Search (96 results, page 1 of 5)

0.089047045 = product of:
  0.17809409 = sum of:
    0.17809409 = sum of:
      0.1219849 = weight(_text_:language in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1219849 = score(doc=4685,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.60062915 = fieldWeight in 4685, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4685)
      0.056109186 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056109186 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = 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)

Abstract

This document contains and presents test cases for the Web Ontology Language (OWL) approved by the Web Ontology Working Group. Many of the test cases illustrate the correct usage of the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and the formal meaning of its constructs. Other test cases illustrate the resolution of issues considered by the Working Group. Conformance for OWL documents and OWL document checkers is specified.

Date

14. 8.2011 13:33:22

0.07791616 = product of:
  0.15583232 = sum of:
    0.15583232 = sum of:
      0.10673678 = weight(_text_:language in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10673678 = score(doc=759,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.5255505 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
      0.049095538 = weight(_text_:22 in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049095538 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = 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)

Abstract

XML will have a profound impact on the way data is exchanged on the Internet. An important feature of this language is the separation of content from presentation, which makes it easier to select and/or reformat the data. However, due to the likelihood of numerous industry and domain specific DTDs, those who wish to integrate information will still be faced with the problem of semantic interoperability. In this paper we discuss why this problem is not solved by XML, and then discuss why the Resource Description Framework is only a partial solution. We then present the SHOE language, which we feel has many of the features necessary to enable a semantic web, and describe an existing set of tools that make it easy to use the language.

Date

11. 5.2013 19:22:18

0.038927358 = product of:
  0.077854715 = sum of:
    0.077854715 = sum of:
      0.04980012 = weight(_text_:language in 320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04980012 = score(doc=320,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.2452058 = fieldWeight in 320, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=320)
      0.028054593 = weight(_text_:22 in 320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028054593 = score(doc=320,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 320, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=320)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.2007 10:37:38

LCSH

XML (Document markup language)

Subject

XML (Document markup language)

0.038927358 = product of:
  0.077854715 = sum of:
    0.077854715 = sum of:
      0.04980012 = weight(_text_:language in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04980012 = score(doc=2661,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.2452058 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
      0.028054593 = weight(_text_:22 in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028054593 = score(doc=2661,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The basic goal of education within a discipline is to transform a novice into an expert. This entails moving the novice toward the "semantic space" that the expert inhabits-the space of concepts, meanings, vocabularies, and other intellectual constructs that comprise the discipline. Metadata is significant to this goal in digitally mediated education environments. Encoding the experts' semantic space not only enables the sharing of semantics among discipline scientists, but also creates an environment that bridges the semantic gap between the common vocabulary of the novice and the granular descriptive language of the seasoned scientist (Greenberg, et al, 2005). Developments underlying the Semantic Web, where vocabularies are formalized in the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and Web 2.0 approaches of user-generated folksonomies provide an infrastructure for linking vocabulary systems and promoting group learning via metadata literacy. Group learning is a pedagogical approach to teaching that harnesses the phenomenon of "collective intelligence" to increase learning by means of collaboration. Learning a new semantic system can be daunting for a novice, and yet it is integral to advance one's knowledge in a discipline and retain interest. These ideas are key to the "BOT 2.0: Botany through Web 2.0, the Memex and Social Learning" project (Bot 2.0).72 Bot 2.0 is a collaboration involving the North Carolina Botanical Garden, the UNC SILS Metadata Research center, and the Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI). Bot 2.0 presents a curriculum utilizing a memex as a way for students to link and share digital information, working asynchronously in an environment beyond the traditional classroom. Our conception of a memex is not a centralized black box but rather a flexible, distributed framework that uses the most salient and easiest-to-use collaborative platforms (e.g., Facebook, Flickr, wiki and blog technology) for personal information management. By meeting students "where they live" digitally, we hope to attract students to the study of botanical science. A key aspect is to teach students scientific terminology and about the value of metadata, an inherent function in several of the technologies and in the instructional approach we are utilizing. This poster will report on a study examining the value of both folksonomies and taxonomies for post-secondary college students learning plant identification. Our data is drawn from a curriculum involving a virtual independent learning portion and a "BotCamp" weekend at UNC, where students work with digital plan specimens that they have captured. Results provide some insight into the importance of collaboration and shared vocabulary for gaining confidence and for student progression from novice to expert in botany.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.03444915 = product of:
  0.0688983 = sum of:
    0.0688983 = product of:
      0.1377966 = sum of:
        0.1377966 = weight(_text_:language in 4684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1377966 = score(doc=4684,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.6784828 = fieldWeight in 4684, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4684)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.032764018 = product of:
  0.065528035 = sum of:
    0.065528035 = sum of:
      0.03081225 = weight(_text_:language in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03081225 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.15171334 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
      0.034715787 = weight(_text_:22 in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034715787 = score(doc=1155,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.19150631 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The MTSR 2013 program and the contents of these proceedings show a rich diversity of research and practices, drawing on problems from metadata and semantically focused tools and technologies, linked data, cross-language semantics, ontologies, metadata models, and semantic system and metadata standards. The general session of the conference included 18 papers covering a broad spectrum of topics, proving the interdisciplinary field of metadata, and was divided into three main themes: platforms for research data sets, system architecture and data management; metadata and ontology validation, evaluation, mapping and interoperability; and content management. Metadata as a research topic is maturing, and the conference also supported the following five tracks: Metadata and Semantics for Open Repositories, Research Information Systems and Data Infrastructures; Metadata and Semantics for Cultural Collections and Applications; Metadata and Semantics for Agriculture, Food and Environment; Big Data and Digital Libraries in Health, Science and Technology; and European and National Projects, and Project Networking. Each track had a rich selection of papers, giving broader diversity to MTSR, and enabling deeper exploration of significant topics.

Date

17.12.2013 12:51:22

0.027406316 = product of:
  0.054812633 = sum of:
    0.054812633 = product of:
      0.16443789 = sum of:
        0.16443789 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16443789 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43887708 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F1627&ei=tAtYUYrBNoHKtQb3l4GYBw&usg=AFQjCNHeaxKkKU3-u54LWxMNYGXaaDLCGw&sig2=8WykXWQoDKjDSdGtAakH2Q&bvm=bv.44442042,d.Yms.

0.026955105 = product of:
  0.05391021 = sum of:
    0.05391021 = product of:
      0.10782042 = sum of:
        0.10782042 = weight(_text_:language in 4687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10782042 = score(doc=4687,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.5308861 = fieldWeight in 4687, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4687)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.026684195 = product of:
  0.05336839 = sum of:
    0.05336839 = product of:
      0.10673678 = sum of:
        0.10673678 = weight(_text_:language in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10673678 = score(doc=3060,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.5255505 = fieldWeight in 3060, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3060)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The OWL 2 Web Ontology Language, informally OWL 2, is an ontology language for the Semantic Web with formally defined meaning. OWL 2 ontologies provide classes, properties, individuals, and data values and are stored as Semantic Web documents. OWL 2 ontologies can be used along with information written in RDF, and OWL 2 ontologies themselves are primarily exchanged as RDF documents. This document serves as an introduction to OWL 2 and the various other OWL 2 documents. It describes the syntaxes for OWL 2, the different kinds of semantics, the available profiles (sub-languages), and the relationship between OWL 1 and OWL 2.

0.026684195 = product of:
  0.05336839 = sum of:
    0.05336839 = product of:
      0.10673678 = sum of:
        0.10673678 = weight(_text_:language in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10673678 = score(doc=4695,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.5255505 = fieldWeight in 4695, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4695)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is the standard knowledge representation language for the Semantic Web, an evolution of the World Wide Web that aims to provide a well-founded infrastructure for publishing, sharing and querying structured data. This entry provides an introduction to RDF and its related vocabulary definition language RDF Schema, and explains its relationship with the OWL Web Ontology Language. Finally, it provides an overview of the historical development of RDF and related languages for Web metadata.

0.02618937 = product of:
  0.05237874 = sum of:
    0.05237874 = sum of:
      0.02200875 = weight(_text_:language in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02200875 = score(doc=150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.108366676 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
      0.03036999 = weight(_text_:22 in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03036999 = score(doc=150,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.16753313 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Classification

006.7 22

Date

7. 3.2007 19:30:22

DDC

006.7 22

Footnote

The final part of the book discusses research in multimedia content management systems and the semantic web, and presents examples and applications for semantic multimedia analysis in search and retrieval systems. These chapters describe example systems in which current projects have been implemented, and include extensive results and real demonstrations. For example, real case scenarios such as ECommerce medical applications and Web services have been introduced. Topics in natural language, speech and image processing techniques and their application for multimedia indexing, and content-based retrieval have been elaborated upon with extensive examples and deployment methods. The editors of the book themselves provide the readers with a chapter about their latest research results on knowledge-based multimedia content indexing and retrieval. Some interesting applications for multimedia content and the semantic web are introduced. Applications that have taken advantage of the metadata provided by MPEG7 in order to realize advance-access services for multimedia content have been provided. The applications discussed in the third part of the book provide useful guidance to researchers and practitioners properly planning to implement semantic multimedia analysis techniques in new research and development projects in both academia and industry. A fourth part should be added to this book: performance measurements for integrated approaches of multimedia analysis and the semantic web. Performance of the semantic approach is a very sophisticated issue and requires extensive elaboration and effort. Measuring the semantic search is an ongoing research area; several chapters concerning performance measurement and analysis would be required to adequately cover this area and introduce it to readers."

0.02490006 = product of:
  0.04980012 = sum of:
    0.04980012 = product of:
      0.09960024 = sum of:
        0.09960024 = weight(_text_:language in 3057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09960024 = score(doc=3057,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.4904116 = fieldWeight in 3057, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3057)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a general-purpose language for representing information in the Web. This specification describes how to use RDF to describe RDF vocabularies. This specification defines a vocabulary for this purpose and defines other built-in RDF vocabulary initially specified in the RDF Model and Syntax Specification.

0.02490006 = product of:
  0.04980012 = sum of:
    0.04980012 = product of:
      0.09960024 = sum of:
        0.09960024 = weight(_text_:language in 3064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09960024 = score(doc=3064,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.4904116 = fieldWeight in 3064, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.02490006 = product of:
  0.04980012 = sum of:
    0.04980012 = product of:
      0.09960024 = sum of:
        0.09960024 = weight(_text_:language in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09960024 = score(doc=4686,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.4904116 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.024547769 = product of:
  0.049095538 = sum of:
    0.049095538 = product of:
      0.098191075 = sum of:
        0.098191075 = weight(_text_:22 in 4643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098191075 = score(doc=4643,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.02200875 = product of:
  0.0440175 = sum of:
    0.0440175 = product of:
      0.088035 = sum of:
        0.088035 = weight(_text_:language in 1889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.088035 = score(doc=1889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.4334667 = fieldWeight in 1889, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

OWL = Web Ontology Language (Nachfolger von OIL)

0.021040944 = product of:
  0.04208189 = sum of:
    0.04208189 = product of:
      0.08416378 = sum of:
        0.08416378 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08416378 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = 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(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.021040944 = product of:
  0.04208189 = sum of:
    0.04208189 = product of:
      0.08416378 = sum of:
        0.08416378 = weight(_text_:22 in 100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08416378 = score(doc=100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.01906014 = product of:
  0.03812028 = sum of:
    0.03812028 = product of:
      0.07624056 = sum of:
        0.07624056 = weight(_text_:language in 3244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07624056 = score(doc=3244,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.3753932 = fieldWeight in 3244, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This chapter discusses OIL and DAML1OIL, currently the most prominent ontology languages for the Semantic Web. The chapter starts by discussing the pyramid of languages that underlie the architecture of the Semantic Web (XML, RDF, RDFS). In section 2.2, we briefly describe XML, RDF and RDFS. We then discuss in more detail OIL and DAML1OIL, the first proposals for languages at the ontology layer of the semantic pyramid. For OIL (and to some extent DAML1OIL) we discuss the general design motivations (Section 2.3), describe the constructions in the language (Section 2.4), and the various syntactic forms of these languages (Section 2.5). Section 2.6 discusses the layered architecture of the language, section 2.7 briefly mentions the formal semantics, section 2.8 discusses the transition from OIL to DAML+OIL, and section 2.9 concludes with our experience with the language to date and future development in the context of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). This chapter is not intended to give full and formal definitions of either the syntax or the semantics of OIL or DAML1OIL. Such definitions are already available elsewhere: http://www.ontoknowledge.org/oil/ for OIL and http://www.w3.org/submission/2001/12/ for DAML1OIL.

0.01906014 = product of:
  0.03812028 = sum of:
    0.03812028 = product of:
      0.07624056 = sum of:
        0.07624056 = weight(_text_:language in 430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07624056 = score(doc=430,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.3753932 = fieldWeight in 430, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=430)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the advance of the semantic Web, increasing amounts of data are available in a structured and machine-understandable form. This opens opportunities for users to employ semantic queries instead of simple keyword-based ones to accurately express the information need. However, constructing semantic queries is a demanding task for human users [11]. To compose a valid semantic query, a user has to (1) master a query language (e.g., SPARQL) and (2) acquire sufficient knowledge about the ontology or the schema of the data source. While there are systems which support this task with visual tools [21, 26] or natural language interfaces [3, 13, 14, 18], the process of query construction can still be complex and time consuming. According to [24], users prefer keyword search, and struggle with the construction of semantic queries although being supported with a natural language interface. Several keyword search approaches have already been proposed to ease information seeking on semantic data [16, 32, 35] or databases [1, 31]. However, keyword queries lack the expressivity to precisely describe the user's intent. As a result, ranking can at best put query intentions of the majority on top, making it impossible to take the intentions of all users into consideration.