Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Semantische Interoperabilität"
  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Bittner, T.; Donnelly, M.; Winter, S.: Ontology and semantic interoperability (2006) 0.03 
    0.029812116 = product of:
  0.119248465 = sum of:
    0.119248465 = sum of:
      0.08224859 = weight(_text_:software in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08224859 = score(doc=4820,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045514934 = queryNorm
          0.4555077 = fieldWeight in 4820, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4820)
      0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03699987 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045514934 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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. Burstein, M.; McDermott, D.V.: Ontology translation for interoperability among Semantic Web services (2005) 0.00 
    0.0049464838 = product of:
  0.019785935 = sum of:
    0.019785935 = product of:
      0.03957187 = sum of:
        0.03957187 = weight(_text_:software in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03957187 = score(doc=2661,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  3. Dobrev, P.; Kalaydjiev, O.; Angelova, G.: From conceptual structures to semantic interoperability of content (2007) 0.00 
    0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 4607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=4607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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

Types