Search (166 results, page 1 of 9)

  • × theme_ss:"Semantic Web"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Faaborg, A.; Lagoze, C.: Semantic browsing (2003) 0.08
    0.07509575 = product of:
      0.120153196 = sum of:
        0.029222867 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029222867 = score(doc=1026,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1026, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1026)
        0.042349376 = weight(_text_:use in 1026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042349376 = score(doc=1026,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.33491597 = fieldWeight in 1026, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1026)
        0.015619429 = weight(_text_:of in 1026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015619429 = score(doc=1026,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 1026, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1026)
        0.013379549 = product of:
          0.026759097 = sum of:
            0.026759097 = weight(_text_:on in 1026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026759097 = score(doc=1026,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 1026, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1026)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.019581974 = product of:
          0.039163947 = sum of:
            0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 1026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.039163947 = score(doc=1026,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1026, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1026)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.625 = coord(5/8)
    
    Abstract
    We have created software applications that allow users to both author and use Semantic Web metadata. To create and use a layer of semantic content on top of the existing Web, we have (1) implemented a user interface that expedites the task of attributing metadata to resources on the Web, and (2) augmented a Web browser to leverage this semantic metadata to provide relevant information and tasks to the user. This project provides a framework for annotating and reorganizing existing files, pages, and sites on the Web that is similar to Vannevar Bushrsquos original concepts of trail blazing and associative indexing.
    Source
    Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 7th European Conference, proceedings / ECDL 2003, Trondheim, Norway, August 17-22, 2003
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  2. Franklin, R.A.: Re-inventing subject access for the semantic web (2003) 0.06
    0.06059136 = product of:
      0.09694617 = sum of:
        0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025048172 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
        0.02008212 = weight(_text_:of in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02008212 = score(doc=2556,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
        0.009363732 = product of:
          0.018727465 = sum of:
            0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.018727465 = score(doc=2556,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.016784549 = product of:
          0.033569098 = sum of:
            0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033569098 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2556, 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=2556)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.625 = coord(5/8)
    
    Abstract
    First generation scholarly research on the Web lacked a firm system of authority control. Second generation Web research is beginning to model subject access with library science principles of bibliographic control and cataloguing. Harnessing the Web and organising the intellectual content with standards and controlled vocabulary provides precise search and retrieval capability, increasing relevance and efficient use of technology. Dublin Core metadata standards permit a full evaluation and cataloguing of Web resources appropriate to highly specific research needs and discovery. Current research points to a type of structure based on a system of faceted classification. This system allows the semantic and syntactic relationships to be defined. Controlled vocabulary, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings, can be assigned, not in a hierarchical structure, but rather as descriptive facets of relating concepts. Web design features such as this are adding value to discovery and filtering out data that lack authority. The system design allows for scalability and extensibility, two technical features that are integral to future development of the digital library and resource discovery.
    Date
    30.12.2008 18:22:46
  3. Scheir, P.; Pammer, V.; Lindstaedt, S.N.: Information retrieval on the Semantic Web : does it exist? (2007) 0.06
    0.055867687 = product of:
      0.111735374 = sum of:
        0.058445733 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058445733 = score(doc=4329,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 4329, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4329)
        0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 4329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029945528 = score(doc=4329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 4329, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4329)
        0.015619429 = weight(_text_:of in 4329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015619429 = score(doc=4329,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 4329, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4329)
        0.007724685 = product of:
          0.01544937 = sum of:
            0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 4329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01544937 = score(doc=4329,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 4329, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4329)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    Plenty of contemporary attempts to search exist that are associated with the area of Semantic Web. But which of them qualify as information retrieval for the Semantic Web? Do such approaches exist? To answer these questions we take a look at the nature of the Semantic Web and Semantic Desktop and at definitions for information and data retrieval. We survey current approaches referred to by their authors as information retrieval for the Semantic Web or that use Semantic Web technology for search.
  4. Subirats, I.; Prasad, A.R.D.; Keizer, J.; Bagdanov, A.: Implementation of rich metadata formats and demantic tools using DSpace (2008) 0.04
    0.04497591 = product of:
      0.071961455 = sum of:
        0.016698781 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016698781 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
        0.024199642 = weight(_text_:use in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024199642 = score(doc=2656,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19138055 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
        0.0154592255 = weight(_text_:of in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0154592255 = score(doc=2656,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
        0.004414106 = product of:
          0.008828212 = sum of:
            0.008828212 = weight(_text_:on in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008828212 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.097201325 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.0111897 = product of:
          0.0223794 = sum of:
            0.0223794 = weight(_text_:22 in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0223794 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2656, 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=2656)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.625 = coord(5/8)
    
    Abstract
    This poster explores the customization of DSpace to allow the use of the AGRIS Application Profile metadata standard and the AGROVOC thesaurus. The objective is the adaptation of DSpace, through the least invasive code changes either in the form of plug-ins or add-ons, to the specific needs of the Agricultural Sciences and Technology community. Metadata standards such as AGRIS AP, and Knowledge Organization Systems such as the AGROVOC thesaurus, provide mechanisms for sharing information in a standardized manner by recommending the use of common semantics and interoperable syntax (Subirats et al., 2007). AGRIS AP was created to enhance the description, exchange and subsequent retrieval of agricultural Document-like Information Objects (DLIOs). It is a metadata schema which draws from Metadata standards such as Dublin Core (DC), the Australian Government Locator Service Metadata (AGLS) and the Agricultural Metadata Element Set (AgMES) namespaces. It allows sharing of information across dispersed bibliographic systems (FAO, 2005). AGROVOC68 is a multilingual structured thesaurus covering agricultural and related domains. Its main role is to standardize the indexing process in order to make searching simpler and more efficient. AGROVOC is developed by FAO (Lauser et al., 2006). The customization of the DSpace is taking place in several phases. First, the AGRIS AP metadata schema was mapped onto the metadata DSpace model, with several enhancements implemented to support AGRIS AP elements. Next, AGROVOC will be integrated as a controlled vocabulary accessed through a local SKOS or OWL file. Eventually the system will be configurable to access AGROVOC through local files or remotely via webservices. Finally, spell checking and tooltips will be incorporated in the user interface to support metadata editing. Adapting DSpace to support AGRIS AP and annotation using the semantically-rich AGROVOC thesaurus transform DSpace into a powerful, domain-specific system for annotation and exchange of bibliographic metadata in the agricultural domain.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  5. Krause, J.: Shell Model, Semantic Web and Web Information Retrieval (2006) 0.04
    0.044506855 = product of:
      0.08901371 = sum of:
        0.036153924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036153924 = score(doc=6061,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 6061, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6061)
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 6061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=6061,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 6061, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6061)
        0.023667008 = weight(_text_:of in 6061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023667008 = score(doc=6061,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.36650562 = fieldWeight in 6061, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6061)
        0.007803111 = product of:
          0.015606222 = sum of:
            0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 6061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015606222 = score(doc=6061,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 6061, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6061)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    The middle of the 1990s are coined by the increased enthusiasm for the possibilities of the WWW, which has only recently deviated - at least in relation to scientific information - for the differentiated measuring of its advantages and disadvantages. Web Information Retrieval originated as a specialized discipline with great commercial significance (for an overview see Lewandowski 2005). Besides the new technological structure that enables the indexing and searching (in seconds) of unimaginable amounts of data worldwide, new assessment processes for the ranking of search results are being developed, which use the link structures of the Web. They are the main innovation with respect to the traditional "mother discipline" of Information Retrieval. From the beginning, link structures of Web pages are applied to commercial search engines in a wide array of variations. From the perspective of scientific information, link topology based approaches were in essence trying to solve a self-created problem: on the one hand, it quickly became clear that the openness of the Web led to an up-tonow unknown increase in available information, but this also caused the quality of the Web pages searched to become a problem - and with it the relevance of the results. The gatekeeper function of traditional information providers, which narrows down every user query to focus on high-quality sources was lacking. Therefore, the recognition of the "authoritativeness" of the Web pages by general search engines such as Google was one of the most important factors for their success.
  6. Ding, L.; Finin, T.; Joshi, A.; Peng, Y.; Cost, R.S.; Sachs, J.; Pan, R.; Reddivari, P.; Doshi, V.: Swoogle : a Semantic Web search and metadata engine (2004) 0.04
    0.041340277 = product of:
      0.08268055 = sum of:
        0.035423465 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035423465 = score(doc=4704,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 4704, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4704)
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 4704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=4704,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 4704, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4704)
        0.014968331 = weight(_text_:of in 4704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014968331 = score(doc=4704,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 4704, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4704)
        0.006621159 = product of:
          0.013242318 = sum of:
            0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 4704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013242318 = score(doc=4704,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4704, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4704)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    Swoogle is a crawler-based indexing and retrieval system for the Semantic Web, i.e., for Web documents in RDF or OWL. It extracts metadata for each discovered document, and computes relations between documents. Discovered documents are also indexed by an information retrieval system which can use either character N-Gram or URIrefs as keywords to find relevant documents and to compute the similarity among a set of documents. One of the interesting properties we compute is rank, a measure of the importance of a Semantic Web document.
    Source
    CIKM '04 Proceedings of the thirteenth ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management
  7. Heflin, J.; Hendler, J.: Semantic interoperability on the Web (2000) 0.04
    0.041018434 = product of:
      0.08203687 = sum of:
        0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029945528 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
        0.019129815 = weight(_text_:of in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019129815 = score(doc=759,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
        0.013379549 = product of:
          0.026759097 = sum of:
            0.026759097 = weight(_text_:on in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026759097 = score(doc=759,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.019581974 = product of:
          0.039163947 = sum of:
            0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.039163947 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    XML will have a profound impact on the way data is exchanged on the Internet. An important feature of this language is the separation of content from presentation, which makes it easier to select and/or reformat the data. However, due to the likelihood of numerous industry and domain specific DTDs, those who wish to integrate information will still be faced with the problem of semantic interoperability. In this paper we discuss why this problem is not solved by XML, and then discuss why the Resource Description Framework is only a partial solution. We then present the SHOE language, which we feel has many of the features necessary to enable a semantic web, and describe an existing set of tools that make it easy to use the language.
    Date
    11. 5.2013 19:22:18
  8. Brunetti, J.M.; Roberto García, R.: User-centered design and evaluation of overview components for semantic data exploration (2014) 0.04
    0.04039424 = product of:
      0.064630784 = sum of:
        0.016698781 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016698781 = score(doc=1626,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 1626, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1626)
        0.01711173 = weight(_text_:use in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01711173 = score(doc=1626,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.13532647 = fieldWeight in 1626, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1626)
        0.0133880805 = weight(_text_:of in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0133880805 = score(doc=1626,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20732687 = fieldWeight in 1626, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1626)
        0.0062424885 = product of:
          0.012484977 = sum of:
            0.012484977 = weight(_text_:on in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.012484977 = score(doc=1626,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.13746344 = fieldWeight in 1626, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1626)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.0111897 = product of:
          0.0223794 = sum of:
            0.0223794 = weight(_text_:22 in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0223794 = score(doc=1626,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = 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)
      0.625 = coord(5/8)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The growing volumes of semantic data available in the web result in the need for handling the information overload phenomenon. The potential of this amount of data is enormous but in most cases it is very difficult for users to visualize, explore and use this data, especially for lay-users without experience with Semantic Web technologies. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The Visual Information-Seeking Mantra "Overview first, zoom and filter, then details-on-demand" proposed by Shneiderman describes how data should be presented in different stages to achieve an effective exploration. The overview is the first user task when dealing with a data set. The objective is that the user is capable of getting an idea about the overall structure of the data set. Different information architecture (IA) components supporting the overview tasks have been developed, so they are automatically generated from semantic data, and evaluated with end-users. Findings - The chosen IA components are well known to web users, as they are present in most web pages: navigation bars, site maps and site indexes. The authors complement them with Treemaps, a visualization technique for displaying hierarchical data. These components have been developed following an iterative User-Centered Design methodology. Evaluations with end-users have shown that they get easily used to them despite the fact that they are generated automatically from structured data, without requiring knowledge about the underlying semantic technologies, and that the different overview components complement each other as they focus on different information search needs. Originality/value - Obtaining semantic data sets overviews cannot be easily done with the current semantic web browsers. Overviews become difficult to achieve with large heterogeneous data sets, which is typical in the Semantic Web, because traditional IA techniques do not easily scale to large data sets. There is little or no support to obtain overview information quickly and easily at the beginning of the exploration of a new data set. This can be a serious limitation when exploring a data set for the first time, especially for lay-users. The proposal is to reuse and adapt existing IA components to provide this overview to users and show that they can be generated automatically from the thesaurus and ontologies that structure semantic data while providing a comparable user experience to traditional web sites.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 66(2014) no.5, S.519-536
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  9. Davies, J.; Weeks, R.; Krohn, U.: QuizRDF: search technology for the Semantic Web (2004) 0.04
    0.03870511 = product of:
      0.07741022 = sum of:
        0.028923139 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028923139 = score(doc=4406,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23154683 = fieldWeight in 4406, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4406)
        0.024199642 = weight(_text_:use in 4406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024199642 = score(doc=4406,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19138055 = fieldWeight in 4406, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4406)
        0.0154592255 = weight(_text_:of in 4406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0154592255 = score(doc=4406,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 4406, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4406)
        0.008828212 = product of:
          0.017656423 = sum of:
            0.017656423 = weight(_text_:on in 4406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017656423 = score(doc=4406,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 4406, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4406)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    Important information is often scattered across Web and/or intranet resources. Traditional search engines return ranked retrieval lists that offer little or no information on the semantic relationships among documents. Knowledge workers spend a substantial amount of their time browsing and reading to find out how documents are related to one another and where each falls into the overall structure of the problem domain. Yet only when knowledge workers begin to locate the similarities and differences among pieces of information do they move into an essential part of their work: building relationships to create new knowledge. Information retrieval traditionally focuses on the relationship between a given query (or user profile) and the information store. On the other hand, exploitation of interrelationships between selected pieces of information (which can be facilitated by the use of ontologies) can put otherwise isolated information into a meaningful context. The implicit structures so revealed help users use and manage information more efficiently. Knowledge management tools are needed that integrate the resources dispersed across Web resources into a coherent corpus of interrelated information. Previous research in information integration has largely focused on integrating heterogeneous databases and knowledge bases, which represent information in a highly structured way, often by means of formal languages. In contrast, the Web consists to a large extent of unstructured or semi-structured natural language texts. As we have seen, ontologies offer an alternative way to cope with heterogeneous representations of Web resources. The domain model implicit in an ontology can be taken as a unifying structure for giving information a common representation and semantics. Once such a unifying structure exists, it can be exploited to improve browsing and retrieval performance in information access tools. QuizRDF is an example of such a tool.
  10. Smith, D.A.; Shadbolt, N.R.: FacetOntology : expressive descriptions of facets in the Semantic Web (2012) 0.04
    0.03724517 = product of:
      0.07449034 = sum of:
        0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029519552 = score(doc=2208,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 2208, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2208)
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 2208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=2208,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 2208, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2208)
        0.015778005 = weight(_text_:of in 2208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015778005 = score(doc=2208,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 2208, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2208)
        0.007803111 = product of:
          0.015606222 = sum of:
            0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 2208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015606222 = score(doc=2208,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 2208, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2208)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    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
  11. Heery, R.; Wagner, H.: ¬A metadata registry for the Semantic Web (2002) 0.04
    0.037135556 = product of:
      0.099028155 = sum of:
        0.021174688 = weight(_text_:use in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021174688 = score(doc=1210,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.16745798 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
        0.019910943 = weight(_text_:of in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019910943 = score(doc=1210,freq=52.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.30833945 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
              7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
                52.0 = termFreq=52.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
        0.057942525 = sum of:
          0.007724685 = weight(_text_:on in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.007724685 = score(doc=1210,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.08505116 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
          0.05021784 = weight(_text_:line in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.05021784 = score(doc=1210,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.2168547 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
                0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    The Semantic Web activity is a W3C project whose goal is to enable a 'cooperative' Web where machines and humans can exchange electronic content that has clear-cut, unambiguous meaning. This vision is based on the automated sharing of metadata terms across Web applications. The declaration of schemas in metadata registries advance this vision by providing a common approach for the discovery, understanding, and exchange of semantics. However, many of the issues regarding registries are not clear, and ideas vary regarding their scope and purpose. Additionally, registry issues are often difficult to describe and comprehend without a working example. This article will explore the role of metadata registries and will describe three prototypes, written by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. The article will outline how the prototypes are being used to demonstrate and evaluate application scope, functional requirements, and technology solutions for metadata registries. Metadata schema registries are, in effect, databases of schemas that can trace an historical line back to shared data dictionaries and the registration process encouraged by the ISO/IEC 11179 community. New impetus for the development of registries has come with the development activities surrounding creation of the Semantic Web. The motivation for establishing registries arises from domain and standardization communities, and from the knowledge management community. Examples of current registry activity include:
    * Agencies maintaining directories of data elements in a domain area in accordance with ISO/IEC 11179 (This standard specifies good practice for data element definition as well as the registration process. Example implementations are the National Health Information Knowledgebase hosted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Environmental Data Registry hosted by the US Environmental Protection Agency.); * The xml.org directory of the Extended Markup Language (XML) document specifications facilitating re-use of Document Type Definition (DTD), hosted by the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS); * The MetaForm database of Dublin Core usage and mappings maintained at the State and University Library in Goettingen; * The Semantic Web Agreement Group Dictionary, a database of terms for the Semantic Web that can be referred to by humans and software agents; * LEXML, a multi-lingual and multi-jurisdictional RDF Dictionary for the legal world; * The SCHEMAS registry maintained by the European Commission funded SCHEMAS project, which indexes several metadata element sets as well as a large number of activity reports describing metadata related activities and initiatives. Metadata registries essentially provide an index of terms. Given the distributed nature of the Web, there are a number of ways this can be accomplished. For example, the registry could link to terms and definitions in schemas published by implementers and stored locally by the schema maintainer. Alternatively, the registry might harvest various metadata schemas from their maintainers. Registries provide 'added value' to users by indexing schemas relevant to a particular 'domain' or 'community of use' and by simplifying the navigation of terms by enabling multiple schemas to be accessed from one view. An important benefit of this approach is an increase in the reuse of existing terms, rather than users having to reinvent them. Merging schemas to one view leads to harmonization between applications and helps avoid duplication of effort. Additionally, the establishment of registries to index terms actively being used in local implementations facilitates the metadata standards activity by providing implementation experience transferable to the standards-making process.
  12. Fernández, M.; Cantador, I.; López, V.; Vallet, D.; Castells, P.; Motta, E.: Semantically enhanced Information Retrieval : an ontology-based approach (2011) 0.04
    0.03512839 = product of:
      0.07025678 = sum of:
        0.023615643 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023615643 = score(doc=230,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
        0.01711173 = weight(_text_:use in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01711173 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.13532647 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
        0.017850775 = weight(_text_:of in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017850775 = score(doc=230,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                32.0 = termFreq=32.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
        0.011678628 = product of:
          0.023357255 = sum of:
            0.023357255 = weight(_text_:on in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.023357255 = score(doc=230,freq=14.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.25717056 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
                  3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                    14.0 = termFreq=14.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    Currently, techniques for content description and query processing in Information Retrieval (IR) are based on keywords, and therefore provide limited capabilities to capture the conceptualizations associated with user needs and contents. Aiming to solve the limitations of keyword-based models, the idea of conceptual search, understood as searching by meanings rather than literal strings, has been the focus of a wide body of research in the IR field. More recently, it has been used as a prototypical scenario (or even envisioned as a potential "killer app") in the Semantic Web (SW) vision, since its emergence in the late nineties. However, current approaches to semantic search developed in the SW area have not yet taken full advantage of the acquired knowledge, accumulated experience, and technological sophistication achieved through several decades of work in the IR field. Starting from this position, this work investigates the definition of an ontology-based IR model, oriented to the exploitation of domain Knowledge Bases to support semantic search capabilities in large document repositories, stressing on the one hand the use of fully fledged ontologies in the semantic-based perspective, and on the other hand the consideration of unstructured content as the target search space. The major contribution of this work is an innovative, comprehensive semantic search model, which extends the classic IR model, addresses the challenges of the massive and heterogeneous Web environment, and integrates the benefits of both keyword and semantic-based search. Additional contributions include: an innovative rank fusion technique that minimizes the undesired effects of knowledge sparseness on the yet juvenile SW, and the creation of a large-scale evaluation benchmark, based on TREC IR evaluation standards, which allows a rigorous comparison between IR and SW approaches. Conducted experiments show that our semantic search model obtained comparable and better performance results (in terms of MAP and P@10 values) than the best TREC automatic system.
    Series
    JWS special issue on Semantic Search
    Source
    Web semantics: science, services and agents on the World Wide Web. 9(2011) no.4, S.434-452
  13. Kara, S.: ¬An ontology-based retrieval system using semantic indexing (2012) 0.04
    0.035053015 = product of:
      0.09347471 = sum of:
        0.050096344 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050096344 = score(doc=3829,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 3829, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3829)
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 3829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=3829,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 3829, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3829)
        0.017710768 = weight(_text_:of in 3829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017710768 = score(doc=3829,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 3829, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3829)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    In this thesis, we present an ontology-based information extraction and retrieval system and its application to soccer domain. In general, we deal with three issues in semantic search, namely, usability, scalability and retrieval performance. We propose a keyword-based semantic retrieval approach. The performance of the system is improved considerably using domain-specific information extraction, inference and rules. Scalability is achieved by adapting a semantic indexing approach. The system is implemented using the state-of-the-art technologies in SemanticWeb and its performance is evaluated against traditional systems as well as the query expansion methods. Furthermore, a detailed evaluation is provided to observe the performance gain due to domain-specific information extraction and inference. Finally, we show how we use semantic indexing to solve simple structural ambiguities.
    Content
    Thesis submitted to the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Middle East Technical University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of science in Computer Engineering (XII, 57 S.)
  14. Engels, R.H.P.; Lech, T.Ch.: Generating ontologies for the Semantic Web : OntoBuilder (2004) 0.03
    0.03221137 = product of:
      0.06442274 = sum of:
        0.016698781 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016698781 = score(doc=4404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
        0.01711173 = weight(_text_:use in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01711173 = score(doc=4404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.13532647 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
        0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018933605 = score(doc=4404,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
        0.011678628 = product of:
          0.023357255 = sum of:
            0.023357255 = weight(_text_:on in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.023357255 = score(doc=4404,freq=14.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.25717056 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
                  3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                    14.0 = termFreq=14.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    Significant progress has been made in technologies for publishing and distributing knowledge and information on the web. However, much of the published information is not organized, and it is hard to find answers to questions that require more than a keyword search. In general, one can say that the web is organizing itself. Information is often published in relatively ad hoc fashion. Typically, concern about the presentation of content has been limited to purely layout issues. This, combined with the fact that the representation language used on the World Wide Web (HTML) is mainly format-oriented, makes publishing on the WWW easy, giving it an enormous expressiveness. People add private, educational or organizational content to the web that is of an immensely diverse nature. Content on the web is growing closer to a real universal knowledge base, with one problem relatively undefined; the problem of the interpretation of its contents. Although widely acknowledged for its general and universal advantages, the increasing popularity of the web also shows us some major drawbacks. The developments of the information content on the web during the last year alone, clearly indicates the need for some changes. Perhaps one of the most significant problems with the web as a distributed information system is the difficulty of finding and comparing information.
    Thus, there is a clear need for the web to become more semantic. The aim of introducing semantics into the web is to enhance the precision of search, but also enable the use of logical reasoning on web contents in order to answer queries. The CORPORUM OntoBuilder toolset is developed specifically for this task. It consists of a set of applications that can fulfil a variety of tasks, either as stand-alone tools, or augmenting each other. Important tasks that are dealt with by CORPORUM are related to document and information retrieval (find relevant documents, or support the user finding them), as well as information extraction (building a knowledge base from web documents to answer queries), information dissemination (summarizing strategies and information visualization), and automated document classification strategies. First versions of the toolset are encouraging in that they show large potential as a supportive technology for building up the Semantic Web. In this chapter, methods for transforming the current web into a semantic web are discussed, as well as a technical solution that can perform this task: the CORPORUM tool set. First, the toolset is introduced; followed by some pragmatic issues relating to the approach; then there will be a short overview of the theory in relation to CognIT's vision; and finally, a discussion on some of the applications that arose from the project.
  15. Manaf, N.A. Abdul; Bechhofer, S.; Stevens, R.: ¬The current state of SKOS vocabularies on the Web (2012) 0.03
    0.02921229 = product of:
      0.07789944 = sum of:
        0.04277933 = weight(_text_:use in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04277933 = score(doc=266,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3383162 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
        0.025563288 = weight(_text_:of in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025563288 = score(doc=266,freq=42.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.39587128 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
              6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
                42.0 = termFreq=42.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
        0.00955682 = product of:
          0.01911364 = sum of:
            0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01911364 = score(doc=266,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    We present a survey of the current state of Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) vocabularies on the Web. Candidate vocabularies were gathered through collections and web crawling, with 478 identified as complying to a given definition of a SKOS vocabulary. Analyses were then conducted that included investigation of the use of SKOS constructs; the use of SKOS semantic relations and lexical labels; and the structure of vocabularies in terms of the hierarchical and associative relations, branching factors and the depth of the vocabularies. Even though SKOS concepts are considered to be the core of SKOS vocabularies, our findings were that not all SKOS vocabularies published explicitly declared SKOS concepts in the vocabularies. Almost one-third of th SKOS vocabularies collected fall into the category of term lists, with no use of any SKOS semantic relations. As concept labelling is core to SKOS vocabularies, a surprising find is that not all SKOS vocabularies use SKOS lexical labels, whether skos:prefLabel or skos:altLabel, for their concepts. The branching factors and maximum depth of the vocabularies have no direct relationship to the size of the vocabularies. We also observed some common modelling slips found in SKOS vocabularies. The survey is useful when considering, for example, converting artefacts such as OWL ontologies into SKOS, where a definition of typicality of SKOS vocabularies could be used to guide the conversion. Moreover, the survey results can serve to provide a better understanding of the modelling styles of the SKOS vocabularies published on the Web, especially when considering the creation of applications that utilize these vocabularies.
  16. Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M.; Bar-Ilan, J.: Towards maximal unification of semantically diverse ontologies for controversial domains (2014) 0.03
    0.028923705 = product of:
      0.05784741 = sum of:
        0.016698781 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016698781 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
        0.02231347 = weight(_text_:of in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02231347 = score(doc=1634,freq=50.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
              7.071068 = tf(freq=50.0), with freq of:
                50.0 = termFreq=50.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
        0.007645456 = product of:
          0.015290912 = sum of:
            0.015290912 = weight(_text_:on in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015290912 = score(doc=1634,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.16835764 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.0111897 = product of:
          0.0223794 = sum of:
            0.0223794 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0223794 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    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
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 66(2014) no.5, S.494-518
  17. Zeng, M.L.; Fan, W.; Lin, X.: SKOS for an integrated vocabulary structure (2008) 0.03
    0.028142031 = product of:
      0.056284063 = sum of:
        0.01711173 = weight(_text_:use in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01711173 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.13532647 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
        0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018933605 = score(doc=2654,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
        0.004414106 = product of:
          0.008828212 = sum of:
            0.008828212 = weight(_text_:on in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008828212 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.097201325 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.015824625 = product of:
          0.03164925 = sum of:
            0.03164925 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03164925 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.21886435 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    In order to transfer the Chinese Classified Thesaurus (CCT) into a machine-processable format and provide CCT-based Web services, a pilot study has been conducted in which a variety of selected CCT classes and mapped thesaurus entries are encoded with SKOS. OWL and RDFS are also used to encode the same contents for the purposes of feasibility and cost-benefit comparison. CCT is a collected effort led by the National Library of China. It is an integration of the national standards Chinese Library Classification (CLC) 4th edition and Chinese Thesaurus (CT). As a manually created mapping product, CCT provides for each of the classes the corresponding thesaurus terms, and vice versa. The coverage of CCT includes four major clusters: philosophy, social sciences and humanities, natural sciences and technologies, and general works. There are 22 main-classes, 52,992 sub-classes and divisions, 110,837 preferred thesaurus terms, 35,690 entry terms (non-preferred terms), and 59,738 pre-coordinated headings (Chinese Classified Thesaurus, 2005) Major challenges of encoding this large vocabulary comes from its integrated structure. CCT is a result of the combination of two structures (illustrated in Figure 1): a thesaurus that uses ISO-2788 standardized structure and a classification scheme that is basically enumerative, but provides some flexibility for several kinds of synthetic mechanisms Other challenges include the complex relationships caused by differences of granularities of two original schemes and their presentation with various levels of SKOS elements; as well as the diverse coordination of entries due to the use of auxiliary tables and pre-coordinated headings derived from combining classes, subdivisions, and thesaurus terms, which do not correspond to existing unique identifiers. The poster reports the progress, shares the sample SKOS entries, and summarizes problems identified during the SKOS encoding process. Although OWL Lite and OWL Full provide richer expressiveness, the cost-benefit issues and the final purposes of encoding CCT raise questions of using such approaches.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  18. Fluit, C.; Horst, H. ter; Meer, J. van der; Sabou, M.; Mika, P.: Spectacle (2004) 0.03
    0.02696376 = product of:
      0.071903355 = sum of:
        0.036299463 = weight(_text_:use in 4337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036299463 = score(doc=4337,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2870708 = fieldWeight in 4337, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4337)
        0.024135707 = weight(_text_:of in 4337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024135707 = score(doc=4337,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 4337, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4337)
        0.011468184 = product of:
          0.022936368 = sum of:
            0.022936368 = weight(_text_:on in 4337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022936368 = score(doc=4337,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 4337, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4337)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Many Semantic Web initiatives improve the capabilities of machines to exchange the meaning of information with other machines. These efforts lead to an increased quality of the application's results, but their user interfaces take little or no advantage of the semantic richness. For example, an ontology-based search engine will use its ontology when evaluating the user's query (e.g. for query formulation, disambiguation or evaluation), but fails to use it to significantly enrich the presentation of the results to a human user. For example, one could imagine replacing the endless list of hits with a structured presentation based on the semantic properties of the hits. Another problem is that the modelling of a domain is done from a single perspective (most often that of the information provider). Therefore, presentation based on the resulting ontology is unlikely to satisfy the needs of all the different types of users of the information. So even assuming an ontology for the domain is in place, mapping that ontology to the needs of individual users - based on their tasks, expertise and personal preferences - is not trivial.
  19. Shoffner, M.; Greenberg, J.; Kramer-Duffield, J.; Woodbury, D.: Web 2.0 semantic systems : collaborative learning in science (2008) 0.03
    0.02591393 = product of:
      0.05182786 = sum of:
        0.01711173 = weight(_text_:use in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01711173 = score(doc=2661,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.13532647 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
        0.01728394 = weight(_text_:of in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01728394 = score(doc=2661,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.26765788 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
        0.0062424885 = product of:
          0.012484977 = sum of:
            0.012484977 = weight(_text_:on in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.012484977 = score(doc=2661,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.13746344 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.0111897 = product of:
          0.0223794 = sum of:
            0.0223794 = weight(_text_:22 in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0223794 = score(doc=2661,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2661, 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=2661)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    The basic goal of education within a discipline is to transform a novice into an expert. This entails moving the novice toward the "semantic space" that the expert inhabits-the space of concepts, meanings, vocabularies, and other intellectual constructs that comprise the discipline. Metadata is significant to this goal in digitally mediated education environments. Encoding the experts' semantic space not only enables the sharing of semantics among discipline scientists, but also creates an environment that bridges the semantic gap between the common vocabulary of the novice and the granular descriptive language of the seasoned scientist (Greenberg, et al, 2005). Developments underlying the Semantic Web, where vocabularies are formalized in the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and Web 2.0 approaches of user-generated folksonomies provide an infrastructure for linking vocabulary systems and promoting group learning via metadata literacy. Group learning is a pedagogical approach to teaching that harnesses the phenomenon of "collective intelligence" to increase learning by means of collaboration. Learning a new semantic system can be daunting for a novice, and yet it is integral to advance one's knowledge in a discipline and retain interest. These ideas are key to the "BOT 2.0: Botany through Web 2.0, the Memex and Social Learning" project (Bot 2.0).72 Bot 2.0 is a collaboration involving the North Carolina Botanical Garden, the UNC SILS Metadata Research center, and the Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI). Bot 2.0 presents a curriculum utilizing a memex as a way for students to link and share digital information, working asynchronously in an environment beyond the traditional classroom. Our conception of a memex is not a centralized black box but rather a flexible, distributed framework that uses the most salient and easiest-to-use collaborative platforms (e.g., Facebook, Flickr, wiki and blog technology) for personal information management. By meeting students "where they live" digitally, we hope to attract students to the study of botanical science. A key aspect is to teach students scientific terminology and about the value of metadata, an inherent function in several of the technologies and in the instructional approach we are utilizing. This poster will report on a study examining the value of both folksonomies and taxonomies for post-secondary college students learning plant identification. Our data is drawn from a curriculum involving a virtual independent learning portion and a "BotCamp" weekend at UNC, where students work with digital plan specimens that they have captured. Results provide some insight into the importance of collaboration and shared vocabulary for gaining confidence and for student progression from novice to expert in botany.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  20. Shaw, R.; Buckland, M.: Open identification and linking of the four Ws (2008) 0.03
    0.025697462 = product of:
      0.051394925 = sum of:
        0.021174688 = weight(_text_:use in 2665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021174688 = score(doc=2665,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.16745798 = fieldWeight in 2665, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2665)
        0.016566904 = weight(_text_:of in 2665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016566904 = score(doc=2665,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25655392 = fieldWeight in 2665, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2665)
        0.0038623426 = product of:
          0.007724685 = sum of:
            0.007724685 = weight(_text_:on in 2665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007724685 = score(doc=2665,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.08505116 = fieldWeight in 2665, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2665)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.009790987 = product of:
          0.019581974 = sum of:
            0.019581974 = weight(_text_:22 in 2665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019581974 = score(doc=2665,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2665, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2665)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    Platforms for social computing connect users via shared references to people with whom they have relationships, events attended, places lived in or traveled to, and topics such as favorite books or movies. Since free text is insufficient for expressing such references precisely and unambiguously, many social computing platforms coin identifiers for topics, places, events, and people and provide interfaces for finding and selecting these identifiers from controlled lists. Using these interfaces, users collaboratively construct a web of links among entities. This model needn't be limited to social networking sites. Understanding an item in a digital library or museum requires context: information about the topics, places, events, and people to which the item is related. Students, journalists and investigators traditionally discover this kind of context by asking "the four Ws": what, where, when and who. The DCMI Kernel Metadata Community has recognized the four Ws as fundamental elements of descriptions (Kunze & Turner, 2007). Making better use of metadata to answer these questions via links to appropriate contextual resources has been our focus in a series of research projects over the past few years. Currently we are building a system for enabling readers of any text to relate any topic, place, event or person mentioned in the text to the best explanatory resources available. This system is being developed with two different corpora: a diverse variety of biographical texts characterized by very rich and dense mentions of people, events, places and activities, and a large collection of newly-scanned books, journals and manuscripts relating to Irish culture and history. Like a social computing platform, our system consists of tools for referring to topics, places, events or people, disambiguating these references by linking them to unique identifiers, and using the disambiguated references to provide useful information in context and to link to related resources. Yet current social computing platforms, while usually amenable to importing and exporting data, tend to mint proprietary identifiers and expect links to be traversed using their own interfaces. We take a different approach, using identifiers from both established and emerging naming authorities, representing relationships using standardized metadata vocabularies, and publishing those representations using standard protocols so that links can be stored and traversed anywhere. Central to our strategy is to move from appearances in a text to naming authorities to the the construction of links for searching or querying trusted resources. Using identifiers from naming authorities, rather than literal values (as in the DCMI Kernel) or keys from a proprietary database, makes it more likely that links constructed using our system will continue to be useful in the future. WorldCat Identities URIs (http://worldcat.org/identities/) linked to Library of Congress and Deutsche Nationalbibliothek authority files for persons and organizations and Geonames (http://geonames.org/) URIs for places are stable identifiers attached to a wealth of useful metadata. Yet no naming authority can be totally comprehensive, so our system can be extended to use new sources of identifiers as needed. For example, we are experimenting with using Freebase (http://freebase.com/) URIs to identify historical events, for which no established naming authority currently exists. Stable identifiers (URIs), standardized hyperlinked data formats (XML), and uniform publishing protocols (HTTP) are key ingredients of the web's open architecture. Our system provides an example of how this open architecture can be exploited to build flexible and useful tools for connecting resources via shared references to topics, places, events, and people.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

Years

Languages

  • e 148
  • d 16
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • el 25
  • x 1
  • More… Less…