Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Semantic Web"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Aslam, S.; Sonkar, S.K.: Semantic Web : an overview (2019) 0.01
    0.010828791 = product of:
      0.043315165 = sum of:
        0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043315165 = score(doc=54,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This paper presents the semantic web, web writing content, web technology, goals of semantic and obligation for the expansion of web 3.0. This paper also shows the different components of semantic web and such as HTTP, HTML, XML, XML Schema, URI, RDF, Taxonomy and OWL. To provide valuable information services semantic web execute the benefits of library functions and also to be the best use of library collection are mention here.
  2. Hyvönen, E.; Leskinen, P.; Tamper, M.; Keravuori, K.; Rantala, H.; Ikkala, E.; Tuominen, J.: BiographySampo - publishing and enriching biographies on the Semantic Web for digital humanities research (2019) 0.01
    0.010770457 = product of:
      0.043081827 = sum of:
        0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 5799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043081827 = score(doc=5799,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 5799, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5799)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
  3. Harlow, C.: Data munging tools in Preparation for RDF : Catmandu and LODRefine (2015) 0.01
    0.008289068 = product of:
      0.033156272 = sum of:
        0.033156272 = weight(_text_:library in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033156272 = score(doc=2277,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Data munging, or the work of remediating, enhancing and transforming library datasets for new or improved uses, has become more important and staff-inclusive in many library technology discussions and projects. Many times we know how we want our data to look, as well as how we want our data to act in discovery interfaces or when exposed, but we are uncertain how to make the data we have into the data we want. This article introduces and compares two library data munging tools that can help: LODRefine (OpenRefine with the DERI RDF Extension) and Catmandu. The strengths and best practices of each tool are discussed in the context of metadata munging use cases for an institution's metadata migration workflow. There is a focus on Linked Open Data modeling and transformation applications of each tool, in particular how metadataists, catalogers, and programmers can create metadata quality reports, enhance existing data with LOD sets, and transform that data to a RDF model. Integration of these tools with other systems and projects, the use of domain specific transformation languages, and the expansion of vocabulary reconciliation services are mentioned.
  4. Bohne-Lang, A.: Semantische Metadaten für den Webauftritt einer Bibliothek (2016) 0.01
    0.0067679947 = product of:
      0.027071979 = sum of:
        0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 3337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027071979 = score(doc=3337,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 3337, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3337)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Das Semantic Web ist schon seit über 10 Jahren viel beachtet und hat mit der Verfügbarkeit von Resource Description Framework (RDF) und den entsprechenden Ontologien einen großen Sprung in die Praxis gemacht. Vertreter kleiner Bibliotheken und Bibliothekare mit geringer Technik-Affinität stehen aber im Alltag vor großen Hürden, z.B. bei der Frage, wie man diese Technik konkret in den eigenen Webauftritt einbinden kann: man kommt sich vor wie Don Quijote, der versucht die Windmühlen zu bezwingen. RDF mit seinen Ontologien ist fast unverständlich komplex für Nicht-Informatiker und somit für den praktischen Einsatz auf Bibliotheksseiten in der Breite nicht direkt zu gebrauchen. Mit Schema.org wurde ursprünglich von den drei größten Suchmaschinen der Welt Google, Bing und Yahoo eine einfach und effektive semantische Beschreibung von Entitäten entwickelt. Aktuell wird Schema.org durch Google, Microsoft, Yahoo und Yandex weiter gesponsert und von vielen weiteren Suchmaschinen verstanden. Vor diesem Hintergrund hat die Bibliothek der Medizinischen Fakultät Mannheim auf ihrer Homepage (http://www.umm.uni-heidelberg.de/bibl/) verschiedene maschinenlesbare semantische Metadaten eingebettet. Sehr interessant und zukunftsweisend ist die neueste Entwicklung von Schema.org, bei der man eine 'Library' (https://schema.org/Library) mit Öffnungszeiten und vielem mehr modellieren kann. Ferner haben wir noch semantische Metadaten im Open Graph- und Dublin Core-Format eingebettet, um alte Standards und Facebook-konforme Informationen maschinenlesbar zur Verfügung zu stellen.
  5. Monireh, E.; Sarker, M.K.; Bianchi, F.; Hitzler, P.; Doran, D.; Xie, N.: Reasoning over RDF knowledge bases using deep learning (2018) 0.00
    0.0042442293 = product of:
      0.016976917 = sum of:
        0.016976917 = product of:
          0.033953834 = sum of:
            0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033953834 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050121464 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    16.11.2018 14:22:01