Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Semantische Interoperabilität"
  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Sigel, A.: Wissensorganisation, Topic Maps und Ontology Engineering : Die Verbindung bewährter Begriffsstrukturen mit aktueller XML Technologie (2004) 0.02 
    0.01721226 = product of:
  0.05163678 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 3236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=3236,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 3236, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3236)
    0.04271255 = weight(_text_:und in 3236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04271255 = score(doc=3236,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.441457 = fieldWeight in 3236, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3236)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Wie können begriffliche Strukturen an Topic Maps angebunden werden? Allgemeiner. Wie kann die Wissensorganisation dazu beitragen, dass im Semantic Web eine begriffsbasierte Infrastruktur verfügbar ist? Dieser Frage hat sich die Wissensorganisation bislang noch nicht wirklich angenommen. Insgesamt ist die Berührung zwischen semantischen Wissenstechnologien und wissensorganisatorischen Fragestellungen noch sehr gering, obwohl Begriffsstrukturen, Ontologien und Topic Maps grundsätzlich gut zusammenpassen und ihre gemeinsame Betrachtung Erkenntnisse für zentrale wissensorganisatorische Fragestellungen wie z.B. semantische Interoperabilität und semantisches Retrieval erwarten lässt. Daher motiviert und skizziert dieser Beitrag die Grundidee, nach der es möglich sein müsste, eine Sprache zur Darstellung von Begriffsstrukturen in der Wissensorganisation geeignet mit Topic Maps zu verbinden. Eine genauere Untersuchung und Implementation stehen allerdings weiterhin aus. Speziell wird vermutet, dass sich der Concepto zugrunde liegende Formalismus CLF (Concept Language Formalism) mit Topic Maps vorteilhaft abbilden lässt 3 Damit können Begriffs- und Themennetze realisiert werden, die auf expliziten Begriffssystemen beruhen. Seitens der Wissensorganisation besteht die Notwendigkeit, sich mit aktuellen Entwicklungen auf dem Gebiet des Semantic Web und ontology engineering vertraut zu machen, aber auch die eigene Kompetenz stärker aktiv in diese Gebiete einzubringen. Damit dies geschehen kann, führt dieser Beitrag zum besseren Verständnis zunächst aus Sicht der Wissensorganisation knapp in Ontologien und Topic Maps ein und diskutiert wichtige Überschneidungsbereiche.
    Series
    Fortschritte in der Wissensorganisation; Bd.7
    Source
    Wissensorganisation und Edutainment: Wissen im Spannungsfeld von Gesellschaft, Gestaltung und Industrie. Proceedings der 7. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Berlin, 21.-23.3.2001. Hrsg.: C. Lehner, H.P. Ohly u. G. Rahmstorf
  2. Semenova, E.; Stricker, M.: ¬Eine Ontologie der Wissenschaftsdisziplinen : Entwicklung eines Instrumentariums für die Wissenskommunikation (2007) 0.02 
    0.015172194 = product of:
  0.04551658 = sum of:
    0.009977593 = weight(_text_:in in 1889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009977593 = score(doc=1889,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 1889, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1889)
    0.035538986 = weight(_text_:und in 1889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035538986 = score(doc=1889,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.3673144 = fieldWeight in 1889, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1889)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Interdisziplinarität als Kennzeichen des modernen Wissenschaftslebens setzt in Forschung und Lehre eine effiziente Wissenschaftskommunikation voraus, bei der sich die Partner über eine gemeinsame Sprache verständigen können. Klassifikationen und Thesauri übernehmen dabei eine wichtige Rolle. Zu beobachten ist, dass vorhandene Instrumente in ihrem Gefüge zu inflexibel sind, um die komplex ineinander verwobenen Felder der Wissenschaft in ihrer dynamischen Entwicklung adäquat abzubilden, zur (Selbst-)Verständigung über das Wesen und Struktur der Wissenschaftslandschaft sowie zum erfolgreichen Wissensaustausch beizutragen. Ontologien erschließen neue Wege zur Lösung dieser Aufgaben. In einigen Einzelwissenschaften und Teilgebieten ist diesbezüglich eine rege Tätigkeit zu beobachten, es fehlt allerdings noch ein fachübergreifendes Instrumentarium. Im Vortrag wird das von der DFG geförderte Projekt "Entwicklung einer Ontologie der Wissenschaftsdisziplinen" vorgestellt. Es gilt, die oben beschriebene Lücke zu schließen und eine umfassende Ontologie für Erschließung, Recherche und Datenaustausch bei der Wissenschaftskommunikation zu erstellen. Diese Ontologie soll dazu beitragen, eine effiziente Wissenskommunikation, besonders bei interdisziplinären Projekten, zu unterstützen, verfügbare Ressourcen auffindbar zu machen und mögliche Knotenstellen künftiger Kooperationen zu verdeutlichen. Ausgehend von der Kritik an vorhandenen Instrumenten wird derzeit ein Begriffsmodell für die Beschreibung von Wissenschaftsdisziplinen, ihrer zentralen Facetten sowie ihrer interdisziplinären Beziehungen untereinander entwickelt. Das Modell, inspiriert vom Topic Maps Paradigma, basiert auf einer überschaubaren Menge zentraler Konzepte sowie prinzipiell inverser Beziehungen. Eine entsprechende Ontologie wird in unterschiedlichen (technischen) Beschreibungsformaten formuliert werden können. Dies bildet den Grundstein für den Fokus des Projekts, flexible, verteilte, benutzer- wie pflegefreundliche technische Umsetzungen zu entwickeln und mit Kooperationspartnern zu implementieren.
    Source
    Wissenschaftskommunikation der Zukunft (WissKom 2007) : 4. Konferenz der Zentralbibliothek Forschungszentrum Jülich : 6. - 8. November 2007 ; Beiträge und Poster / [WissKom 2007]. Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Zentralbibliothek. Rafael Ball (Hrsg.). [Mit einem Festvortrag von Ernst Pöppel]
  3. Ehrig, M.; Studer, R.: Wissensvernetzung durch Ontologien (2006) 0.01 
    0.013036655 = product of:
  0.039109964 = sum of:
    0.012620768 = weight(_text_:in in 5901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012620768 = score(doc=5901,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 5901, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5901)
    0.026489196 = weight(_text_:und in 5901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026489196 = score(doc=5901,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.27378 = fieldWeight in 5901, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5901)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    In der Informatik sind Ontologien formale Modelle eines Anwendungsbereiches, die die Kommunikation zwischen menschlichen und/oder maschinellen Akteuren unterstützen und damit den Austausch und das Teilen von Wissen in Unternehmen erleichtern. Ontologien zur strukturierten Darstellung von Wissen zu nutzen hat deshalb in den letzten Jahren zunehmende Verbreitung gefunden. Schon heute existieren weltweit tausende Ontologien. Um Interoperabilität zwischen darauf aufbauenden Softwareagenten oder Webservices zu ermöglichen, ist die semantische Integration der Ontologien eine zwingendnotwendige Vorraussetzung. Wie man sieh leicht verdeutlichen kann, ist die rein manuelle Erstellung der Abbildungen ab einer bestimmten Größe. Komplexität und Veränderungsrate der Ontologien nicht mehr ohne weiteres möglich. Automatische oder semiautomatische Technologien müssen den Nutzer darin unterstützen. Das Integrationsproblem beschäftigt Forschung und Industrie schon seit vielen Jahren z. B. im Bereich der Datenbankintegration. Neu ist jedoch die Möglichkeit komplexe semantische Informationen. wie sie in Ontologien vorhanden sind, einzubeziehen. Zur Ontologieintegration wird in diesem Kapitel ein sechsstufiger genereller Prozess basierend auf den semantischen Strukturen eingeführt. Erweiterungen beschäftigen sich mit der Effizienz oder der optimalen Nutzereinbindung in diesen Prozess. Außerdem werden zwei Anwendungen vorgestellt, in denen dieser Prozess erfolgreich umgesetzt wurde. In einem abschließenden Fazit werden neue aktuelle Trends angesprochen. Da die Ansätze prinzipiell auf jedes Schema übertragbar sind, das eine semantische Basis enthält, geht der Einsatzbereich dieser Forschung weit über reine Ontologieanwendungen hinaus.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. Dobrev, P.; Kalaydjiev, O.; Angelova, G.: From conceptual structures to semantic interoperability of content (2007) 0.01 
    0.007504981 = product of:
  0.022514943 = sum of:
    0.007728611 = weight(_text_:in in 4607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007728611 = score(doc=4607,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 4607, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4607)
    0.014786332 = product of:
      0.029572664 = sum of:
        0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 4607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029572664 = score(doc=4607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Smart applications behave intelligently because they understand at least partially the context where they operate. To do this, they need not only a formal domain model but also formal descriptions of the data they process and their own operational behaviour. Interoperability of smart applications is based on formalised definitions of all their data and processes. This paper studies the semantic interoperability of data in the case of eLearning and describes an experiment and its assessment. New content is imported into a knowledge-based learning environment without real updates of the original domain model, which is encoded as a knowledge base of conceptual graphs. A component called mediator enables the import by assigning dummy metadata annotations for the imported items. However, some functionality of the original system is lost, when processing the imported content, due to the lack of proper metadata annotation which cannot be associated fully automatically. So the paper presents an interoperability scenario when appropriate content items are viewed from the perspective of the original world and can be (partially) reused there.
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science: Lecture notes in artificial intelligence ; 4604
    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
  7. 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.
  8. Widhalm, R.; Mueck, T.A.: Merging topics in well-formed XML topic maps (2003) 0.00 
    0.0025241538 = product of:
  0.015144923 = sum of:
    0.015144923 = weight(_text_:in in 2186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015144923 = score(doc=2186,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 2186, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2186)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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.
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; vol. 2870
  9. Koutsomitropoulos, D.A.; Solomou, G.D.; Alexopoulos, A.D.; Papatheodorou, T.S.: Semantic metadata interoperability and inference-based querying in digital repositories (2009) 0.00 
    0.0023611297 = product of:
  0.014166778 = sum of:
    0.014166778 = weight(_text_:in in 3731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014166778 = score(doc=3731,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 3731, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3731)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Metadata applications have evolved in time into highly structured "islands of information" about digital resources, often bearing a strong semantic interpretation. Scarcely however are these semantics being communicated in machine readable and understandable ways. At the same time, the process for transforming the implied metadata knowledge into explicit Semantic Web descriptions can be problematic and is not always evident. In this article we take upon the well-established Dublin Core metadata standard as well as other metadata schemata, which often appear in digital repositories set-ups, and suggest a proper Semantic Web OWL ontology. In this process the authors cope with discrepancies and incompatibilities, indicative of such attempts, in novel ways. Moreover, we show the potential and necessity of this approach by demonstrating inferences on the resulting ontology, instantiated with actual metadata records. The authors conclude by presenting a working prototype that provides for inference-based querying on top of digital repositories.
  10. 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.
  11. Burstein, M.; McDermott, D.V.: Ontology translation for interoperability among Semantic Web services (2005) 0.00 
    0.001821651 = product of:
  0.010929906 = sum of:
    0.010929906 = weight(_text_:in in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010929906 = score(doc=2661,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Research on semantic web services promises greater interoperability among software agents and web services by enabling content-based automated service discovery and interaction and by utilizing. Although this is to be based on use of shared ontologies published on the semantic web, services produced and described by different developers may well use different, perhaps partly overlapping, sets of ontologies. Interoperability will depend on ontology mappings and architectures supporting the associated translation processes. The question we ask is, does the traditional approach of introducing mediator agents to translate messages between requestors and services work in such an open environment? This article reviews some of the processing assumptions that were made in the development of the semantic web service modeling ontology OWL-S and argues that, as a practical matter, the translation function cannot always be isolated in mediators. Ontology mappings need to be published on the semantic web just as ontologies themselves are. The translation for service discovery, service process model interpretation, task negotiation, service invocation, and response interpretation may then be distributed to various places in the architecture so that translation can be done in the specific goal-oriented informational contexts of the agents performing these processes. We present arguments for assigning translation responsibility to particular agents in the cases of service invocation, response translation, and match- making.
  12. Bean, C.A.: Hierarchical relationships used in mapping between knowledge structures (2006) 0.00 
    0.0018033426 = product of:
  0.010820055 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 5866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=5866,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 5866, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5866)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    User-designated Broader-Narrower Term pairs were analyzed to better characterize the nature and structure of the relationships between the pair members, previously determined by experts to be hierarchical in nature. Semantic analysis revealed that almost three-quarters (72%) of the term pairs were characterized as is-a (-kind-of) relationships and the rest (28%) as part-whole relationships. Four basic patterns of syntactic specification were observed. Implications of the findings for mapping strategies are discussed.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.10
  13. 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
  14. Panzer, M.; Zeng, M.L.: Modeling classification systems in SKOS : Some challenges and best-practice (2009) 0.00 
    0.0010411602 = product of:
  0.006246961 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 3717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=3717,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 3717, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3717)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Authors

Languages

Types