-
Brunetti, J.M.; Roberto García, R.: User-centered design and evaluation of overview components for semantic data exploration (2014)
0.02
0.016571786 = product of:
0.049715355 = sum of:
0.049715355 = sum of:
0.023908794 = weight(_text_:management in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023908794 = score(doc=1626,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.047618426 = queryNorm
0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 1626, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1626)
0.02580656 = weight(_text_:22 in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02580656 = score(doc=1626,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047618426 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1626, 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=1626)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 66(2014) no.5, S.519-536
-
Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M.; Bar-Ilan, J.: Towards maximal unification of semantically diverse ontologies for controversial domains (2014)
0.02
0.016571786 = product of:
0.049715355 = sum of:
0.049715355 = sum of:
0.023908794 = weight(_text_:management in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023908794 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.047618426 = queryNorm
0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
0.02580656 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02580656 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047618426 = 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)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 66(2014) no.5, S.494-518
-
Papadakis, I. et al.: Highlighting timely information in libraries through social and semantic Web technologies (2016)
0.01
0.010752733 = product of:
0.032258198 = sum of:
0.032258198 = product of:
0.064516395 = sum of:
0.064516395 = weight(_text_:22 in 2090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.064516395 = score(doc=2090,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047618426 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2090, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2090)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
-
Hooland, S. van; Verborgh, R.; Wilde, M. De; Hercher, J.; Mannens, E.; Wa, R.Van de: Evaluating the success of vocabulary reconciliation for cultural heritage collections (2013)
0.01
0.00645164 = product of:
0.019354919 = sum of:
0.019354919 = product of:
0.038709838 = sum of:
0.038709838 = weight(_text_:22 in 662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038709838 = score(doc=662,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047618426 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 662, 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=662)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:29:20
-
Prud'hommeaux, E.; Gayo, E.: RDF ventures to boldly meet your most pedestrian needs (2015)
0.01
0.00645164 = product of:
0.019354919 = sum of:
0.019354919 = product of:
0.038709838 = sum of:
0.038709838 = weight(_text_:22 in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038709838 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047618426 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2024, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2024)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 41(2015) no.4, S.18-22
-
Monireh, E.; Sarker, M.K.; Bianchi, F.; Hitzler, P.; Doran, D.; Xie, N.: Reasoning over RDF knowledge bases using deep learning (2018)
0.01
0.0053763664 = product of:
0.016129099 = sum of:
0.016129099 = product of:
0.032258198 = sum of:
0.032258198 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032258198 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047618426 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 16.11.2018 14:22:01
-
Iorio, A. di; Peroni, S.; Vitali, F.: ¬A Semantic Web approach to everyday overlapping markup (2011)
0.00
0.004980999 = product of:
0.014942996 = sum of:
0.014942996 = product of:
0.029885992 = sum of:
0.029885992 = weight(_text_:management in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029885992 = score(doc=4749,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.047618426 = queryNorm
0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 4749, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4749)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
-
Auer, S.; Lehmann, J.: Making the Web a data washing machine : creating knowledge out of interlinked data (2010)
0.00
0.004980999 = product of:
0.014942996 = sum of:
0.014942996 = product of:
0.029885992 = sum of:
0.029885992 = weight(_text_:management in 112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029885992 = score(doc=112,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.047618426 = queryNorm
0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 112, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=112)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Over the past 3 years, the semantic web activity has gained momentum with the widespread publishing of structured data as RDF. The Linked Data paradigm has therefore evolved from a practical research idea into a very promising candidate for addressing one of the biggest challenges in the area of the Semantic Web vision: the exploitation of the Web as a platform for data and information integration. To translate this initial success into a world-scale reality, a number of research challenges need to be addressed: the performance gap between relational and RDF data management has to be closed, coherence and quality of data published on theWeb have to be improved, provenance and trust on the Linked Data Web must be established and generally the entrance barrier for data publishers and users has to be lowered. In this vision statement we discuss these challenges and argue, that research approaches tackling these challenges should be integrated into a mutual refinement cycle. We also present two crucial use-cases for the widespread adoption of linked data.
-
Gómez-Pérez, A.; Corcho, O.: Ontology languages for the Semantic Web (2015)
0.00
0.004980999 = product of:
0.014942996 = sum of:
0.014942996 = product of:
0.029885992 = sum of:
0.029885992 = weight(_text_:management in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029885992 = score(doc=3297,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.047618426 = queryNorm
0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
