Search (40 results, page 1 of 2)

0.019636784 = product of:
  0.039273567 = sum of:
    0.039273567 = product of:
      0.05891035 = sum of:
        0.009313605 = weight(_text_:a in 541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009313605 = score(doc=541,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 541, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=541)
        0.049596746 = weight(_text_:22 in 541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049596746 = score(doc=541,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 541, 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=541)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this presentation, we therefore focus on a solution for providing uniform access to Digital Libraries and other online services. In order to enable uniform query access to heterogeneous sources, we must provide metadata interoperability in a way that a query language - in this case SPARQL - can cope with the incompatibility of the metadata in various sources without changing their already existing information models.

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:46

0.017602425 = product of:
  0.03520485 = sum of:
    0.03520485 = product of:
      0.05280727 = sum of:
        0.009410121 = weight(_text_:a in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009410121 = score(doc=759,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
        0.04339715 = weight(_text_:22 in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04339715 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  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

Type

a

0.01374349 = product of:
  0.02748698 = sum of:
    0.02748698 = product of:
      0.04123047 = sum of:
        0.004032909 = weight(_text_:a in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004032909 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 4820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4820)
        0.03719756 = weight(_text_:22 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03719756 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3.12.2016 18:39:22

Type

a

0.013693414 = product of:
  0.027386827 = sum of:
    0.027386827 = product of:
      0.04108024 = sum of:
        0.010082272 = weight(_text_:a in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010082272 = score(doc=3628,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 3628, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3628)
        0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030997967 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3628, 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=3628)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose: To develop a prototype middleware framework between different terminology resources in order to provide a subject cross-browsing service for library portal systems. Design/methodology/approach: Nine terminology experts were interviewed to collect appropriate knowledge to support the development of a theoretical framework for the research. Based on this, a simplified software-based prototype system was constructed incorporating the knowledge acquired. The prototype involved mappings between the computer science schedule of the Dewey Decimal Classification (which acted as a spine) and two controlled vocabularies UKAT and ACM Computing Classification. Subsequently, six further experts in the field were invited to evaluate the prototype system and provide feedback to improve the framework. Findings: The major findings showed that given the large variety of terminology resources distributed on the web, the proposed middleware service is essential to integrate technically and semantically the different terminology resources in order to facilitate subject cross-browsing. A set of recommendations are also made outlining the important approaches and features that support such a cross browsing middleware service.

Content

This paper is a pre-print version presented at the ISKO UK 2009 conference, 22-23 June, prior to peer review and editing. For published proceedings see special issue of Aslib Proceedings journal.

0.012399187 = product of:
  0.024798375 = sum of:
    0.024798375 = product of:
      0.07439512 = sum of:
        0.07439512 = weight(_text_:22 in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07439512 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 126, 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=126)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.010332656 = product of:
  0.020665312 = sum of:
    0.020665312 = product of:
      0.061995935 = sum of:
        0.061995935 = weight(_text_:22 in 1287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061995935 = score(doc=1287,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1287, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1287)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.008849675 = product of:
  0.01769935 = sum of:
    0.01769935 = product of:
      0.026549023 = sum of:
        0.0047050603 = weight(_text_:a in 59) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047050603 = score(doc=59,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 59, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=59)
        0.021843962 = weight(_text_:h in 59) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021843962 = score(doc=59,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 59, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=59)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des 96. Deutscher Bibliothekartag, Leipzig, 2007. - Vgl. auch den Bericht: Fiala, S.: Deutscher Bibliothekartag Leipzig 2007: Sacherschließung - Informationsdienstleistung. In: Mitt. VOEB 60(2007) H.2, S.44-48.

0.008266125 = product of:
  0.01653225 = sum of:
    0.01653225 = product of:
      0.049596746 = sum of:
        0.049596746 = weight(_text_:22 in 7411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049596746 = score(doc=7411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7411, 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=7411)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7.11.2008 10:40:22

0.008266125 = product of:
  0.01653225 = sum of:
    0.01653225 = product of:
      0.049596746 = sum of:
        0.049596746 = weight(_text_:22 in 2227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049596746 = score(doc=2227,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2227, 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=2227)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7.11.2008 10:40:22

0.007232859 = product of:
  0.014465718 = sum of:
    0.014465718 = product of:
      0.04339715 = sum of:
        0.04339715 = weight(_text_:22 in 540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04339715 = score(doc=540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 540, 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=540)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:27

0.0069676405 = product of:
  0.013935281 = sum of:
    0.013935281 = product of:
      0.02090292 = sum of:
        0.00998094 = weight(_text_:a in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00998094 = score(doc=553,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.18917176 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
        0.010921981 = weight(_text_:h in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010921981 = score(doc=553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.096073404 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Currently, a number of efforts are being carried out to integrate collections from different institutions and containing heterogeneous material. Examples of such projects are The European Library [1] and the Memory of the Netherlands [2]. A crucial point for the success of these is the availability to provide a unified access on top of the different collections, e.g. using one single vocabulary for querying or browsing the objects they contain. This is made difficult by the fact that the objects from different collections are often described using different vocabularies - thesauri, classification schemes - and are therefore not interoperable at the semantic level. To solve this problem, one can turn to semantic links - mappings - between the elements of the different vocabularies. If one knows that a concept C from a vocabulary V is semantically equivalent to a concept to a concept D from vocabulary W, then an appropriate search engine can return all the objects that were indexed against D for a query for objects described using C. We thus have an access to other collections, using a single one vocabulary. This is however an ideal situation, and hard alignment work is required to reach it. Several projects in the past have tried to implement such a solution, like MACS [3] and Renardus [4]. They have demonstrated very interesting results, but also highlighted the difficulty of aligning manually all the different vocabularies involved in practical cases, which sometimes contain hundreds of thousands of concepts. To alleviate this problem, a number of tools have been proposed in order to provide with candidate mappings between two input vocabularies, making alignment a (semi-) automatic task. Recently, the Semantic Web community has produced a lot of these alignment tools'. Several techniques are found, depending on the material they exploit: labels of concepts, structure of vocabularies, collection objects and external knowledge sources. Throughout our presentation, we will present a concrete heterogeneity case where alignment techniques have been applied to build a (pilot) browser, developed in the context of the STITCH project [5]. This browser enables a unified access to two collections of illuminated manuscripts, using the description vocabulary used in the first collection, Mandragore [6], or the one used by the second, Iconclass [7]. In our talk, we will also make the point for using unified representations the vocabulary semantic and lexical information. Additionally to ease the use of the alignment tools that have these vocabularies as input, turning to a standard representation format helps designing applications that are more generic, like the browser we demonstrate. We give pointers to SKOS [8], an open and web-enabled format currently developed by the Semantic Web community.
References [1] http:// www.theeuropeanlibrary.org [2] http://www.geheugenvannederland.nl [3] http://macs.cenl.org [4] Day, M., Koch, T., Neuroth, H.: Searching and browsing multiple subject gateways in the Renardus service. In Proceedings of the RC33 Sixth International Conference on Social Science Methodology, Amsterdam , 2005. [5] http://stitch.cs.vu.nl [6] http://mandragore.bnf.fr [7] http://www.iconclass.nl [8] www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/ 1 The Semantic Web vision supposes sharing data using different conceptualizations (ontologies), and therefore implies to tackle the semantic interoperability problem

0.006849361 = product of:
  0.013698722 = sum of:
    0.013698722 = product of:
      0.020548083 = sum of:
        0.008065818 = weight(_text_:a in 172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008065818 = score(doc=172,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 172, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=172)
        0.012482265 = weight(_text_:h in 172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012482265 = score(doc=172,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 172, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=172)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this document we provide an overall view of the state of the art in ontology alignment. It is organised as a description of the need for ontology alignment, a presentation of the techniques currently in use for ontology alignment and a presentation of existing systems. The state of the art is not restricted to any discipline and consider as some form of ontology alignment the work made on schema matching within the database area for instance. Heterogeneity problems on the semantic web can be solved, for some of them, by aligning heterogeneous ontologies. This is illustrated through a number of use cases of ontology alignment. Aligning ontologies consists of providing the corresponding entities in these ontologies. This process is precisely defined in deliverable D2.2.1. The current deliverable presents the many techniques currently used for implementing this process. These techniques are classified along the many features that can be found in ontologies (labels, structures, instances, semantics). They resort to many different disciplines such as statistics, machine learning or data analysis. The alignment itself is obtained by combining these techniques towards a particular goal (obtaining an alignment with particular features, optimising some criterion). Several combination techniques are also presented. Finally, these techniques have been experimented in various systems for ontology alignment or schema matching. Several such systems are presented briefly in the last section and characterized by the above techniques they rely on. The conclusion is that many techniques are available for achieving ontology alignment and many systems have been developed based on these techniques. However, few comparisons and few integration is actually provided by these implementations. This deliverable serves as a basis for considering further action along these two lines. It provide a first inventory of what should be evaluated and suggests what evaluation criterion can be used.

Content

This document is part of a research project funded by the IST Programme of the Commission of the European Communities as project number IST-2004-507482.

0.0041607553 = product of:
  0.008321511 = sum of:
    0.008321511 = product of:
      0.02496453 = sum of:
        0.02496453 = weight(_text_:h in 4256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02496453 = score(doc=4256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.21959636 = fieldWeight in 4256, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4256)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0020803777 = product of:
  0.0041607553 = sum of:
    0.0041607553 = product of:
      0.012482265 = sum of:
        0.012482265 = weight(_text_:h in 588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012482265 = score(doc=588,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 588, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=588)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des 96. Deutscher Bibliothekartag, Leipzig, 2007. - Vgl. auch den Bericht: Fiala, S.: Deutscher Bibliothekartag Leipzig 2007: Sacherschließung - Informationsdienstleistung. In: Mitt. VOEB 60(2007) H.2, S.44-48 (hier: 45-46).

0.0016464281 = product of:
  0.0032928563 = sum of:
    0.0032928563 = product of:
      0.009878568 = sum of:
        0.009878568 = weight(_text_:a in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009878568 = score(doc=918,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper describes a project to add value to controlled vocabularies by making inter-vocabulary associations. A methodology for mapping terms from one vocabulary to another is presented in the form of a case study applying the approach to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Thesaurus and the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). Our approach to mapping involves encoding vocabularies according to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) standards, machine matching of vocabulary terms, and categorizing candidate mappings by likelihood of valid mapping. Mapping data is then stored as machine links. Vocabularies with associations to other schemes will be a key component of Web-based terminology services. The paper briefly describes how the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) is used to provide access to a vocabulary with mappings.

0.0016464281 = product of:
  0.0032928563 = sum of:
    0.0032928563 = product of:
      0.009878568 = sum of:
        0.009878568 = weight(_text_:a in 2740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009878568 = score(doc=2740,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2740, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2740)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With a first version developed last year, the Ontology of Interoperability (OoI) aims at formally describing concepts relating to problems and solutions in the domain of interoperability. From the beginning, the OoI has its foundations in the systemic theory and addresses interoperability from the general point of view of a system, whether it is composed by other systems (systems-of-systems) or not. In this paper, we present the last OoI focusing on the systemic approach. We then integrate a classification of interoperability knowledge provided by the Framework for Enterprise Interoperability. This way, we contextualize the OoI with a specific vocabulary to the enterprise domain, where solutions to interoperability problems are characterized according to interoperability approaches defined in the ISO 14258 and both solutions and problems can be localized into enterprises levels and characterized by interoperability levels, as defined in the European Interoperability Framework.

Type

a

0.0016166216 = product of:
  0.0032332432 = sum of:
    0.0032332432 = product of:
      0.009699729 = sum of:
        0.009699729 = weight(_text_:a in 542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009699729 = score(doc=542,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.1838419 = fieldWeight in 542, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=542)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 2004, the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research funded a major terminology mapping initiative at the GESIS Social Science Information Centre in Bonn (GESIS-IZ), which will find its conclusion this year. The task of this terminology mapping initiative was to organize, create and manage 'crossconcordances' between major controlled vocabularies (thesauri, classification systems, subject heading lists) centred around the social sciences but quickly extending to other subject areas. Cross-concordances are intellectually (manually) created crosswalks that determine equivalence, hierarchy, and association relations between terms from two controlled vocabularies. Most vocabularies have been related bilaterally, that is, there is a cross-concordance relating terms from vocabulary A to vocabulary B as well as a cross-concordance relating terms from vocabulary B to vocabulary A (bilateral relations are not necessarily symmetrical). Till August 2007, 24 controlled vocabularies from 11 disciplines will be connected with vocabulary sizes ranging from 2,000 - 17,000 terms per vocabulary. To date more than 260,000 relations are generated. A database including all vocabularies and cross-concordances was built and a 'heterogeneity service' developed, a web service, which makes the cross-concordances available for other applications. Many cross-concordances are already implemented and utilized for the German Social Science Information Portal Sowiport (www.sowiport.de), which searches bibliographical and other information resources (incl. 13 databases with 10 different vocabularies and ca. 2.5 million references).
In the final phase of the project, a major evaluation effort is under way to test and measure the effectiveness of the vocabulary mappings in an information system environment. Actual user queries are tested in a distributed search environment, where several bibliographic databases with different controlled vocabularies are searched at the same time. Three query variations are compared to each other: a free-text search without focusing on using the controlled vocabulary or terminology mapping; a controlled vocabulary search, where terms from one vocabulary (a 'home' vocabulary thought to be familiar to the user of a particular database) are used to search all databases; and finally, a search, where controlled vocabulary terms are translated into the terms of the respective controlled vocabulary of the database. For evaluation purposes, types of cross-concordances are distinguished between intradisciplinary vocabularies (vocabularies within the social sciences) and interdisciplinary vocabularies (social sciences to other disciplines as well as other combinations). Simultaneously, an extensive quantitative analysis is conducted aimed at finding patterns in terminology mappings that can explain trends in the effectiveness of terminology mappings, particularly looking at overlapping terms, types of determined relations (equivalence, hierarchy etc.), size of participating vocabularies, etc. This project is the largest terminology mapping effort in Germany. The number and variety of controlled vocabularies targeted provide an optimal basis for insights and further research opportunities. To our knowledge, terminology mapping efforts have rarely been evaluated with stringent qualitative and quantitative measures. This research should contribute in this area. For the NKOS workshop, we plan to present an overview of the project and participating vocabularies, an introduction to the heterogeneity service and its application as well as some of the results and findings of the evaluation, which will be concluded in August.

0.0015842763 = product of:
  0.0031685526 = sum of:
    0.0031685526 = product of:
      0.0095056575 = sum of:
        0.0095056575 = weight(_text_:a in 528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0095056575 = score(doc=528,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 528, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=528)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0015683535 = product of:
  0.003136707 = sum of:
    0.003136707 = product of:
      0.009410121 = sum of:
        0.009410121 = weight(_text_:a in 1574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009410121 = score(doc=1574,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1574, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1574)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0015400925 = product of:
  0.003080185 = sum of:
    0.003080185 = product of:
      0.009240555 = sum of:
        0.009240555 = weight(_text_:a in 2127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009240555 = score(doc=2127,freq=42.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.17513901 = fieldWeight in 2127, product of:
              6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
                42.0 = termFreq=42.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2127)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"When dealing with a large-scale and widely-used knowledge organization system like the Dewey Decimal Classification, we often tend to focus solely on the organization aspect, which is closely intertwined with editorial work. This is perfectly understandable, since developing and updating the DDC, keeping up with current scientific developments, spotting new trends in both scholarly communication and popular publishing, and figuring out how to fit those patterns into the structure of the scheme are as intriguing as they are challenging. From the organization perspective, the intended user of the scheme is mainly the classifier. Dewey acts very much as a number-building engine, providing richly documented concepts to help with classification decisions. Since the Middle Ages, quasi-religious battles have been fought over the "valid" arrangement of places according to specific views of the world, as parodied by Jorge Luis Borges and others. Organizing knowledge has always been primarily an ontological activity; it is about putting the world into the classification. However, there is another side to this coin--the discovery side. While the hierarchical organization of the DDC establishes a default set of places and neighborhoods that is also visible in the physical manifestation of library shelves, this is just one set of relationships in the DDC. A KOS (Knowledge Organization System) becomes powerful by expressing those other relationships in a manner that not only collocates items in a physical place but in a knowledge space, and exposes those other relationships in ways beneficial and congenial to the unique perspective of an information seeker.
What are those "other" relationships that Dewey possesses and that seem so important to surface? Firstly, there is the relationship of concepts to resources. Dewey has been used for a long time, and over 200,000 numbers are assigned to information resources each year and added to WorldCat by the Library of Congress and the German National Library alone. Secondly, we have relationships between concepts in the scheme itself. Dewey provides a rich set of non-hierarchical relations, indicating other relevant and related subjects across disciplinary boundaries. Thirdly, perhaps most importantly, there is the relationship between the same concepts across different languages. Dewey has been translated extensively, and current versions are available in French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Briefer representations of the top-three levels (the DDC Summaries) are available in several languages in the DeweyBrowser. This multilingual nature of the scheme allows searchers to access a broader range of resources or to switch the language of--and thus localize--subject metadata seamlessly. MelvilClass, a Dewey front-end developed by the German National Library for the German translation, could be used as a common interface to the DDC in any language, as it is built upon the standard DDC data format. It is not hard to give an example of the basic terminology of a class pulled together in a multilingual way: <class/794.8> a skos:Concept ; skos:notation "794.8"^^ddc:notation ; skos:prefLabel "Computer games"@en ; skos:prefLabel "Computerspiele"@de ; skos:prefLabel "Jeux sur ordinateur"@fr ; skos:prefLabel "Juegos por computador"@es .
Expressed in such manner, the Dewey number provides a language-independent representation of a Dewey concept, accompanied by language-dependent assertions about the concept. This information, identified by a URI, can be easily consumed by semantic web agents and used in various metadata scenarios. Fourthly, as we have seen, it is important to play well with others, i.e., establishing and maintaining relationships to other KOS and making the scheme available in different formats. As noted in the Dewey blog post "Tags and Dewey," since no single scheme is ever going to be the be-all, end-all solution for knowledge discovery, DDC concepts have been extensively mapped to other vocabularies and taxonomies, sometimes bridging them and acting as a backbone, sometimes using them as additional access vocabulary to be able to do more work "behind the scenes." To enable other applications and schemes to make use of those relationships, the full Dewey database is available in XML format; RDF-based formats and a web service are forthcoming. Pulling those relationships together under a common surface will be the next challenge going forward. In the semantic web community the concept of Linked Data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_Data) currently receives some attention, with its emphasis on exposing and connecting data using technologies like URIs, HTTP and RDF to improve information discovery on the web. With its focus on relationships and discovery, it seems that Dewey will be well prepared to become part of this big linked data set. Now it is about putting the classification back into the world!"