-
Schubert, C.; Kinkeldey, C.; Reich, H.: Handbuch Datenbankanwendung zur Wissensrepräsentation im Verbundprojekt DeCOVER (2006)
0.01
0.012300599 = product of:
0.036901798 = sum of:
0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 4256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010096614 = score(doc=4256,freq=4.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 4256, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4256)
0.026805183 = weight(_text_:und in 4256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026805183 = score(doc=4256,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 4256, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4256)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Die Datenbank basierte Objektartenbeschreibung dient zur eigenschaftsbasierten Aufnahme aller Objektarten der Kataloge BNTK, CLC; GMES M 2.1, ATKIS und des DeCOVER Vorschlags. Das Ziel der Datenbankanwendung besteht in der 'manuellen' Beziehungsauswertung und Darstellung der gesamten Objektarten bezogen auf die erstellte Wissensrepräsentation. Anhand einer hierarchisch strukturierten Wissensrepräsentation lassen sich mit Ontologien Überführungen von Objektarten verwirklichen, die im Sinne der semantischen Interoperabilität als Zielstellung in dem Verbundprojekt DeCOVER besteht.
-
Bittner, T.; Donnelly, M.; Winter, S.: Ontology and semantic interoperability (2006)
0.01
0.00990557 = product of:
0.02971671 = sum of:
0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011973113 = score(doc=4820,freq=10.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 4820, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4820)
0.017743597 = product of:
0.035487194 = sum of:
0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035487194 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Hoekstra, R.: BestMap: context-aware SKOS vocabulary mappings in OWL 2 (2009)
0.00
0.0025503114 = product of:
0.015301868 = sum of:
0.015301868 = weight(_text_:in in 1574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015301868 = score(doc=1574,freq=12.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 1574, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1574)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- This paper describes an approach to SKOS vocabulary mapping that takes into account the context in which vocabulary terms are used in annotations. The standard vocabulary mapping properties in SKOS only allow for binary mappings between concepts. In the BestMap ontology, annotated resources are the contexts in which annotations coincide and allow for a more fine grained control over when mappings hold. A mapping between two vocabularies is defined as a class that groups descriptions of a resource. We use the OWL 2 features for property chains, disjoint properties, union, intersection and negation together with careful use of equivalence and subsumption to specify these mappings.
-
Hollink, L.; Assem, M. van; Wang, S.; Isaac, A.; Schreiber, G.: Two variations on ontology alignment evaluation : methodological issues (2008)
0.00
0.0019955188 = product of:
0.011973113 = sum of:
0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 4645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011973113 = score(doc=4645,freq=10.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 4645, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4645)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Evaluation of ontology alignments is in practice done in two ways: (1) assessing individual correspondences and (2) comparing the alignment to a reference alignment. However, this type of evaluation does not guarantee that an application which uses the alignment will perform well. In this paper, we contribute to the current ontology alignment evaluation practices by proposing two alternative evaluation methods that take into account some characteristics of a usage scenario without doing a full-fledged end-to-end evaluation. We compare different evaluation approaches in three case studies, focussing on methodological issues. Each case study considers an alignment between a different pair of ontologies, ranging from rich and well-structured to small and poorly structured. This enables us to conclude on the use of different evaluation approaches in different settings.
-
Krötzsch, M.; Hitzler, P.; Ehrig, M.; Sure, Y.: Category theory in ontology research : concrete gain from an abstract approach (2004 (?))
0.00
0.0012620769 = product of:
0.0075724614 = sum of:
0.0075724614 = weight(_text_:in in 4538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0075724614 = score(doc=4538,freq=4.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 4538, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4538)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- The focus of research on representing and reasoning with knowledge traditionally has been on single specifications and appropriate inference paradigms to draw conclusions from such data. Accordingly, this is also an essential aspect of ontology research which has received much attention in recent years. But ontologies introduce another new challenge based on the distributed nature of most of their applications, which requires to relate heterogeneous ontological specifications and to integrate information from multiple sources. These problems have of course been recognized, but many current approaches still lack the deep formal backgrounds on which todays reasoning paradigms are already founded. Here we propose category theory as a well-explored and very extensive mathematical foundation for modelling distributed knowledge. A particular prospect is to derive conclusions from the structure of those distributed knowledge bases, as it is for example needed when merging ontologies
