Search (213 results, page 11 of 11)

8.047755E-4 = product of:
  0.004426265 = sum of:
    0.0023430442 = weight(_text_:a in 936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0023430442 = score(doc=936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=936)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=936)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Pages

S.173-181

Type

a

8.0138847E-4 = product of:
  0.0044076364 = sum of:
    0.0019525366 = weight(_text_:a in 3923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019525366 = score(doc=3923,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 3923, 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=3923)
    0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 3923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024550997 = score(doc=3923,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 3923, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3923)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Pages

S.1-28

Type

a

6.7064626E-4 = product of:
  0.0036885543 = sum of:
    0.0019525366 = weight(_text_:a in 3244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019525366 = score(doc=3244,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 3244, 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=3244)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 3244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=3244,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3244, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3244)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Pages

S.11-31

Type

a

5.6801067E-4 = product of:
  0.0062481174 = sum of:
    0.0062481174 = weight(_text_:a in 3883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062481174 = score(doc=3883,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 3883, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3883)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

At VVWW-7 (Brisbane, 1997), Tim Berners-Lee outlined his vision of a global reasoning web. At VVWW- 8 (Toronto, May 1998), he developed this into a vision of a semantic web, where one Gould search not just for isolated words, but for meaning in the form of logically provable claims. In the past four years this vision has spread with amazing speed. The semantic web has been adopted by the European Commission as one of the important goals of the Sixth Framework Programme. In the United States it has become linked with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). While this quest to achieve a semantic web is new, the quest for meaning in language has a history that is almost as old as language itself. Accordingly this paper opens with a survey of the historical background. The contributions of the Dublin Core are reviewed briefly. To achieve a semantic web requires both syntactic and semantic interoperability. These challenges are outlined. A basic contention of this paper is that semantic interoperability requires much more than a simple agreement concerning the static meaning of a term. Different levels of agreement (local, regional, national and international) are involved and these levels have their own history. Hence, one of the larger challenges is to create new systems of knowledge organization, which identify and connect these different levels. With respect to meaning or semantics, early twentieth century pioneers such as Wüster were hopeful that it might be sufficient to limit oneself to isolated terms and words without reference to the larger grammatical context: to concept systems rather than to propositional logic. While a fascination with concept systems implicitly dominates many contemporary discussions, this paper suggests why this approach is not sufficient. The final section of this paper explores how an approach using propositional logic could lead to a new approach to universals and particulars. This points to a re-organization of knowledge, and opens the way for a vision of a semantic web with all the historical and cultural richness and complexity of language itself.

Type

a

5.217511E-4 = product of:
  0.0057392623 = sum of:
    0.0057392623 = weight(_text_:a in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0057392623 = score(doc=4798,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = 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)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

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

5.1199796E-4 = product of:
  0.005631977 = sum of:
    0.005631977 = weight(_text_:a in 4040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005631977 = score(doc=4040,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18373153 = fieldWeight in 4040, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4040)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

Today's semantic web deals with meaning in a very restricted sense and offers static solutions. This is adequate for many scientific, technical purposes and for business transactions requiring machine-to-machine communication, but does not answer the needs of culture. Science, technology and business are concerned primarily with the latest findings, the state of the art, i.e. the paradigm or dominant world-view of the day. In this context, history is considered non-essential because it deals with things that are out of date. By contrast, culture faces a much larger challenge, namely, to re-present changes in ways of knowing; changing meanings in different places at a given time (synchronically) and over time (diachronically). Culture is about both objects and the commentaries on them; about a cumulative body of knowledge; about collective memory and heritage. Here, history plays a central role and older does not mean less important or less relevant. Hence, a Leonardo painting that is 400 years old, or a Greek statue that is 2500 years old, typically have richer commentaries and are often more valuable than their contemporary equivalents. In this context, the science of meaning (semantics) is necessarily much more complex than semantic primitives. A semantic web in the cultural domain must enable us to trace how meaning and knowledge organisation have evolved historically in different cultures. This paper examines five issues to address this challenge: 1) different world-views (i.e. a shift from substance to function and from ontology to multiple ontologies); 2) developments in definitions and meaning; 3) distinctions between words and concepts; 4) new classes of relations; and 5) dynamic models of knowledge organisation. These issues reveal that historical dimensions of cultural diversity in knowledge organisation are also central to classification of biological diversity. New ways are proposed of visualizing knowledge using a time/space horizon to distinguish between universals and particulars. It is suggested that new visualization methods make possible a history of questions as well as of answers, thus enabling dynamic access to cultural and historical dimensions of knowledge. Unlike earlier media, which were limited to recording factual dimensions of collective memory, digital media enable us to explore theories, ways of perceiving, ways of knowing; to enter into other mindsets and world-views and thus to attain novel insights and new levels of tolerance. Some practical consequences are outlined.

Type

a

5.0205534E-4 = product of:
  0.0055226083 = sum of:
    0.0055226083 = weight(_text_:a in 3576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0055226083 = score(doc=3576,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3576, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3576)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

This paper presents a proposal for the long-range development of an open, multifunctional, multilingual system for integrated access to many kinds of knowledge about concepts and terminology. The system would draw on existing knowledge bases that are accessible through the Internet or on CD-ROM an on a common integrated distributed knowledge base that would grow incrementally over time. Existing knowledge bases would be accessed through a common interface that would search several knowledge bases, collate the data into a common format, and present them to the user. The common integrated distributed knowledge base would provide an environment in which many contributors could carry out classification and terminological projects more efficiently, with the results available in a common format. Over time, data from other knowledge bases could be incorporated into the common knowledge base, either by actual transfer (provided the knowledge base producers are willing) or by reference through a link. Either way, such incorporation requires intellectual work but allows for tighter integration than common interface access to multiple knowledge bases. Each piece of information in the common knowledge base will have all its sources attached, providing an acknowledgment mechanism that gives due credit to all contributors. The whole system woul be designed to be usable by many levels of users for improved information exchange.

Content

Expanded version of a paper published in Advances in Knowledge Organization v.5 (1996): 165-173 (4th Annual ISKO Conference, Washington, D.C., 1996 July 15-18): SemWeb: proposal for an open, multifunctional, multilingual system for integrated access to knowledge about concepts and terminology.

Type

a

4.6945238E-4 = product of:
  0.002581988 = sum of:
    0.0013667757 = weight(_text_:a in 6001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0013667757 = score(doc=6001,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.044588212 = fieldWeight in 6001, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=6001)
    0.0012152124 = weight(_text_:s in 6001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0012152124 = score(doc=6001,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.04204337 = fieldWeight in 6001, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=6001)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Source

Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.167 vom 21.7.2006, S.27

Type

a

4.2600805E-4 = product of:
  0.0046860883 = sum of:
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 3731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=3731,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3731, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3731)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

Metadata applications have evolved in time into highly structured "islands of information" about digital resources, often bearing a strong semantic interpretation. Scarcely however are these semantics being communicated in machine readable and understandable ways. At the same time, the process for transforming the implied metadata knowledge into explicit Semantic Web descriptions can be problematic and is not always evident. In this article we take upon the well-established Dublin Core metadata standard as well as other metadata schemata, which often appear in digital repositories set-ups, and suggest a proper Semantic Web OWL ontology. In this process the authors cope with discrepancies and incompatibilities, indicative of such attempts, in novel ways. Moreover, we show the potential and necessity of this approach by demonstrating inferences on the resulting ontology, instantiated with actual metadata records. The authors conclude by presenting a working prototype that provides for inference-based querying on top of digital repositories.

Type

a

4.2600805E-4 = product of:
  0.0046860883 = sum of:
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=761,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

In this paper, I have traced a series of evolutionary adaptations of FOL motivated entirely by its use by knowledge engineers to represent and share information on the Web culminating in the development of Common Logic. While the primary goal in this paper has been to document this evolution, it is arguable, I think that CL's syntactic and semantic egalitarianism better realizes the goal "topic neutrality" that a logic should ideally exemplify - understood, at least in part, as the idea that logic should as far as possible not itself embody any metaphysical presuppositions. Instead of retaining the traditional metaphysical divisions of FOL that reflect its Fregean origins, CL begins as it were with a single, metaphysically homogeneous domain in which, potentially, anything can play the traditional roles of object, property, relation, and function. Note that the effect of this is not to destroy traditional metaphysical divisions. Rather, it simply to refrain from building those divisions explicitly into one's logic; instead, such divisions are left to the user to introduce and enforce axiomatically in an explicit metaphysical theory.

Type

a

4.2600805E-4 = product of:
  0.0046860883 = sum of:
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 2511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=2511,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2511, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2511)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

In this paper, we present a novel personalized concept-based search mechanism for the Web of Data based on results categorization. The innovation of the paper comes from combining novel categorization and personalization techniques, and using categorization for providing personalization. In our approach, search results (Linked Open Data resources) are dynamically categorized into Upper Mapping and Binding Exchange Layer (UMBEL) concepts using a novel fuzzy retrieval model. Then, results with the same concepts are grouped together to form categories, which we call conceptlenses. Such categorization enables concept-based browsing of the retrieved results aligned to users' intent or interests. When the user selects a concept lens for exploration, results are immediately personalized. In particular, all concept lenses are personally re-organized according to their similarity to the selected lens. Within the selected concept lens; more relevant results are included using results re-ranking and query expansion, as well as relevant concept lenses are suggested to support results exploration. This allows dynamic adaptation of results to the user's local choices. We also support interactive personalization; when the user clicks on a result, within the interacted lens, relevant lenses and results are included using results re-ranking and query expansion. Extensive evaluations were performed to assess our approach: (i) Performance of our fuzzy-based categorization approach was evaluated on a particular benchmark (~10,000 mappings). The evaluations showed that we can achieve highly acceptable categorization accuracy and perform better than the vector space model. (ii) Personalized search efficacy was assessed using a user study with 32 participants in a tourist domain. The results revealed that our approach performed significantly better than a non-adaptive baseline search. (iii) Dynamic personalization performance was evaluated, which illustrated that our personalization approach is scalable. (iv) Finally, we compared our system with the existing LOD search engines, which showed that our approach is unique.

Type

a

4.0238776E-4 = product of:
  0.0022131326 = sum of:
    0.0011715221 = weight(_text_:a in 670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0011715221 = score(doc=670,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.03821847 = fieldWeight in 670, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=670)
    0.0010416106 = weight(_text_:s in 670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0010416106 = score(doc=670,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.036037173 = fieldWeight in 670, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=670)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Source

Wechselwirkung. 29(2007) Nr.141, S.11-12

Type

a

3.0744486E-4 = product of:
  0.0033818933 = sum of:
    0.0033818933 = weight(_text_:a in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033818933 = score(doc=2277,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2277, 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=2277)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

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.

Type

a