Search (50 results, page 2 of 3)

0.005369592 = product of:
  0.013423979 = sum of:
    0.010661141 = weight(_text_:a in 517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010661141 = score(doc=517,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 517, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=517)
    0.002762838 = product of:
      0.005525676 = sum of:
        0.005525676 = weight(_text_:information in 517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005525676 = score(doc=517,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.06788416 = fieldWeight in 517, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=517)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

"Textual content-based search engines for the web have a number of limitations. Firstly, many web resources have little or no textual content (images, audio or video streams etc.) Secondly, precision is low where natural language terms have overloaded meaning (e.g. 'bank', 'watch', 'chip' etc.) Thirdly, recall is incomplete where the search does not take account of synonyms or quasi-synonyms. Fourthly, there is no basis for assisting a user in modifying (expanding, refining, translating) a search based on the meaning of the original search. Fifthly, there is no basis for searching across natural languages, or framing search queries in terms of symbolic languages. The Semantic Web is a framework for creating, managing, publishing and searching semantically rich metadata for web resources. Annotating web resources with precise and meaningful statements about conceptual aspects of their content provides a basis for overcoming all of the limitations of textual content-based search engines listed above. Creating this type of metadata requires that metadata generators are able to refer to shared repositories of meaning: 'vocabularies' of concepts that are common to a community, and describe the domain of interest for that community.
This type of effort is common in the digital library community, where a group of experts will interact with a user community to create a thesaurus for a specific domain (e.g. the Art & Architecture Thesaurus AAT AAT) or an overarching classification scheme (e.g. the Dewey Decimal Classification). A similar type of activity is being undertaken more recently in a less centralised manner by web communities, producing for example the DMOZ web directory DMOZ, or the Topic Exchange for weblog topics Topic Exchange. The web, including the semantic web, provides a medium within which communities can interact and collaboratively build and use vocabularies of concepts. A simple language is required that allows these communities to express the structure and content of their vocabularies in a machine-understandable way, enabling exchange and reuse. The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is an ideal language for making statements about web resources and publishing metadata. However, RDF provides only the low level semantics required to form metadata statements. RDF vocabularies must be built on top of RDF to support the expression of more specific types of information within metadata. Ontology languages such as OWL OWL add a layer of expressive power to RDF, and provide powerful tools for defining complex conceptual structures, which can be used to generate rich metadata. However, the class-oriented, logically precise modelling required to construct useful web ontologies is demanding in terms of expertise, effort, and therefore cost. In many cases this type of modelling may be superfluous or unsuited to requirements. Therefore there is a need for a language for expressing vocabularies of concepts for use in semantically rich metadata, that is powerful enough to support semantically enhanced search, but simple enough to be undemanding in terms of the cost and expertise required to use it."

0.0050258166 = product of:
  0.025129084 = sum of:
    0.025129084 = product of:
      0.050258167 = sum of:
        0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050258167 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4685, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4685)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

14. 8.2011 13:33:22

0.0049910345 = product of:
  0.012477586 = sum of:
    0.005779455 = weight(_text_:a in 2481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005779455 = score(doc=2481,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2481, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2481)
    0.0066981306 = product of:
      0.013396261 = sum of:
        0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 2481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013396261 = score(doc=2481,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2481, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2481)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Wikis are established means for the collaborative authoring, versioning and publishing of textual articles. The Wikipedia project, for example, succeeded in creating the by far largest encyclopedia just on the basis of a wiki. Recently, several approaches have been proposed on how to extend wikis to allow the creation of structured and semantically enriched content. However, the means for creating semantically enriched structured content are already available and are, although unconsciously, even used by Wikipedia authors. In this article, we present a method for revealing this structured content by extracting information from template instances. We suggest ways to efficiently query the vast amount of extracted information (e.g. more than 8 million RDF statements for the English Wikipedia version alone), leading to astonishing query answering possibilities (such as for the title question). We analyze the quality of the extracted content, and propose strategies for quality improvements with just minor modifications of the wiki systems being currently used.

0.0049910345 = product of:
  0.012477586 = sum of:
    0.005779455 = weight(_text_:a in 4682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005779455 = score(doc=4682,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4682, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4682)
    0.0066981306 = product of:
      0.013396261 = sum of:
        0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 4682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013396261 = score(doc=4682,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4682, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4682)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The OWL Web Ontology Language is designed for use by applications that need to process the content of information instead of just presenting information to humans. OWL facilitates greater machine interpretability of Web content than that supported by XML, RDF, and RDF Schema (RDF-S) by providing additional vocabulary along with a formal semantics. OWL has three increasingly-expressive sublanguages: OWL Lite, OWL DL, and OWL Full. This document is written for readers who want a first impression of the capabilities of OWL. It provides an introduction to OWL by informally describing the features of each of the sublanguages of OWL. Some knowledge of RDF Schema is useful for understanding this document, but not essential. After this document, interested readers may turn to the OWL Guide for more detailed descriptions and extensive examples on the features of OWL. The normative formal definition of OWL can be found in the OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax.

0.004866131 = product of:
  0.012165328 = sum of:
    0.008258085 = weight(_text_:a in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008258085 = score(doc=1210,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
    0.003907243 = product of:
      0.007814486 = sum of:
        0.007814486 = weight(_text_:information in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007814486 = score(doc=1210,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.0960027 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

Type

a

0.004709213 = product of:
  0.011773032 = sum of:
    0.008615503 = weight(_text_:a in 4709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008615503 = score(doc=4709,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 4709, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4709)
    0.003157529 = product of:
      0.006315058 = sum of:
        0.006315058 = weight(_text_:information in 4709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006315058 = score(doc=4709,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 4709, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4709)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

"Swoogle, the Semantic web search engine, is a research project carried out by the ebiquity research group in the Computer Science and Electrical Engineering Department at the University of Maryland. It's an engine tailored towards finding documents on the semantic web. The whole research paper is available here. Semantic web is touted as the next generation of online content representation where the web documents are represented in a language that is not only easy for humans but is machine readable (easing the integration of data as never thought possible) as well. And the main elements of the semantic web include data model description formats such as Resource Description Framework (RDF), a variety of data interchange formats (e.g. RDF/XML, Turtle, N-Triples), and notations such as RDF Schema (RDFS), the Web Ontology Language (OWL), all of which are intended to provide a formal description of concepts, terms, and relationships within a given knowledge domain (Wikipedia). And Swoogle is an attempt to mine and index this new set of web documents. The engine performs crawling of semantic documents like most web search engines and the search is available as web service too. The engine is primarily written in Java with the PHP used for the front-end and MySQL for database. Swoogle is capable of searching over 10,000 ontologies and indexes more that 1.3 million web documents. It also computes the importance of a Semantic Web document. The techniques used for indexing are the more google-type page ranking and also mining the documents for inter-relationships that are the basis for the semantic web. For more information on how the RDF framework can be used to relate documents, read the link here. Being a research project, and with a non-commercial motive, there is not much hype around Swoogle. However, the approach to indexing of Semantic web documents is an approach that most engines will have to take at some point of time. When the Internet debuted, there were no specific engines available for indexing or searching. The Search domain only picked up as more and more content became available. One fundamental question that I've always wondered about it is - provided that the search engines return very relevant results for a query - how to ascertain that the documents are indeed the most relevant ones available. There is always an inherent delay in indexing of document. Its here that the new semantic documents search engines can close delay. Experimenting with the concept of Search in the semantic web can only bore well for the future of search technology."

0.0047055925 = product of:
  0.011763981 = sum of:
    0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 3064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005448922 = score(doc=3064,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3064, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3064)
    0.006315058 = product of:
      0.012630116 = sum of:
        0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 3064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012630116 = score(doc=3064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3064, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a language for representing information about resources in the World Wide Web. This Primer is designed to provide the reader with the basic knowledge required to effectively use RDF. It introduces the basic concepts of RDF and describes its XML syntax. It describes how to define RDF vocabularies using the RDF Vocabulary Description Language, and gives an overview of some deployed RDF applications. It also describes the content and purpose of other RDF specification documents.

0.0047055925 = product of:
  0.011763981 = sum of:
    0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 3067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005448922 = score(doc=3067,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3067, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3067)
    0.006315058 = product of:
      0.012630116 = sum of:
        0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 3067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012630116 = score(doc=3067,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3067, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3067)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a framework for representing information in the Web. RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax defines an abstract syntax on which RDF is based, and which serves to link its concrete syntax to its formal semantics. It also includes discussion of design goals, key concepts, datatyping, character normalization and handling of URI references.

0.004303226 = product of:
  0.010758064 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 4687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=4687,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4687, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4687)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 4687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=4687,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4687, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4687)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The World Wide Web as it is currently constituted resembles a poorly mapped geography. Our insight into the documents and capabilities available are based on keyword searches, abetted by clever use of document connectivity and usage patterns. The sheer mass of this data is unmanageable without powerful tool support. In order to map this terrain more precisely, computational agents require machine-readable descriptions of the content and capabilities of Web accessible resources. These descriptions must be in addition to the human-readable versions of that information. The OWL Web Ontology Language is intended to provide a language that can be used to describe the classes and relations between them that are inherent in Web documents and applications. This document demonstrates the use of the OWL language to - formalize a domain by defining classes and properties of those classes, - define individuals and assert properties about them, and - reason about these classes and individuals to the degree permitted by the formal semantics of the OWL language. The sections are organized to present an incremental definition of a set of classes, properties and individuals, beginning with the fundamentals and proceeding to more complex language components.

0.0021795689 = product of:
  0.010897844 = sum of:
    0.010897844 = weight(_text_:a in 4840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010897844 = score(doc=4840,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4840, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4840)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In this talk we present a retrieval model based on social ontologies. More specifically, we utilize the Wikipedia category system in order to perform semantic searches. That is, textual input is used to build queries by means of which documents are retrieved which do not necessarily contain any query term but are semantically related to the input text by virtue of their content. We present a desktop which utilizes this search facility in a web-based environment - the so called eHumanities Desktop.

0.002002062 = product of:
  0.0100103095 = sum of:
    0.0100103095 = weight(_text_:a in 4683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0100103095 = score(doc=4683,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4683, 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=4683)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This description of OWL, the Web Ontology Language being designed by the W3C Web Ontology Working Group, contains a high-level abstract syntax for both OWL DL and OWL Lite, sublanguages of OWL. A model-theoretic semantics is given to provide a formal meaning for OWL ontologies written in this abstract syntax. A model-theoretic semantics in the form of an extension to the RDF semantics is also given to provide a formal meaning for OWL ontologies as RDF graphs (OWL Full). A mapping from the abstract syntax to RDF graphs is given and the two model theories are shown to have the same consequences on OWL ontologies that can be written in the abstract syntax.

0.0019264851 = product of:
  0.009632425 = sum of:
    0.009632425 = weight(_text_:a in 3065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009632425 = score(doc=3065,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3065, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3065)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This is a specification of a precise semantics, and corresponding complete systems of inference rules, for the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and RDF Schema (RDFS).

0.0019071229 = product of:
  0.009535614 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 4684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=4684,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4684, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4684)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The Web Ontology Language OWL is a semantic markup language for publishing and sharing ontologies on the World Wide Web. OWL is developed as a vocabulary extension of RDF (the Resource Description Framework) and is derived from the DAML+OIL Web Ontology Language. This document contains a structured informal description of the full set of OWL language constructs and is meant to serve as a reference for OWL users who want to construct OWL ontologies.

0.0018875621 = product of:
  0.009437811 = sum of:
    0.009437811 = weight(_text_:a in 4680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009437811 = score(doc=4680,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 4680, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4680)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This document specifies XML presentation syntax for OWL, which is defined as a dialect similar to OWL Abstract Syntax [OWL Semantics]. It is not intended to be a normative specification. Instead, it represents a suggestion of one possible XML presentation syntax for OWL.

0.0018875621 = product of:
  0.009437811 = sum of:
    0.009437811 = weight(_text_:a in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009437811 = score(doc=4686,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This document specifies usage scenarios, goals and requirements for a web ontology language. An ontology formally defines a common set of terms that are used to describe and represent a domain. Ontologies can be used by automated tools to power advanced services such as more accurate web search, intelligent software agents and knowledge management.

0.0016346768 = product of:
  0.008173384 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=4640,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4640, 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=4640)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Ontologies will play a central role in the development of the Semantic Web. It is unrealistic to assume that such ontologies will be developed from scratch. Rather, we assume that existing resources such as thesauri and lexical data bases will be reused in the development of ontologies for the Semantic Web. In this paper we describe a method for converting existing source material to a representation that is compatible with Semantic Web languages such as RDF(S) and OWL. The method is illustrated with three case studies: converting Wordnet, AAT and MeSH to RDF(S) and OWL.

Type

a

0.0015787644 = product of:
  0.007893822 = sum of:
    0.007893822 = product of:
      0.015787644 = sum of:
        0.015787644 = weight(_text_:information in 4327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015787644 = score(doc=4327,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 4327, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4327)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.001541188 = product of:
  0.00770594 = sum of:
    0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 3063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00770594 = score(doc=3063,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3063, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3063)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The Resource Description Framework (RDF) integrates a variety of applications from library catalogs and world-wide directories to syndication and aggregation of news, software, and content to personal collections of music, photos, and events using XML as an interchange syntax. The RDF specifications provide a lightweight ontology system to support the exchange of knowledge on the Web. The W3C Semantic Web Activity Statement explains W3C's plans for RDF, including the RDF Core WG, Web Ontology and the RDF Interest Group.

0.0015230201 = product of:
  0.0076151006 = sum of:
    0.0076151006 = weight(_text_:a in 3152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076151006 = score(doc=3152,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3152, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3152)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Table of Contents Part I: Accepted Papers Christoph Tempich and Raphael Volz: Towards a benchmark for Semantic Web reasoners - an analysis of the DAML ontology library M. Carmen Suarez-Figueroa and Asuncion Gomez-Perez: Results of Taxonomic Evaluation of RDF(S) and DAML+OIL ontologies using RDF(S) and DAML+OIL Validation Tools and Ontology Platforms import services Volker Haarslev and Ralf Möller: Racer: A Core Inference Engine for the Semantic Web Mikhail Kazakov and Habib Abdulrab: DL-workbench: a metamodeling approach to ontology manipulation Thorsten Liebig and Olaf Noppens: OntoTrack: Fast Browsing and Easy Editing of Large Ontologie Frederic Fürst, Michel Leclere, and Francky Trichet: TooCoM : a Tool to Operationalize an Ontology with the Conceptual Graph Model Naoki Sugiura, Masaki Kurematsu, Naoki Fukuta, Noriaki Izumi, and Takahira Yamaguchi: A domain ontology engineering tool with general ontologies and text corpus Howard Goldberg, Alfredo Morales, David MacMillan, and Matthew Quinlan: An Ontology-Driven Application to Improve the Prescription of Educational Resources to Parents of Premature Infants Part II: Experiment Contributions Domain natural language description for the experiment Raphael Troncy, Antoine Isaac, and Veronique Malaise: Using XSLT for Interoperability: DOE and The Travelling Domain Experiment Christian Fillies: SemTalk EON2003 Semantic Web Export / Import Interface Test Óscar Corcho, Asunción Gómez-Pérez, Danilo José Guerrero-Rodríguez, David Pérez-Rey, Alberto Ruiz-Cristina, Teresa Sastre-Toral, M. Carmen Suárez-Figueroa: Evaluation experiment of ontology tools' interoperability with the WebODE ontology engineering workbench Holger Knublauch: Case Study: Using Protege to Convert the Travel Ontology to UML and OWL Franz Calvo and John Gennari: Interoperability of Protege 2.0 beta and OilEd 3.5 in the Domain Knowledge of Osteoporosis

0.0013622305 = product of:
  0.0068111527 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)