Search (39 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Semantic Web"
  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Semantische Technologien : Grundlagen - Konzepte - Anwendungen (2012) 0.00 
    0.003336737 = product of:
  0.03336737 = sum of:
    0.015353293 = weight(_text_:medien in 167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015353293 = score(doc=167,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.084356464 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7066307 = idf(docFreq=1085, maxDocs=44218)
          0.017922899 = queryNorm
        0.18200494 = fieldWeight in 167, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7066307 = idf(docFreq=1085, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=167)
    0.017261708 = product of:
      0.034523416 = sum of:
        0.034523416 = weight(_text_:dienste in 167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034523416 = score(doc=167,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.106369466 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.32456133 = fieldWeight in 167, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=167)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    7.5236685E-4 = product of:
      0.0022571005 = sum of:
        0.0022571005 = weight(_text_:a in 167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0022571005 = score(doc=167,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.10921837 = fieldWeight in 167, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=167)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    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)
    Editor
    Dengel, A.
  2. Weller, K.: Anforderungen an die Wissensrepräsentation im Social Semantic Web (2010) 0.00 
    0.0032422296 = product of:
  0.04863344 = sum of:
    0.048019137 = weight(_text_:einzelne in 4061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048019137 = score(doc=4061,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10548963 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.885746 = idf(docFreq=333, maxDocs=44218)
          0.017922899 = queryNorm
        0.45520246 = fieldWeight in 4061, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.885746 = idf(docFreq=333, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4061)
    6.14305E-4 = product of:
      0.001842915 = sum of:
        0.001842915 = weight(_text_:a in 4061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.001842915 = score(doc=4061,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 4061, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4061)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    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.
    Type
    a
  3. Hollink, L.; Assem, M. van: Estimating the relevance of search results in the Culture-Web : a study of semantic distance measures (2010) 0.00 
    0.002590461 = product of:
  0.038856912 = sum of:
    0.0073510436 = product of:
      0.014702087 = sum of:
        0.014702087 = weight(_text_:29 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014702087 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.031505868 = sum of:
      0.0022339502 = weight(_text_:a in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0022339502 = score(doc=4649,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.017922899 = queryNorm
          0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
      0.014702087 = weight(_text_:29 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014702087 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.017922899 = 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)
      0.014569832 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014569832 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06276294 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.017922899 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    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
  4. Pattuelli, M.C.; Rubinow, S.: Charting DBpedia : towards a cartography of a major linked dataset (2012) 0.00 
    0.0010911368 = product of:
  0.016367052 = sum of:
    0.014862318 = weight(_text_:u in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014862318 = score(doc=829,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058687534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.017922899 = queryNorm
        0.25324488 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
    0.0015047337 = product of:
      0.004514201 = sum of:
        0.004514201 = weight(_text_:a in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004514201 = score(doc=829,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    This paper provides an analysis of the knowledge structure underlying DBpedia, one of the largest and most heavily used datasets in the current Linked Data landscape. The study reveals an evolving knowledge representation environment where different descriptive and classification approaches are employed concurrently. This analysis opens up a new area of research to which the knowledge organization community can make a significant contribution.
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
    Type
    a
  5. Ehlen, D.: Semantic Wiki : Konzeption eines Semantic MediaWiki für das Reallexikon zur Deutschen Kunstgeschichte (2010) 0.00 
    0.0010846626 = product of:
  0.032539878 = sum of:
    0.032539878 = weight(_text_:neue in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032539878 = score(doc=3689,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07302189 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.074223 = idf(docFreq=2043, maxDocs=44218)
          0.017922899 = queryNorm
        0.44561815 = fieldWeight in 3689, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.074223 = idf(docFreq=2043, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3689)
  0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
    Abstract
    Wikis sind ein geeignetes Mittel zur Umsetzung von umfangreichen Wissenssammlungen wie Lexika oder Enzyklopädien. Bestes Beispiel dafür bildet die weltweit erfolgreiche freie On-line-Enzyklopadie Wikipedia. Jedoch ist es mit konventionellen Wiki-Umgebungen nicht moglich das Potential der gespeicherten Texte vollends auszuschopfen. Eine neue Möglichkeit bieten semantische Wikis, deren Inhalte mithilfe von maschinenlesbaren Annotationen semantische Bezüge erhalten. Die hier vorliegende Bachelorarbeit greift dies auf und überführt Teile des "Reallexikons zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte" in ein semantisches Wiki. Aufgrund einer Semantic MediaWiki-Installation soll uberpruft werden, inwieweit die neue Technik fur die Erschließung des Lexikons genutzt werden kann. Mit einem Beispiel-Wiki für das RdK auf beigefügter CD.
  6. Smith, D.A.; Shadbolt, N.R.: FacetOntology : expressive descriptions of facets in the Semantic Web (2012) 0.00 
    7.7314035E-4 = product of:
  0.011597104 = sum of:
    0.010615941 = weight(_text_:u in 2208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010615941 = score(doc=2208,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058687534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.017922899 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 2208, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2208)
    9.811628E-4 = product of:
      0.002943488 = sum of:
        0.002943488 = weight(_text_:a in 2208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.002943488 = score(doc=2208,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2208, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2208)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    The formal structure of the information on the Semantic Web lends itself to faceted browsing, an information retrieval method where users can filter results based on the values of properties ("facets"). Numerous faceted browsers have been created to browse RDF and Linked Data, but these systems use their own ontologies for defining how data is queried to populate their facets. Since the source data is the same format across these systems (specifically, RDF), we can unify the different methods of describing how to quer the underlying data, to enable compatibility across systems, and provide an extensible base ontology for future systems. To this end, we present FacetOntology, an ontology that defines how to query data to form a faceted browser, and a number of transformations and filters that can be applied to data before it is shown to users. FacetOntology overcomes limitations in the expressivity of existing work, by enabling the full expressivity of SPARQL when selecting data for facets. By applying a FacetOntology definition to data, a set of facets are specified, each with queries and filters to source RDF data, which enables faceted browsing systems to be created using that RDF data.
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
    Type
    a
  7. ¬The Semantic Web - ISWC 2010 : 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, Shanghai, China, November 7-11, 2010, Revised Selected Papers, Part 2. (2010) 0.00 
    6.806523E-4 = product of:
  0.010209784 = sum of:
    0.00612587 = product of:
      0.01225174 = sum of:
        0.01225174 = weight(_text_:29 in 4706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01225174 = score(doc=4706,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0040839138 = product of:
      0.01225174 = sum of:
        0.01225174 = weight(_text_:29 in 4706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01225174 = score(doc=4706,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Date
    29. 7.2011 14:44:56
  8. ¬The Semantic Web - ISWC 2010 : 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, Shanghai, China, November 7-11, 2010, Revised Selected Papers, Part I. (2010) 0.00 
    5.445218E-4 = product of:
  0.008167827 = sum of:
    0.0049006958 = product of:
      0.0098013915 = sum of:
        0.0098013915 = weight(_text_:29 in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0098013915 = score(doc=4707,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0032671306 = product of:
      0.0098013915 = sum of:
        0.0098013915 = weight(_text_:29 in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0098013915 = score(doc=4707,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.063047156 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Date
    29. 7.2011 14:44:56
  9. Wright, H.: Semantic Web and ontologies (2018) 0.00 
    4.9651193E-4 = product of:
  0.007447678 = sum of:
    0.0063836705 = product of:
      0.012767341 = sum of:
        0.012767341 = weight(_text_:online in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012767341 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05439423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0010640075 = product of:
      0.0031920224 = sum of:
        0.0031920224 = weight(_text_:a in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0031920224 = score(doc=80,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    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.
  10. Prud'hommeaux, E.; Gayo, E.: RDF ventures to boldly meet your most pedestrian needs (2015) 0.00 
    3.845745E-4 = product of:
  0.011537234 = sum of:
    0.011537234 = product of:
      0.017305851 = sum of:
        0.0027360192 = weight(_text_:a in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0027360192 = score(doc=2024,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2024, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2024)
        0.014569832 = weight(_text_:22 in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014569832 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06276294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
    Abstract
    Defined in 1999 and paired with XML, the Resource Description Framework (RDF) has been cast as an RDF Schema, producing data that is well-structured but not validated, permitting certain illogical relationships. When stakeholders convened in 2014 to consider solutions to the data validation challenge, a W3C working group proposed Resource Shapes and Shape Expressions to describe the properties expected for an RDF node. Resistance rose from concerns about data and schema reuse, key principles in RDF. Ideally data types and properties are designed for broad use, but they are increasingly adopted with local restrictions for specific purposes. Resource Shapes are commonly treated as record classes, standing in for data structures but losing flexibility for later reuse. Of various solutions to the resulting tensions, the concept of record classes may be the most reasonable basis for agreement, satisfying stakeholders' objectives while allowing for variations with constraints.
    Footnote
    Contribution to a special section "Linked data and the charm of weak semantics".
    Source
    Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 41(2015) no.4, S.18-22
    Type
    a
  11. Guns, R.: Tracing the origins of the semantic web (2013) 0.00 
    3.5465136E-4 = product of:
  0.00531977 = sum of:
    0.0045597646 = product of:
      0.009119529 = sum of:
        0.009119529 = weight(_text_:online in 1093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009119529 = score(doc=1093,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05439423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 1093, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1093)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    7.6000544E-4 = product of:
      0.0022800162 = sum of:
        0.0022800162 = weight(_text_:a in 1093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0022800162 = score(doc=1093,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 1093, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1093)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    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.
    Type
    a
  12. Meyer, A.: Begriffsrelationen im Kategoriensystem der Wikipedia : Entwicklung eines Relationeninventars zur kollaborativen Anwendung (2010) 0.00 
    3.3323694E-4 = product of:
  0.004998554 = sum of:
    0.0045597646 = product of:
      0.009119529 = sum of:
        0.009119529 = weight(_text_:online in 4429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009119529 = score(doc=4429,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05439423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 4429, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4429)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    4.3878925E-4 = product of:
      0.0013163678 = sum of:
        0.0013163678 = weight(_text_:a in 4429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0013163678 = score(doc=4429,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 4429, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4429)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    Neben den bekannten Hyperlinks in Artikeltexten verfügt die Online-Enzyklopädie Wikipedia mit ihrem Kategoriensystem über ein weiteres Mittel zur Herstellung von Relationen zwischen Artikeln. Jeder Artikel ist einer oder mehreren Kategorien zugeordnet, die ihrerseits anderen Kategorien zugeordnet sind. Auf diese Weise entsteht eine systematische Ordnung von Artikeln und Kategorien. Betrachtet man nur die Artikel- und Kategoriennamen sowie diese Relationen, so stellt das Kategoriensystem ein gemeinschaftlich erstelltes Begriffssystem dar, das sämtliche von der Wikipedia abgedeckten Themenbereiche umfasst, jedoch - technisch betrachtet - ausschließlich hierarchische Relationen enthält. Aufgrund des Fehlens eines differenzierten Regelwerks zur Kategorisierung ist das Kategoriensystem derzeit jedoch inkonsistent, daneben sind, bedingt durch das Vorhandensein lediglich eines Relationstyps, viele Relationen wenig aussagekräftig. Dennoch besteht das Potenzial zur Schaffung eines stark und differenziert relationierten Begriffssystems aus dem bestehenden Kategoriensystem heraus. Die vorliegende Arbeit diskutiert die Anwendungsmöglichkeiten eines solchen Begriffssystems und die Option seiner gemeinschaftlichen Entwicklung aus dem bestehenden Vokabular des Kategoriensystems, mithin also der gemeinschaftlichen Relationierung von Begriffen anhand eines differenzierten Relationeninventars. Ausgehend von den Kategorien "Theater" und "Jagd" der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia wird ein hierarchisch strukturiertes Relationeninventar definiert, das sowohl spezifische als auch allgemeine Relationstypen enthält und damit die Möglichkeit zur Übertragung auf andere Gegenstandsbereiche bietet. Sämtliche Artikel- und Kategoriennamen, die unterhalb jener Kategorien erscheinen, werden unter Verwendung der neu entwickelten Relationstypen als Deskriptoren relationiert.
  13. Monireh, E.; Sarker, M.K.; Bianchi, F.; Hitzler, P.; Doran, D.; Xie, N.: Reasoning over RDF knowledge bases using deep learning (2018) 0.00 
    3.28317E-4 = product of:
  0.009849509 = sum of:
    0.009849509 = product of:
      0.014774263 = sum of:
        0.0026327355 = weight(_text_:a in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0026327355 = score(doc=4553,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
        0.012141528 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012141528 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06276294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
    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
    Type
    a
  14. Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M.; Bar-Ilan, J.: Towards maximal unification of semantically diverse ontologies for controversial domains (2014) 0.00 
    3.03412E-4 = product of:
  0.009102359 = sum of:
    0.009102359 = product of:
      0.013653539 = sum of:
        0.003940318 = weight(_text_:a in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003940318 = score(doc=1634,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.19066721 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
        0.009713221 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009713221 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06276294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
    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
    Type
    a
  15. Corcho, O.; Poveda-Villalón, M.; Gómez-Pérez, A.: Ontology engineering in the era of linked data (2015) 0.00 
    5.0157792E-5 = product of:
  0.0015047337 = sum of:
    0.0015047337 = product of:
      0.004514201 = sum of:
        0.004514201 = weight(_text_:a in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004514201 = score(doc=3293,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 3293, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3293)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
    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.
    Footnote
    Contribution to a special section "Linked data and the charm of weak semantics".
    Type
    a
  16. Zhang, L.: Linking information through function (2014) 0.00 
    4.9643342E-5 = product of:
  0.0014893002 = sum of:
    0.0014893002 = product of:
      0.0044679004 = sum of:
        0.0044679004 = weight(_text_:a in 1526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0044679004 = score(doc=1526,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1526, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1526)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
    Abstract
    How information resources can be meaningfully related has been addressed in contexts from bibliographic entries to hyperlinks and, more recently, linked data. The genre structure and relationships among genre structure constituents shed new light on organizing information by purpose or function. This study examines the relationships among a set of functional units previously constructed in a taxonomy, each of which is a chunk of information embedded in a document and is distinct in terms of its communicative function. Through a card-sort study, relationships among functional units were identified with regard to their occurrence and function. The findings suggest that a group of functional units can be identified, collocated, and navigated by particular relationships. Understanding how functional units are related to each other is significant in linking information pieces in documents to support finding, aggregating, and navigating information in a distributed information environment.
    Type
    a
  17. Lassalle, E.; Lassalle, E.: Semantic models in information retrieval (2012) 0.00 
    4.8509988E-5 = product of:
  0.0014552996 = sum of:
    0.0014552996 = product of:
      0.0043658987 = sum of:
        0.0043658987 = weight(_text_:a in 97) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0043658987 = score(doc=97,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 97, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=97)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
    Abstract
    Robertson and Spärck Jones pioneered experimental probabilistic models (Binary Independence Model) with both a typology generalizing the Boolean model, a frequency counting to calculate elementary weightings, and their combination into a global probabilistic estimation. However, this model did not consider indexing terms dependencies. An extension to mixture models (e.g., using a 2-Poisson law) made it possible to take into account these dependencies from a macroscopic point of view (BM25), as well as a shallow linguistic processing of co-references. New approaches (language models, for example "bag of words" models, probabilistic dependencies between requests and documents, and consequently Bayesian inference using Dirichlet prior conjugate) furnished new solutions for documents structuring (categorization) and for index smoothing. Presently, in these probabilistic models the main issues have been addressed from a formal point of view only. Thus, linguistic properties are neglected in the indexing language. The authors examine how a linguistic and semantic modeling can be integrated in indexing languages and set up a hybrid model that makes it possible to deal with different information retrieval problems in a unified way.
    Type
    a
  18. Glimm, B.; Hogan, A.; Krötzsch, M.; Polleres, A.: OWL: Yet to arrive on the Web of Data? (2012) 0.00 
    4.2992393E-5 = product of:
  0.0012897718 = sum of:
    0.0012897718 = product of:
      0.0038693151 = sum of:
        0.0038693151 = weight(_text_:a in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0038693151 = score(doc=4798,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4798, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4798)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
    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).
    Type
    a
  19. Mirizzi, R.: Exploratory browsing in the Web of Data (2011) 0.00 
    3.965322E-5 = product of:
  0.0011895965 = sum of:
    0.0011895965 = product of:
      0.0035687895 = sum of:
        0.0035687895 = weight(_text_:a in 4803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0035687895 = score(doc=4803,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.17268941 = fieldWeight in 4803, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4803)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
    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.
  20. Iorio, A. di; Peroni, S.; Vitali, F.: ¬A Semantic Web approach to everyday overlapping markup (2011) 0.00 
    3.869758E-5 = product of:
  0.0011609273 = sum of:
    0.0011609273 = product of:
      0.003482782 = sum of:
        0.003482782 = weight(_text_:a in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003482782 = score(doc=4749,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.020665944 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.017922899 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 4749, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4749)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
    Abstract
    Overlapping structures in XML are not symptoms of a misunderstanding of the intrinsic characteristics of a text document nor evidence of extreme scholarly requirements far beyond those needed by the most common XML-based applications. On the contrary, overlaps have started to appear in a large number of incredibly popular applications hidden under the guise of syntactical tricks to the basic hierarchy of the XML data format. Unfortunately, syntactical tricks have the drawback that the affected structures require complicated workarounds to support even the simplest query or usage. In this article, we present Extremely Annotational Resource Description Framework (RDF) Markup (EARMARK), an approach to overlapping markup that simplifies and streamlines the management of multiple hierarchies on the same content, and provides an approach to sophisticated queries and usages over such structures without the need of ad-hoc applications, simply by using Semantic Web tools and languages. We compare how relevant tasks (e.g., the identification of the contribution of an author in a word processor document) are of some substantial complexity when using the original data format and become more or less trivial when using EARMARK. We finally evaluate positively the memory and disk requirements of EARMARK documents in comparison to Open Office and Microsoft Word XML-based formats.
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 34
  • d 5

Types

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

Themes

Subjects

Classifications