence work, despite occasional claims to the contrary. Because of link typing, the Semantic Web can be considered an example of a semantic network. Originally network representations of the meaning of natural language utterances, semantic networks have eventually come to refer to any networks with typed (usually directed) links. We discuss possible causes for this shift and suggest that it may be due to confounding paradigmatic and syntagmatic semantic relations.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.005051911 = product of:
  0.030311465 = sum of:
    0.030311465 = product of:
      0.06062293 = sum of:
        0.06062293 = weight(_text_:web in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06062293 = score(doc=4798,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.5299281 = fieldWeight in 4798, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4798)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Seven years on from OWL becoming a W3C recommendation, and two years on from the more recent OWL 2 W3C recommendation, OWL has still experienced only patchy uptake on the Web. Although certain OWL features (like owl:sameAs) are very popular, other features of OWL are largely neglected by publishers in the Linked Data world. This may suggest that despite the promise of easy implementations and the proposal of tractable profiles suggested in OWL's second version, there is still no "right" standard fragment for the Linked Data community. In this paper, we (1) analyse uptake of OWL on the Web of Data, (2) gain insights into the OWL fragment that is actually used/usable on the Web, where we arrive at the conclusion that this fragment is likely to be a simplified profile based on OWL RL, (3) propose and discuss such a new fragment, which we call OWL LD (for Linked Data).

Content

Beitrag des Workshops: Linked Data on the Web (LDOW2012), April 16, 2012 Lyon, France; vgl.: http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2012/.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.005051911 = product of:
  0.030311465 = sum of:
    0.030311465 = product of:
      0.06062293 = sum of:
        0.06062293 = weight(_text_:web in 4802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06062293 = score(doc=4802,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.5299281 = fieldWeight in 4802, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4802)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The power of search is with no doubt one of the main aspects for the success of the Web. Currently available search engines on the Web allow to return results with a high precision. Nevertheless, if we limit our attention only to lookup search we are missing another important search task. In exploratory search, the user is willing not only to find documents relevant with respect to her query but she is also interested in learning, discovering and understanding novel knowledge on complex and sometimes unknown topics. In the paper we address this issue presenting LED, a web based system that aims to improve (lookup) Web search by enabling users to properly explore knowledge associated to her query. We rely on DBpedia to explore the semantics of keywords within the query thus suggesting potentially interesting related topics/keywords to the user.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0048612035 = product of:
  0.02916722 = sum of:
    0.02916722 = product of:
      0.05833444 = sum of:
        0.05833444 = weight(_text_:web in 51) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05833444 = score(doc=51,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 51, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=51)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The increasingly pervasive nature of the Web, expanding to devices and things in everydaylife, along with new trends in Artificial Intelligence call for new paradigms and a new look onKnowledge Representation and Processing at scale for the Semantic Web. The emerging, but stillto be concretely shaped concept of "Knowledge Graphs" provides an excellent unifying metaphorfor this current status of Semantic Web research. More than two decades of Semantic Webresearch provides a solid basis and a promising technology and standards stack to interlink data,ontologies and knowledge on the Web. However, neither are applications for Knowledge Graphsas such limited to Linked Open Data, nor are instantiations of Knowledge Graphs in enterprises- while often inspired by - limited to the core Semantic Web stack. This report documents theprogram and the outcomes of Dagstuhl Seminar 18371 "Knowledge Graphs: New Directions forKnowledge Representation on the Semantic Web", where a group of experts from academia andindustry discussed fundamental questions around these topics for a week in early September 2018,including the following: what are knowledge graphs? Which applications do we see to emerge?Which open research questions still need be addressed and which technology gaps still need tobe closed?

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0045015374 = product of:
  0.027009223 = sum of:
    0.027009223 = product of:
      0.054018445 = sum of:
        0.054018445 = weight(_text_:web in 4803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054018445 = score(doc=4803,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.47219574 = fieldWeight in 4803, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4803)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Thanks to the recent Linked Data initiative, the foundations of the Semantic Web have been built. Shared, open and linked RDF datasets give us the possibility to exploit both the strong theoretical results and the robust technologies and tools developed since the seminal paper in the Semantic Web appeared in 2001. In a simplistic way, we may think at the Semantic Web as a ultra large distributed database we can query to get information coming from different sources. In fact, every dataset exposes a SPARQL endpoint to make the data accessible through exact queries. If we know the URI of the famous actress Nicole Kidman in DBpedia we may retrieve all the movies she acted with a simple SPARQL query. Eventually we may aggregate this information with users ratings and genres from IMDB. Even though these are very exciting results and applications, there is much more behind the curtains. Datasets come with the description of their schema structured in an ontological way. Resources refer to classes which are in turn organized in well structured and rich ontologies. Exploiting also this further feature we go beyond the notion of a distributed database and we can refer to the Semantic Web as a distributed knowledge base. If in our knowledge base we have that Paris is located in France (ontological level) and that Moulin Rouge! is set in Paris (data level) we may query the Semantic Web (interpreted as a set of interconnected datasets and related ontologies) to return all the movies starred by Nicole Kidman set in France and Moulin Rouge! will be in the final result set. The ontological level makes possible to infer new relations among data.
The Linked Data initiative and the state of the art in semantic technologies led off all brand new search and mash-up applications. The basic idea is to have smarter lookup services for a huge, distributed and social knowledge base. All these applications catch and (re)propose, under a semantic data perspective, the view of the classical Web as a distributed collection of documents to retrieve. The interlinked nature of the Web, and consequently of the Semantic Web, is exploited (just) to collect and aggregate data coming from different sources. Of course, this is a big step forward in search and Web technologies, but if we limit our investi- gation to retrieval tasks, we miss another important feature of the current Web: browsing and in particular exploratory browsing (a.k.a. exploratory search). Thanks to its hyperlinked nature, the Web defined a new way of browsing documents and knowledge: selection by lookup, navigation and trial-and-error tactics were, and still are, exploited by users to search for relevant information satisfying some initial requirements. The basic assumptions behind a lookup search, typical of Information Retrieval (IR) systems, are no more valid in an exploratory browsing context. An IR system, such as a search engine, assumes that: the user has a clear picture of what she is looking for ; she knows the terminology of the specific knowledge space. On the other side, as argued in, the main challenges in exploratory search can be summarized as: support querying and rapid query refinement; other facets and metadata-based result filtering; leverage search context; support learning and understanding; other visualization to support insight/decision making; facilitate collaboration. In Section 3 we will show two applications for exploratory search in the Semantic Web addressing some of the above challenges.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0042099254 = product of:
  0.025259553 = sum of:
    0.025259553 = product of:
      0.050519105 = sum of:
        0.050519105 = weight(_text_:web in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050519105 = score(doc=266,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

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

0.0042099254 = product of:
  0.025259553 = sum of:
    0.025259553 = product of:
      0.050519105 = sum of:
        0.050519105 = weight(_text_:web in 3936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050519105 = score(doc=3936,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.0042099254 = product of:
  0.025259553 = sum of:
    0.025259553 = product of:
      0.050519105 = sum of:
        0.050519105 = weight(_text_:web in 5204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050519105 = score(doc=5204,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

RSWK

Semantic Web

Subject

Semantic Web

Theme

Semantic Web