Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

0.07466953 = product of:
  0.14933906 = sum of:
    0.10339639 = weight(_text_:digital in 4366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10339639 = score(doc=4366,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.52297866 = fieldWeight in 4366, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4366)
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 4366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=4366,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 4366, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4366)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Vortrag "One more step towards the European digital library: International Conference, Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, Frankfurt am Main 31 January - 1 February 2008.

0.072070494 = product of:
  0.14414099 = sum of:
    0.10339639 = weight(_text_:digital in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10339639 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.52297866 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
    0.0407446 = product of:
      0.0814892 = sum of:
        0.0814892 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0814892 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.062224608 = product of:
  0.124449216 = sum of:
    0.086163655 = weight(_text_:digital in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.086163655 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4358155 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
    0.03828556 = weight(_text_:library in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03828556 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Vortrag "One more step towards the European digital library: International Conference, Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, Frankfurt am Main 31 January - 1 February 2008. Vgl. auch: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/talks/08-frankfurt.pdf.

0.021778613 = product of:
  0.043557227 = sum of:
    0.030157281 = weight(_text_:digital in 517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030157281 = score(doc=517,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.15253544 = fieldWeight in 517, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=517)
    0.013399946 = weight(_text_:library in 517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013399946 = score(doc=517,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.10167781 = fieldWeight in 517, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=517)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

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."

0.018908933 = product of:
  0.037817866 = sum of:
    0.013399946 = weight(_text_:library in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013399946 = score(doc=1210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.10167781 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
    0.024417918 = product of:
      0.048835836 = sum of:
        0.048835836 = weight(_text_:project in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048835836 = score(doc=1210,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.2308349 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.015333011 = product of:
  0.030666022 = sum of:
    0.013399946 = weight(_text_:library in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013399946 = score(doc=553,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.10167781 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
    0.017266076 = product of:
      0.034532152 = sum of:
        0.034532152 = weight(_text_:project in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034532152 = score(doc=553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.16322492 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Currently, a number of efforts are being carried out to integrate collections from different institutions and containing heterogeneous material. Examples of such projects are The European Library [1] and the Memory of the Netherlands [2]. A crucial point for the success of these is the availability to provide a unified access on top of the different collections, e.g. using one single vocabulary for querying or browsing the objects they contain. This is made difficult by the fact that the objects from different collections are often described using different vocabularies - thesauri, classification schemes - and are therefore not interoperable at the semantic level. To solve this problem, one can turn to semantic links - mappings - between the elements of the different vocabularies. If one knows that a concept C from a vocabulary V is semantically equivalent to a concept to a concept D from vocabulary W, then an appropriate search engine can return all the objects that were indexed against D for a query for objects described using C. We thus have an access to other collections, using a single one vocabulary. This is however an ideal situation, and hard alignment work is required to reach it. Several projects in the past have tried to implement such a solution, like MACS [3] and Renardus [4]. They have demonstrated very interesting results, but also highlighted the difficulty of aligning manually all the different vocabularies involved in practical cases, which sometimes contain hundreds of thousands of concepts. To alleviate this problem, a number of tools have been proposed in order to provide with candidate mappings between two input vocabularies, making alignment a (semi-) automatic task. Recently, the Semantic Web community has produced a lot of these alignment tools'. Several techniques are found, depending on the material they exploit: labels of concepts, structure of vocabularies, collection objects and external knowledge sources. Throughout our presentation, we will present a concrete heterogeneity case where alignment techniques have been applied to build a (pilot) browser, developed in the context of the STITCH project [5]. This browser enables a unified access to two collections of illuminated manuscripts, using the description vocabulary used in the first collection, Mandragore [6], or the one used by the second, Iconclass [7]. In our talk, we will also make the point for using unified representations the vocabulary semantic and lexical information. Additionally to ease the use of the alignment tools that have these vocabularies as input, turning to a standard representation format helps designing applications that are more generic, like the browser we demonstrate. We give pointers to SKOS [8], an open and web-enabled format currently developed by the Semantic Web community.

0.011883841 = product of:
  0.047535364 = sum of:
    0.047535364 = product of:
      0.09507073 = sum of:
        0.09507073 = weight(_text_:22 in 4643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09507073 = score(doc=4643,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4643, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4643)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.01018615 = product of:
  0.0407446 = sum of:
    0.0407446 = product of:
      0.0814892 = sum of:
        0.0814892 = weight(_text_:22 in 100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0814892 = score(doc=100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 100, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.0076571116 = product of:
  0.030628446 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 3063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=3063,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 3063, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3063)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.007490797 = product of:
  0.029963188 = sum of:
    0.029963188 = weight(_text_:library in 3062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029963188 = score(doc=3062,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.22735849 = fieldWeight in 3062, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3062)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

SKOS Adapts to the Diversity of Knowledge Organization Systems A useful starting point for understanding the role of SKOS is the set of subject headings published by the US Library of Congress (LOC) for categorizing books, videos, and other library resources. These headings can be used to broaden or narrow queries for discovering resources. For instance, one can narrow a query about books on "Chinese literature" to "Chinese drama," or further still to "Chinese children's plays." Library of Congress subject headings have evolved within a community of practice over a period of decades. By now publishing these subject headings in SKOS, the Library of Congress has made them available to the linked data community, which benefits from a time-tested set of concepts to re-use in their own data. This re-use adds value ("the network effect") to the collection. When people all over the Web re-use the same LOC concept for "Chinese drama," or a concept from some other vocabulary linked to it, this creates many new routes to the discovery of information, and increases the chances that relevant items will be found. As an example of mapping one vocabulary to another, a combined effort from the STITCH, TELplus and MACS Projects provides links between LOC concepts and RAMEAU, a collection of French subject headings used by the Bibliothèque Nationale de France and other institutions. SKOS can be used for subject headings but also many other approaches to organizing knowledge. Because different communities are comfortable with different organization schemes, SKOS is designed to port diverse knowledge organization systems to the Web. "Active participation from the library and information science community in the development of SKOS over the past seven years has been key to ensuring that SKOS meets a variety of needs," said Thomas Baker, co-chair of the Semantic Web Deployment Working Group, which published SKOS. "One goal in creating SKOS was to provide new uses for well-established knowledge organization systems by providing a bridge to the linked data cloud." SKOS is part of the Semantic Web technology stack. Like the Web Ontology Language (OWL), SKOS can be used to define vocabularies. But the two technologies were designed to meet different needs. SKOS is a simple language with just a few features, tuned for sharing and linking knowledge organization systems such as thesauri and classification schemes. OWL offers a general and powerful framework for knowledge representation, where additional "rigor" can afford additional benefits (for instance, business rule processing). To get started with SKOS, see the SKOS Primer.

0.0073997467 = product of:
  0.029598987 = sum of:
    0.029598987 = product of:
      0.059197973 = sum of:
        0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 2481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059197973 = score(doc=2481,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 2481, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2481)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.006976548 = product of:
  0.027906192 = sum of:
    0.027906192 = product of:
      0.055812385 = sum of:
        0.055812385 = weight(_text_:project in 4709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055812385 = score(doc=4709,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.26381132 = fieldWeight in 4709, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4709)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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."

0.0067907665 = product of:
  0.027163066 = sum of:
    0.027163066 = product of:
      0.054326132 = sum of:
        0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054326132 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

14. 8.2011 13:33:22

0.0059419204 = product of:
  0.023767682 = sum of:
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

11. 5.2013 19:22:18

0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 2127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=2127,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 2127, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2127)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"When dealing with a large-scale and widely-used knowledge organization system like the Dewey Decimal Classification, we often tend to focus solely on the organization aspect, which is closely intertwined with editorial work. This is perfectly understandable, since developing and updating the DDC, keeping up with current scientific developments, spotting new trends in both scholarly communication and popular publishing, and figuring out how to fit those patterns into the structure of the scheme are as intriguing as they are challenging. From the organization perspective, the intended user of the scheme is mainly the classifier. Dewey acts very much as a number-building engine, providing richly documented concepts to help with classification decisions. Since the Middle Ages, quasi-religious battles have been fought over the "valid" arrangement of places according to specific views of the world, as parodied by Jorge Luis Borges and others. Organizing knowledge has always been primarily an ontological activity; it is about putting the world into the classification. However, there is another side to this coin--the discovery side. While the hierarchical organization of the DDC establishes a default set of places and neighborhoods that is also visible in the physical manifestation of library shelves, this is just one set of relationships in the DDC. A KOS (Knowledge Organization System) becomes powerful by expressing those other relationships in a manner that not only collocates items in a physical place but in a knowledge space, and exposes those other relationships in ways beneficial and congenial to the unique perspective of an information seeker.
What are those "other" relationships that Dewey possesses and that seem so important to surface? Firstly, there is the relationship of concepts to resources. Dewey has been used for a long time, and over 200,000 numbers are assigned to information resources each year and added to WorldCat by the Library of Congress and the German National Library alone. Secondly, we have relationships between concepts in the scheme itself. Dewey provides a rich set of non-hierarchical relations, indicating other relevant and related subjects across disciplinary boundaries. Thirdly, perhaps most importantly, there is the relationship between the same concepts across different languages. Dewey has been translated extensively, and current versions are available in French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Briefer representations of the top-three levels (the DDC Summaries) are available in several languages in the DeweyBrowser. This multilingual nature of the scheme allows searchers to access a broader range of resources or to switch the language of--and thus localize--subject metadata seamlessly. MelvilClass, a Dewey front-end developed by the German National Library for the German translation, could be used as a common interface to the DDC in any language, as it is built upon the standard DDC data format. It is not hard to give an example of the basic terminology of a class pulled together in a multilingual way: <class/794.8> a skos:Concept ; skos:notation "794.8"^^ddc:notation ; skos:prefLabel "Computer games"@en ; skos:prefLabel "Computerspiele"@de ; skos:prefLabel "Jeux sur ordinateur"@fr ; skos:prefLabel "Juegos por computador"@es .

0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 3152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=3152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 3152, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3152)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0038285558 = product of:
  0.015314223 = sum of:
    0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015314223 = score(doc=132,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Dieser Aufsatz ist kein Abgesang auf MeSH (= Medical Subject Headings in Medline/PubMed), wie man/frau vielleicht vermuten könnte. Vielmehr wird - ohne informatiklastiges Fachchinesisch - an Hand des von der National Library of Medicine entwickelten Unified Medical Language System erklärt, worin die Anforderungen an Ontologien bestehen, die im Zusammenhang mit dem Semantic Web allerorten eingefordert und herbeigewünscht werden. Eine Lektüre für Einsteigerinnen, die zum Vertiefen der gewonnenen Begriffssicherheit an Hand der weiterführenden Literaturhinweise anregt. Da das UMLS hier vor allem als Beispiel verwendet wird, werden auch Bibliothekarlnnen, Dokumentarlnnen und Informationsspezialistinnen anderer Fachbereiche den Aufsatz mit Gewinn lesen - und erfahren, dass unser Fachwissen aus der Sacherschließung und der Verwendung und Mitgestaltung von Normdateien und Thesauri bei der Entwicklung von Ontologien gefragt ist! (Eveline Pipp, Universitätsbibliothek Innsbruck). - Die elektronische Version dieses Artikels ist verfügbar unter: http://www.egms.de/en/journals/mbi/2006-6/mbi000049.shtml.