Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Semantische Interoperabilität"
  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Bittner, T.; Donnelly, M.; Winter, S.: Ontology and semantic interoperability (2006) 0.13 
    0.12973708 = product of:
  0.25947416 = sum of:
    0.25947416 = sum of:
      0.21295255 = weight(_text_:translating in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.21295255 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.4287632 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.4921947 = idf(docFreq=66, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.49666703 = fieldWeight in 4820, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.4921947 = idf(docFreq=66, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4820)
      0.046521608 = weight(_text_:22 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046521608 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20040265 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4820, 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=4820)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    One of the major problems facing systems for Computer Aided Design (CAD), Architecture Engineering and Construction (AEC) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) applications today is the lack of interoperability among the various systems. When integrating software applications, substantial di culties can arise in translating information from one application to the other. In this paper, we focus on semantic di culties that arise in software integration. Applications may use di erent terminologies to describe the same domain. Even when appli-cations use the same terminology, they often associate di erent semantics with the terms. This obstructs information exchange among applications. To cir-cumvent this obstacle, we need some way of explicitly specifying the semantics for each terminology in an unambiguous fashion. Ontologies can provide such specification. It will be the task of this paper to explain what ontologies are and how they can be used to facilitate interoperability between software systems used in computer aided design, architecture engineering and construction, and geographic information processing.
    Date
    3.12.2016 18:39:22
  2. Widhalm, R.; Mueck, T.A.: Merging topics in well-formed XML topic maps (2003) 0.02 
    0.017862065 = product of:
  0.03572413 = sum of:
    0.03572413 = product of:
      0.107172385 = sum of:
        0.107172385 = weight(_text_:objects in 2186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.107172385 = score(doc=2186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.30417082 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057227984 = queryNorm
            0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 2186, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2186)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Topic Maps are a standardized modelling approach for the semantic annotation and description of WWW resources. They enable an improved search and navigational access on information objects stored in semi-structured information spaces like the WWW. However, the according standards ISO 13250 and XTM (XML Topic Maps) lack formal semantics, several questions concerning e.g. subclassing, inheritance or merging of topics are left open. The proposed TMUML meta model, directly derived from the well known UML meta model, is a meta model for Topic Maps which enables semantic constraints to be formulated in OCL (object constraint language) in order to answer such open questions and overcome possible inconsistencies in Topic Map repositories. We will examine the XTM merging conditions and show, in several examples, how the TMUML meta model enables semantic constraints for Topic Map merging to be formulated in OCL. Finally, we will show how the TM validation process, i.e., checking if a Topic Map is well formed, includes our merging conditions.
  3. Dobrev, P.; Kalaydjiev, O.; Angelova, G.: From conceptual structures to semantic interoperability of content (2007) 0.01 
    0.009692002 = product of:
  0.019384004 = sum of:
    0.019384004 = product of:
      0.03876801 = sum of:
        0.03876801 = weight(_text_:22 in 4607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03876801 = score(doc=4607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20040265 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057227984 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4607, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Conceptual structures: knowledge architectures for smart applications: 15th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2007, Sheffield, UK, July 22 - 27, 2007 ; proceedings. Eds.: U. Priss u.a

Authors