Search (26 results, page 1 of 2)

0.027652267 = product of:
  0.0829568 = sum of:
    0.05466523 = weight(_text_:searching in 99) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05466523 = score(doc=99,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.38706642 = fieldWeight in 99, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=99)
    0.028291566 = product of:
      0.056583133 = sum of:
        0.056583133 = weight(_text_:etc in 99) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056583133 = score(doc=99,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18910104 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = queryNorm
            0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 99, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=99)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

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

0.0173545 = product of:
  0.0520635 = sum of:
    0.03787318 = weight(_text_:searching in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03787318 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
    0.014190319 = product of:
      0.028380638 = sum of:
        0.028380638 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028380638 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1222562 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4649, 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=4649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

More and more cultural heritage institutions publish their collections, vocabularies and metadata on the Web. The resulting Web of linked cultural data opens up exciting new possibilities for searching and browsing through these cultural heritage collections. We report on ongoing work in which we investigate the estimation of relevance in this Web of Culture. We study existing measures of semantic distance and how they apply to two use cases. The use cases relate to the structured, multilingual and multimodal nature of the Culture Web. We distinguish between measures using the Web, such as Google distance and PMI, and measures using the Linked Data Web, i.e. the semantic structure of metadata vocabularies. We perform a small study in which we compare these semantic distance measures to human judgements of relevance. Although it is too early to draw any definitive conclusions, the study provides new insights into the applicability of semantic distance measures to the Web of Culture, and clear starting points for further research.

Date

26.12.2011 13:40:22

0.0063121966 = product of:
  0.03787318 = sum of:
    0.03787318 = weight(_text_:searching in 4067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03787318 = score(doc=4067,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 4067, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4067)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Controlled terminologies such as classification schemes, name authorities, and thesauri have long been the domain of the library and information science community. Although historically there have been initiatives towards library style classification of web resources, there remain significant problems with searching and quality judgement of online content. Terminology services can play a key role in opening up access to these valuable resources. By exposing controlled terminologies via a web service, organisations maintain data integrity and version control, whilst motivating external users to design innovative ways to present and utilise their data. We introduce terminology web services and review work in the area. We describe the approaches taken in establishing application programming interfaces (API) and discuss the comparative benefits of a dedicated terminology web service versus general purpose programming languages. We discuss experiences at Glamorgan in creating terminology web services and associated client interface components, in particular for the archaeology domain in the STAR (Semantic Technologies for Archaeological Resources) Project.

0.005260164 = product of:
  0.031560984 = sum of:
    0.031560984 = weight(_text_:searching in 264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031560984 = score(doc=264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 264, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=264)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

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

0.005260164 = product of:
  0.031560984 = sum of:
    0.031560984 = weight(_text_:searching in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031560984 = score(doc=410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 410, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=410)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.005260164 = product of:
  0.031560984 = sum of:
    0.031560984 = weight(_text_:searching in 438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031560984 = score(doc=438,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 438, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=438)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.005260164 = product of:
  0.031560984 = sum of:
    0.031560984 = weight(_text_:searching in 5997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031560984 = score(doc=5997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 5997, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5997)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Thesauri are Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS), that arise from the consensus of wide communities. They have been in use for many years and are regularly updated. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals for indexing and searching, today there is a demand for conceptual vocabularies that enable inferencing by machines. The development of the Semantic Web has brought a new opportunity for thesauri, but thesauri also face the challenge of proving that they add value to it. The evolution of thesauri toward their integration with the Semantic Web is examined. Elements and structures in the thesaurus standard, ISO 25964, and SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System), the Semantic Web standard for representing KOS, are reviewed and compared. Moreover, the integrity rules of thesauri are contrasted with the axioms of SKOS. How SKOS has been applied to represent some real thesauri is taken into account. Three thesauri are chosen for this aim: AGROVOC, EuroVoc and the UNESCO Thesaurus. Based on the results of this comparison and analysis, the benefits that Semantic Web technologies offer to thesauri, how thesauri can contribute to the Semantic Web, and the challenges that would help to improve their integration with the Semantic Web are discussed.

0.004715261 = product of:
  0.028291566 = sum of:
    0.028291566 = product of:
      0.056583133 = sum of:
        0.056583133 = weight(_text_:etc in 437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056583133 = score(doc=437,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18910104 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = queryNorm
            0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 437, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=437)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The Web is a surprisingly extensive source of information: it offers a huge number of sites containing data about a disparate range of topics. Although Web pages are built for human fruition, not for automatic processing of the data, we observe that an increasing number of Web sites deliver pages containing structured information about recognizable concepts, relevant to specific application domains, such as movies, finance, sport, products, etc. The development of scalable techniques to discover, extract, and integrate data from fairly structured large corpora available on the Web is a challenging issue, because to face the Web scale, these activities should be accomplished automatically by domain-independent techniques. To cope with the complexity and the heterogeneity of Web data, state-of-the-art approaches focus on information organized according to specific patterns that frequently occur on the Web. Meaningful examples are WebTables, which focuses on data published in HTML tables, and information extraction systems, such as TextRunner, which exploits lexical-syntactic patterns. As noticed by Cafarella et al., even if a small fraction of the Web is organized according to these patterns, due to the Web scale, the amount of data involved is impressive. In this chapter, we focus on methods and techniques to wring out value from the data delivered by large data-intensive Web sites.

0.004555436 = product of:
  0.027332615 = sum of:
    0.027332615 = weight(_text_:searching in 4232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027332615 = score(doc=4232,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.19353321 = fieldWeight in 4232, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4232)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

After the launch of the World Wide Web, it became clear that searching documentson the Web would not be trivial. Well-known engines to search the web, like Google, focus on search in web documents using keywords. The documents are structured and indexed to ensure keywords match documents as accurately as possible. However, searching by keywords does not always suice. It is oen the case that users do not know exactly how to formulate the search query or which keywords guarantee retrieving the most relevant documents. Besides that, it occurs that users rather want to browse information than looking up something specific. It turned out that there is need for systems that enable more interactivity and facilitate the gradual refinement of search queries to explore the Web. Users expect more from the Web because the short keyword-based queries they pose during search, do not suffice for all cases. On top of that, the Web is changing structurally. The Web comprises, apart from a collection of documents, more and more linked data, pieces of information structured so they can be processed by machines. The consequently applied semantics allow users to exactly indicate machines their search intentions. This is made possible by describing data following controlled vocabularies, concept lists composed by experts, published uniquely identifiable on the Web. Even so, it is still not trivial to explore data on the Web. There is a large variety of vocabularies and various data sources use different terms to identify the same concepts.
This PhD-thesis describes how to effectively explore linked data on the Web. The main focus is on scenarios where users want to discover relationships between resources rather than finding out more about something specific. Searching for a specific document or piece of information fits in the theoretical framework of information retrieval and is associated with exploratory search. Exploratory search goes beyond 'looking up something' when users are seeking more detailed understanding, further investigation or navigation of the initial search results. The ideas behind exploratory search and querying linked data merge when it comes to the way knowledge is represented and indexed by machines - how data is structured and stored for optimal searchability. Queries and information should be aligned to facilitate that searches also reveal connections between results. This implies that they take into account the same semantic entities, relevant at that moment. To realize this, we research three techniques that are evaluated one by one in an experimental set-up to assess how well they succeed in their goals. In the end, the techniques are applied to a practical use case that focuses on forming a bridge between the Web and the use of digital libraries in scientific research. Our first technique focuses on the interactive visualization of search results. Linked data resources can be brought in relation with each other at will. This leads to complex and diverse graphs structures. Our technique facilitates navigation and supports a workflow starting from a broad overview on the data and allows narrowing down until the desired level of detail to then broaden again. To validate the flow, two visualizations where implemented and presented to test-users. The users judged the usability of the visualizations, how the visualizations fit in the workflow and to which degree their features seemed useful for the exploration of linked data.

0.004208131 = product of:
  0.025248786 = sum of:
    0.025248786 = weight(_text_:searching in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025248786 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.1787783 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.004208131 = product of:
  0.025248786 = sum of:
    0.025248786 = weight(_text_:searching in 411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025248786 = score(doc=411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.1787783 = fieldWeight in 411, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=411)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Inhalt: Introduction.- Part I Introduction to Web of Data.- Topology of the Web of Data.- Storing and Indexing Massive RDF Data Sets.- Designing Exploratory Search Applications upon Web Data Sources.- Part II Search over the Web.- Path-oriented Keyword Search query over RDF.- Interactive Query Construction for Keyword Search on the SemanticWeb.- Understanding the Semantics of Keyword Queries on Relational DataWithout Accessing the Instance.- Keyword-Based Search over Semantic Data.- Semantic Link Discovery over Relational Data.- Embracing Uncertainty in Entity Linking.- The Return of the Entity-Relationship Model: Ontological Query Answering.- Linked Data Services and Semantics-enabled Mashup.- Part III Linked Data Search engines.- A Recommender System for Linked Data.- Flint: from Web Pages to Probabilistic Semantic Data.- Searching and Browsing Linked Data with SWSE.

0.004208131 = product of:
  0.025248786 = sum of:
    0.025248786 = weight(_text_:searching in 428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025248786 = score(doc=428,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.1787783 = fieldWeight in 428, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=428)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Search is the preferred method to access information in today's computing systems. The Web, accessed through search engines, is universally recognized as the source for answering users' information needs. However, offering a link to a Web page does not cover all information needs. Even simple problems, such as "Which theater offers an at least three-stars action movie in London close to a good Italian restaurant," can only be solved by searching the Web multiple times, e.g., by extracting a list of the recent action movies filtered by ranking, then looking for movie theaters, then looking for Italian restaurants close to them. While search engines hint to useful information, the user's brain is the fundamental platform for information integration. An important trend is the availability of new, specialized data sources-the so-called "long tail" of the Web of data. Such carefully collected and curated data sources can be much more valuable than information currently available in Web pages; however, many sources remain hidden or insulated, in the lack of software solutions for bringing them to surface and making them usable in the search context. A new class of tailor-made systems, designed to satisfy the needs of users with specific aims, will support the publishing and integration of data sources for vertical domains; the user will be able to select sources based on individual or collective trust, and systems will be able to route queries to such sources and to provide easyto-use interfaces for combining them within search strategies, at the same time, rewarding the data source owners for each contribution to effective search. Efforts such as Google's Fusion Tables show that the technology for bringing hidden data sources to surface is feasible.

0.004208131 = product of:
  0.025248786 = sum of:
    0.025248786 = weight(_text_:searching in 435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025248786 = score(doc=435,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.1787783 = fieldWeight in 435, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=435)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The Web of Linked Data can be seen as a global database, where resources are identified through URIs, are self-described (by means of the URI dereferencing mechanism), and are globally connected through RDF links. According to the Linked Data perspective, research attention is progressively shifting from data organization and representation to linkage and composition of the huge amount of data available on the Web. For example, at the time of this writing, the DBpedia knowledge base describes more than 3.5 million things, conceptualized through 672 million RDF triples, with 6.5 million external links into other RDF datasets. Useful applications have been provided for enabling people to browse this wealth of data, like Tabulator. Other systems have been implemented to collect, index, and provide advanced searching facilities over the Web of Linked Data, such as Watson and Sindice. Besides these applications, domain-specific systems to gather and mash up Linked Data have been proposed, like DBpedia Mobile and Revyu . corn. DBpedia Mobile is a location-aware client for the semantic Web that can be used on an iPhone and other mobile devices. Based on the current GPS position of a mobile device, DBpedia Mobile renders a map indicating nearby locations from the DBpedia dataset. Starting from this map, the user can explore background information about his or her surroundings. Revyu . corn is a Web site where you can review and rate whatever is possible to identify (through a URI) on the Web. Nevertheless, the potential advantages implicit in the Web of Linked Data are far from being fully exploited. Current applications hardly go beyond presenting together data gathered from different sources. Recently, research on the Web of Linked Data has been devoted to the study of models and languages to add functionalities to the Web of Linked Data by means of Linked Data services.

0.0039417557 = product of:
  0.023650533 = sum of:
    0.023650533 = product of:
      0.047301065 = sum of:
        0.047301065 = weight(_text_:22 in 2090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047301065 = score(doc=2090,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1222562 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2090, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2090)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

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

0.0037722092 = product of:
  0.022633255 = sum of:
    0.022633255 = product of:
      0.04526651 = sum of:
        0.04526651 = weight(_text_:etc in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04526651 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18910104 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = queryNorm
            0.23937736 = fieldWeight in 2246, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2246)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Beim Corporate Semantic Web betrachtet man Semantic Web-Anwendungen, die innerhalb eines Unternehmens oder einer Organisation - kommerziell und nicht kommerziell - eingesetzt werden, von Mitarbeitern, von Kunden oder Partnern. Die Autoren erläutern prägende Erfahrungen in der Entwicklung von Semantic Web-Anwendungen. Sie berichten über Software-Architektur, Methodik, Technologieauswahl, Linked Open Data Sets, Lizenzfragen etc. Anwendungen aus den Branchen Banken, Versicherungen, Telekommunikation, Medien, Energie, Maschinenbau, Logistik, Touristik, Spielwaren, Bibliothekswesen und Kultur werden vorgestellt. Der Leser erhält so einen umfassenden Überblick über die Semantic Web-Einsatzbereiche sowie konkrete Umsetzungshinweise für eigene Vorhaben.

0.003300683 = product of:
  0.019804098 = sum of:
    0.019804098 = product of:
      0.039608195 = sum of:
        0.039608195 = weight(_text_:etc in 4515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039608195 = score(doc=4515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18910104 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = queryNorm
            0.20945519 = fieldWeight in 4515, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4515)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The main purpose of this book is to sum up the vital and highly topical research issue of knowledge representation on the Web and to discuss novel solutions by combining benefits of folksonomies and Web 2.0 approaches with ontologies and semantic technologies. This book contains an overview of knowledge representation approaches in past, present and future, introduction to ontologies, Web indexing and in first case the novel approaches of developing ontologies. This title combines aspects of knowledge representation for both the Semantic Web (ontologies) and the Web 2.0 (folksonomies). Currently there is no monographic book which provides a combined overview over these topics. focus on the topic of using knowledge representation methods for document indexing purposes. For this purpose, considerations from classical librarian interests in knowledge representation (thesauri, classification schemes etc.) are included, which are not part of most other books which have a stronger background in computer science.

0.0031534042 = product of:
  0.018920425 = sum of:
    0.018920425 = product of:
      0.03784085 = sum of:
        0.03784085 = weight(_text_:22 in 4331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03784085 = score(doc=4331,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1222562 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4331, 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=4331)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

15. 3.2011 19:21:22

0.002759229 = product of:
  0.016555373 = sum of:
    0.016555373 = product of:
      0.033110745 = sum of:
        0.033110745 = weight(_text_:22 in 3283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033110745 = score(doc=3283,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1222562 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3283, 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=3283)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0023650532 = product of:
  0.014190319 = sum of:
    0.014190319 = product of:
      0.028380638 = sum of:
        0.028380638 = weight(_text_:22 in 662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028380638 = score(doc=662,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1222562 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 662, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=662)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 3.2013 19:29:20

0.0023650532 = product of:
  0.014190319 = sum of:
    0.014190319 = product of:
      0.028380638 = sum of:
        0.028380638 = weight(_text_:22 in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028380638 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1222562 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2024, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2024)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

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