Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.009793539 = product of:
  0.039174154 = sum of:
    0.039174154 = product of:
      0.07834831 = sum of:
        0.07834831 = weight(_text_:software in 4895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07834831 = score(doc=4895,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.43390724 = fieldWeight in 4895, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Es wird ein Überblick über die Ergebnisse dreier Bachelorarbeiten gegeben, die 2010 am Institut für Informationswissenschaft der Fachhochschule Köln entstanden sind. Untersucht wird das Potenzial von Wiki-Software und insbesondere der Wikipedia, um einen Beitrag zur Fortentwicklung eines Semantic Web zu leisten. Die Arbeit von Alexander Meyer befasst sich mit der Struktur der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia und den Möglichkeiten, daraus ein differenziertes Inventar semantischer Relationen anhand der Lemmata- und Kategoriennamen abzuleiten. Die Arbeiten von Astrid Brumm und Dirk Ehlen beschreiben Modellierungsansätze für zwei unterschiedliche Domänen anhand des Semantic MediaWiki.

0.007708307 = product of:
  0.030833228 = sum of:
    0.030833228 = product of:
      0.061666455 = sum of:
        0.061666455 = weight(_text_:22 in 2090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061666455 = score(doc=2090,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.006925077 = product of:
  0.027700309 = sum of:
    0.027700309 = product of:
      0.055400617 = sum of:
        0.055400617 = weight(_text_:software in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055400617 = score(doc=1017,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.30681872 = fieldWeight in 1017, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1017)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Im Projekt DBpedia werden unter anderem Informationen aus Wikipedia-Artikeln in RDF-Tripel umgewandelt. Dabei werden jedoch nicht die Artikeltexte berücksichtigt, sondern vorrangig die sogenannten Infoboxen, die Informationen enthalten, die bereits strukturiert sind. Im Rahmen einer Masterarbeit am Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin wurde wiki2rdf entwickelt, eine Software zur regelbasierten Extraktion von RDF-Tripeln aus den unstrukturierten Volltexten der Wikipedia. Die Extraktion erfolgt nach Syntax-Parsing mithilfe eines Dependency-Parsers. Exemplarisch wurde wiki2rdf auf 68820 Artikel aus der Kategorie "Wissenschaftler" der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia angewandt. Es wurden 244563 Tripel extrahiert.

0.006925077 = product of:
  0.027700309 = sum of:
    0.027700309 = product of:
      0.055400617 = sum of:
        0.055400617 = weight(_text_:software in 1330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055400617 = score(doc=1330,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.30681872 = fieldWeight in 1330, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1330)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Linked open data allow interlinking and integrating any kind of data on the web. Links between various data sources play a key role insofar as they allow software applications (e.g., browsers, search engines) to operate over the aggregated data space as if it was a unique local database. In this new data space, where DBpedia, a data set including structured information from Wikipedia, seems to be the central hub, we analyzed and highlighted outgoing links from this hub in an effort to discover broken links. The paper reports on an experiment to examine the causes of broken links and proposes some treatments for solving this problem.

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

Using semantic web search engines, such as Watson, Swoogle or Sindice, to find ontologies is a complex exploratory activity. It generally requires formulating multiple queries, browsing pages of results, and assessing the returned ontologies against each other to obtain a relevant and adequate subset of ontologies for the intended use. Our hypothesis is that at least some of the difficulties related to searching ontologies stem from the lack of structure in the search results, where ontologies that are implicitly related to each other are presented as disconnected and shown on different result pages. In earlier publications we presented a software framework, Kannel, which is able to automatically detect and make explicit relationships between ontologies in large ontology repositories. In this paper, we present a study that compares the use of the Watson ontology search engine with an extension,Watson+Kannel, which provides information regarding the various relationships occurring between the result ontologies. We evaluate Watson+Kannel by demonstrating through various indicators that explicit relationships between ontologies improve users' efficiency in ontology search, thus validating our hypothesis.

0.0049464838 = product of:
  0.019785935 = sum of:
    0.019785935 = product of:
      0.03957187 = sum of:
        0.03957187 = weight(_text_:software in 3937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03957187 = score(doc=3937,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 3937, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3937)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Answer Set Programming (ASP) has become an established paradigm for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, in particular, when it comes to solving knowledge-intense combinatorial (optimization) problems. ASP's unique pairing of a simple yet rich modeling language with highly performant solving technology has led to an increasing interest in ASP in academia as well as industry. To further boost this development and make ASP fit for real world applications it is indispensable to equip it with means for an easy integration into software environments and for adding complementary forms of reasoning. In this tutorial, we describe how both issues are addressed in the ASP system clingo. At first, we outline features of clingo's application programming interface (API) that are essential for multi-shot ASP solving, a technique for dealing with continuously changing logic programs. This is illustrated by realizing two exemplary reasoning modes, namely branch-and-bound-based optimization and incremental ASP solving. We then switch to the design of the API for integrating complementary forms of reasoning and detail this in an extensive case study dealing with the integration of difference constraints. We show how the syntax of these constraints is added to the modeling language and seamlessly merged into the grounding process. We then develop in detail a corresponding theory propagator for difference constraints and present how it is integrated into clingo's solving process.

0.0046249838 = product of:
  0.018499935 = sum of:
    0.018499935 = product of:
      0.03699987 = sum of:
        0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03699987 = score(doc=662,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2013 19:29:20

0.0046249838 = product of:
  0.018499935 = sum of:
    0.018499935 = product of:
      0.03699987 = sum of:
        0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03699987 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2024, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2024)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.004283781 = product of:
  0.017135125 = sum of:
    0.017135125 = product of:
      0.03427025 = sum of:
        0.03427025 = weight(_text_:software in 4398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03427025 = score(doc=4398,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.18979488 = fieldWeight in 4398, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4398)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"In seinem Einführungsvortrag skizzierte Jakob Voß, Software-Entwickler bei der Verbundzentrale (VZG), anhand von herkömmlichen bibliothekarischen Katalogeinträgen den für das Semantic Web typischen Wandel weg von einem Web vernetzter Dokumente hin zu einem Web vernetzter Daten. Die Nutzung vorhandener Standards sollte diesen Wandel begleiten. Einen dieser Standards könnte die »Bibliographic Ontology« (bibo) darstellen, die auf existierenden Ontologien wie Dublin Core basiert und die Voß in einem weiteren Vortrag vorstellte. Dabei warf er die provozierende Frage auf, ob die bibo die Nachfolge bibliografischer Datenformate antreten werde. Lars G. Svensson, IT-Manager an der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek (DNB), stellte hingegen nicht bibo, sondern «Resource Description and Access« (RDA) ins Zentrum der DNB-Planungen. »Fünf gute Gründe«, warum sich kulturelle Einrichtungen mit dem Semantic Web beschäftigen sollten, benannte Professor Stefan Gradmann, Inhaber des Lehrstuhls für Wissensmanagement an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Die Beschäftigung sei unter anderem erforderlich, damit diese Einrichtungen zukünftig überhaupt noch wahrgenommen werden. Andererseits könnten sie durch die Verknüpfung von bibliothekarischen Meta-daten und Kontextdaten (wie Personennormdaten) einen spezifischen Beitrag zum Semantic Web leisten.
Auch Bernhard Haslhofer, Assistent am Lehrgebiet für Verteilte Multimediasysteme an der Universität Wien, sieht ein großes Potenzial darin, klassische Mechanismen der Informationsorganisation durch Bibliotheken als »Linked Open Data« in das Semantic Web einzubringen. Sie könnten möglicherweise sogar Baustein einer freien und community-getriebenen Alternative zu konzerngetriebenen Anwendungen wie Google Books sein. Voraussetzung sei allerdings, dass Bibliotheken nicht an ihren Datenbeständen in Form geschlossener Datensilos festhalten. Dazu passte das leidenschaftliche Plädoyer für Free Data von Patrick Danowski, Emerging Technologies Librarian am CERN: Die ganze Mächtigkeit seiner Netzwerkeffekte könne Linked Data nur entfalten, wenn die Daten unter einer freien Lizenz veröffentlicht werden, wobei Danowski für eine Bereitstellung als »public domain« plädiert. Mehrere Beiträge zeigten, dass mit Linked Data mittlerweile eine geeignete Technologie vorliegt, um das Semantic Web für Bibliotheken Wirklichkeit werden zu lassen. Ed Summers, Software-Entwickler bei der Library of Congress (LoC) und zuständig für einen der bislang größten Linked Data-Bestände aus Bibliotheken, die LoC Subject Headings, verwies in seinem Vortrag auf die vielfältigen Verknüpfungsmöglichkeiten und Anwendungen von Linked Data. So können Schlagworte aus verschiedenen Vokabularen in Beziehung gesetzt werden und Presseartikel mit »Flickr«Bildern und Geokoordinaten verknüpft werden, die das Ereignis bebildern beziehungsweise räumlich verorten.
Moderne Web-Anwendungen Wie ein klassischer Bibliothekskatalog in eine moderne Web-Anwendung und in Linked Open Data überführt werden kann, berichtete Anders Söderbäck von der Schwedischen Nationalbibliothek. Unter dem Thema »Linked Applications« entwarf Felix Ostrowski, IT-Entwickler beim hbz, eine tiefe Integration von Ontologien direkt in die verwendete Programmiersprache am Beispiel von Repository Software. Andre Hagenbruch, Mitarbeiter der Universitätsbibliothek Bochum, stellte ein Projekt für ein Linked Data-basiertes Bibliotheksportal vor, das neben bibliografischen Daten auch administrative Informationen wie Personaldaten oder Öffnungszeiten integrieren soll. Interessante Einblicke bot Jürgen Kett von der DNB zur hauseigenen Linked Data-Strategie. Dazu gehört die Veröffentlichung der Personennamendatei (PND) zwecks kostenfreier Weiterverwendung durch andere Bibliotheken. In einem weiteren Vortrag gingen Kett und sein Kollege Svensson auf Details ihres aktuellen Linked Data-Projekts ein, das in einer ersten Stufe URI- und SPARQL-Zugriff auf die SWDund PND-Datensets sowie ihre Verknüpfungen zu internationalen Normdatenbeständen ermöglichen soll. Ein Beta-Dienst soll bis Mitte 2010 online gehen. Timo Borst, Leiter der IT-Entwicklung der ZBW, griff dies auf und demonstrierte die Integration von Thesaurus-und Personennormdaten in den ZBW-Dokumentenserver. Als technischer Zugangspunkt für Linked Data wurde dabei auch ein experimenteller SPARQLEndpoint der DNB genutzt, dessen Abfrage eine automatische Vorschlagsfunktion für PND-Einträge ermöglicht. Praktische Erfahrungen aus den Linked Data-Projekten der ZBW fasste Joachim Neubert, IT-Entwickler bei der ZBW, zusammen, verbunden mit Hinweisen zu Tools, Communities und Best Practice-Beispielen im Web.

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

16.11.2018 14:22:01

0.0030833227 = product of:
  0.012333291 = sum of:
    0.012333291 = product of:
      0.024666581 = sum of:
        0.024666581 = weight(_text_:22 in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024666581 = score(doc=1626,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0030833227 = product of:
  0.012333291 = sum of:
    0.012333291 = product of:
      0.024666581 = sum of:
        0.024666581 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024666581 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22