Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Semantische Interoperabilität"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Heflin, J.; Hendler, J.: Semantic interoperability on the Web (2000) 0.01 
    0.005969343 = product of:
  0.029846713 = sum of:
    0.020148862 = product of:
      0.060446583 = sum of:
        0.060446583 = weight(_text_:problem in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060446583 = score(doc=759,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.46424055 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.009697851 = product of:
      0.029093552 = sum of:
        0.029093552 = weight(_text_:22 in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029093552 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    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
  2. Faro, S.; Francesconi, E.; Marinai, E.; Sandrucci, V.: Report on execution and results of the interoperability tests (2008) 0.01 
    0.0054731998 = product of:
  0.027365997 = sum of:
    0.016282737 = product of:
      0.04884821 = sum of:
        0.04884821 = weight(_text_:problem in 7411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04884821 = score(doc=7411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.375163 = fieldWeight in 7411, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7411)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.011083259 = product of:
      0.033249777 = sum of:
        0.033249777 = weight(_text_:22 in 7411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033249777 = score(doc=7411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    - Formal characterization given to the thesaurus mapping problem - Interopearbility workflow - - Thesauri SKOS Core transformation - - Thesaurus Mapping algorithms implementation - The "gold standard" data set and the THALEN application - Thesaurus interoperability assessment measures - Experimental results
    Date
    7.11.2008 10:40:22
  3. Faro, S.; Francesconi, E.; Sandrucci, V.: Thesauri KOS analysis and selected thesaurus mapping methodology on the project case-study (2007) 0.01 
    0.0054731998 = product of:
  0.027365997 = sum of:
    0.016282737 = product of:
      0.04884821 = sum of:
        0.04884821 = weight(_text_:problem in 2227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04884821 = score(doc=2227,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.375163 = fieldWeight in 2227, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2227)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.011083259 = product of:
      0.033249777 = sum of:
        0.033249777 = weight(_text_:22 in 2227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033249777 = score(doc=2227,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    - Introduction to the Thesaurus Interoperability problem - Analysis of the thesauri for the project case study - Overview of Schema/Ontology Mapping methodologies - The proposed approach for thesaurus mapping - Standards for implementing the proposed methodology
    Date
    7.11.2008 10:40:22
  4. Wake, S.; Nicholson, D.: HILT: High-Level Thesaurus Project : building consensus for interoperable subject access across communities (2001) 0.00 
    0.0024424107 = product of:
  0.024424106 = sum of:
    0.024424106 = product of:
      0.07327232 = sum of:
        0.07327232 = weight(_text_:problem in 1224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07327232 = score(doc=1224,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.5627445 = fieldWeight in 1224, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1224)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    This article provides an overview of the work carried out by the HILT Project <http://hilt.cdlr.strath.ac.uk> in making recommendations towards interoperable subject access, or cross-searching and browsing distributed services amongst the archives, libraries, museums and electronic services sectors. The article details consensus achieved at the 19 June 2001 HILT Workshop and discusses the HILT Stakeholder Survey. In 1999 Péter Jascó wrote that "savvy searchers" are asking for direction. Three years later the scenario he describes, that of searchers cross-searching databases where the subject vocabulary used in each case is different, still rings true. Jascó states that, in many cases, databases do not offer the necessary aids required to use the "preferred terms of the subject-controlled vocabulary". The databases to which Jascó refers are Dialog and DataStar. However, the situation he describes applies as well to the area that HILT is researching: that of cross-searching and browsing by subject across databases and catalogues in archives, libraries, museums and online information services. So how does a user access information on a particular subject when it is indexed across a multitude of services under different, but quite often similar, subject terms? Also, if experienced searchers are having problems, what about novice searchers? As information professionals, it is our role to investigate such problems and recommend solutions. Although there is no hard empirical evidence one way or another, HILT participants agree that the problem for users attempting to search across databases is real. There is a strong likelihood that users are disadvantaged by the use of different subject terminology combined with a multitude of different practices taking place within the archive, library, museums and online communities. Arguably, failure to address this problem of interoperability undermines the value of cross-searching and browsing facilities, and wastes public money because relevant resources are 'hidden' from searchers. HILT is charged with analysing this broad problem through qualitative methods, with the main aim of presenting a set of recommendations on how to make it easier to cross-search and browse distributed services. Because this is a very large problem composed of many strands, HILT recognizes that any proposed solutions must address a host of issues. Recommended solutions must be affordable, sustainable, politically acceptable, useful, future-proof and international in scope. It also became clear to the HILT team that progress toward finding solutions to the interoperability problem could only be achieved through direct dialogue with other parties keen to solve this problem, and that the problem was as much about consensus building as it was about finding a solution. This article describes how HILT approached the cross-searching problem; how it investigated the nature of the problem, detailing results from the HILT Stakeholder Survey; and how it achieved consensus through the recent HILT Workshop.
  5. Dini, L.: CACAO : multilingual access to bibliographic records (2007) 0.00 
    0.0016624887 = product of:
  0.016624887 = sum of:
    0.016624887 = product of:
      0.04987466 = sum of:
        0.04987466 = weight(_text_:22 in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04987466 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    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".
  6. Nicholson, D.: High-Level Thesaurus (HILT) project : interoperability and cross-searching distributed services (200?) 0.00 
    0.0016282737 = product of:
  0.016282737 = sum of:
    0.016282737 = product of:
      0.04884821 = sum of:
        0.04884821 = weight(_text_:problem in 5966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04884821 = score(doc=5966,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.375163 = fieldWeight in 5966, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5966)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    My presentation is about the HILT, High Level Thesaurus Project, which is looking, very roughly speaking, at how we might deal with interoperability problems relating to cross-searching distributed services by subject. The aims of HILT are to study and report on the problem of cross-searching and browsing by subject across a range of communities, services, and service or resource types in the UK given the wide range of subject schemes and associated practices in place
  7. Doerr, M.: Semantic problems of thesaurus mapping (2001) 0.00 
    0.0014392043 = product of:
  0.0143920425 = sum of:
    0.0143920425 = product of:
      0.043176126 = sum of:
        0.043176126 = weight(_text_:problem in 5902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043176126 = score(doc=5902,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.33160037 = fieldWeight in 5902, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5902)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    With networked information access to heterogeneous data sources, the problem of terminology provision and interoperability of controlled vocabulary schemes such as thesauri becomes increasingly urgent. Solutions are needed to improve the performance of full-text retrieval systems and to guide the design of controlled terminology schemes for use in structured data, including metadata. Thesauri are created in different languages, with different scope and points of view and at different levels of abstraction and detail, to accomodate access to a specific group of collections. In any wider search accessing distributed collections, the user would like to start with familiar terminology and let the system find out the correspondences to other terminologies in order to retrieve equivalent results from all addressed collections. This paper investigates possible semantic differences that may hinder the unambiguous mapping and transition from one thesaurus to another. It focusses on the differences of meaning of terms and their relations as intended by their creators for indexing and querying a specific collection, in contrast to methods investigating the statistical relevance of terms for objects in a collection. It develops a notion of optimal mapping, paying particular attention to the intellectual quality of mappings between terms from different vocabularies and to problems of polysemy. Proposals are made to limit the vagueness introduced by the transition from one vocabulary to another. The paper shows ways in which thesaurus creators can improve their methodology to meet the challenges of networked access of distributed collections created under varying conditions. For system implementers, the discussion will lead to a better understanding of the complexity of the problem
  8. Landry, P.: MACS: multilingual access to subject and link management : Extending the Multilingual Capacity of TEL in the EDL Project (2007) 0.00 
    0.0013854074 = product of:
  0.013854073 = sum of:
    0.013854073 = product of:
      0.04156222 = sum of:
        0.04156222 = weight(_text_:22 in 1287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04156222 = score(doc=1287,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    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".
  9. Isaac, A.: Aligning thesauri for an integrated access to Cultural Heritage Resources (2007) 0.00 
    0.0012338607 = product of:
  0.012338608 = sum of:
    0.012338608 = product of:
      0.03701582 = sum of:
        0.03701582 = weight(_text_:problem in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03701582 = score(doc=553,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.28428814 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    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
  10. Wang, S.; Isaac, A.; Schopman, B.; Schlobach, S.; Meij, L. van der: Matching multilingual subject vocabularies (2009) 0.00 
    0.0012212053 = product of:
  0.012212053 = sum of:
    0.012212053 = product of:
      0.03663616 = sum of:
        0.03663616 = weight(_text_:problem in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03663616 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    Most libraries and other cultural heritage institutions use controlled knowledge organisation systems, such as thesauri, to describe their collections. Unfortunately, as most of these institutions use different such systems, united access to heterogeneous collections is difficult. Things are even worse in an international context when concepts have labels in different languages. In order to overcome the multilingual interoperability problem between European Libraries, extensive work has been done to manually map concepts from different knowledge organisation systems, which is a tedious and expensive process. Within the TELplus project, we developed and evaluated methods to automatically discover these mappings, using different ontology matching techniques. In experiments on major French, English and German subject heading lists Rameau, LCSH and SWD, we show that we can automatically produce mappings of surprisingly good quality, even when using relatively naive translation and matching methods.
  11. Heckner, M.; Mühlbacher, S.; Wolff, C.: Tagging tagging : a classification model for user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems (2007) 0.00 
    0.0011513635 = product of:
  0.011513635 = sum of:
    0.011513635 = product of:
      0.034540903 = sum of:
        0.034540903 = weight(_text_:problem in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034540903 = score(doc=533,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.2652803 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    Recently, a growing amount of systems that allow personal content annotation (tagging) are being created, ranging from personal sites for organising bookmarks (del.icio.us), photos (flickr.com) or videos (video.google.com, youtube.com) to systems for managing bibliographies for scientific research projects (citeulike.org, connotea.org). Simultaneously, a debate on the pro and cons of allowing users to add personal keywords to digital content has arisen. One recurrent point-of-discussion is whether tagging can solve the well-known vocabulary problem: In order to support successful retrieval in complex environments, it is necessary to index an object with a variety of aliases (cf. Furnas 1987). In this spirit, social tagging enhances the pool of rigid, traditional keywording by adding user-created retrieval vocabularies. Furthermore, tagging goes beyond simple personal content-based keywords by providing meta-keywords like funny or interesting that "identify qualities or characteristics" (Golder and Huberman 2006, Kipp and Campbell 2006, Kipp 2007, Feinberg 2006, Kroski 2005). Contrarily, tagging systems are claimed to lead to semantic difficulties that may hinder the precision and recall of tagging systems (e.g. the polysemy problem, cf. Marlow 2006, Lakoff 2005, Golder and Huberman 2006). Empirical research on social tagging is still rare and mostly from a computer linguistics or librarian point-of-view (Voß 2007) which focus either on the automatic statistical analyses of large data sets, or intellectually inspect single cases of tag usage: Some scientists studied the evolution of tag vocabularies and tag distribution in specific systems (Golder and Huberman 2006, Hammond 2005). Others concentrate on tagging behaviour and tagger characteristics in collaborative systems. (Hammond 2005, Kipp and Campbell 2007, Feinberg 2006, Sen 2006). However, little research has been conducted on the functional and linguistic characteristics of tags.1 An analysis of these patterns could show differences between user wording and conventional keywording. In order to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, a classification system for existing tags is needed.
  12. Haslhofer, B.: Uniform SPARQL access to interlinked (digital library) sources (2007) 0.00 
    0.0011083259 = product of:
  0.011083259 = sum of:
    0.011083259 = product of:
      0.033249777 = sum of:
        0.033249777 = weight(_text_:22 in 541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033249777 = score(doc=541,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:22:46
  13. Kaczmarek, M.; Kruk, S.R.; Gzella, A.: Collaborative building of controlled vocabulary crosswalks (2007) 0.00 
    0.0010176711 = product of:
  0.010176711 = sum of:
    0.010176711 = product of:
      0.03053013 = sum of:
        0.03053013 = weight(_text_:problem in 543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03053013 = score(doc=543,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 543, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=543)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    One of the main features of classic libraries is metadata, which also is the key aspect of the Semantic Web. Librarians in the process of resources annotation use different kinds of Knowledge Organization Systems; KOS range from controlled vocabularies to classifications and categories (e.g., taxonomies) and to relationship lists (e.g., thesauri). The diversity of controlled vocabularies, used by various libraries and organizations, became a bottleneck for efficient information exchange between different entities. Even though a simple one-to-one mapping could be established, based on the similarities between names of concepts, we cannot derive information about the hierarchy between concepts from two different KOS. One of the solutions to this problem is to create an algorithm based on data delivered by large community of users using many classification schemata at once. The rationale behind it is that similar resources can be described by equivalent concepts taken from different taxonomies. The more annotations are collected, the more precise the result of this crosswalk will be.
  14. Si, L.: Encoding formats and consideration of requirements for mapping (2007) 0.00 
    9.697851E-4 = product of:
  0.009697851 = sum of:
    0.009697851 = product of:
      0.029093552 = sum of:
        0.029093552 = weight(_text_:22 in 540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029093552 = score(doc=540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:22:27
  15. Bittner, T.; Donnelly, M.; Winter, S.: Ontology and semantic interoperability (2006) 0.00 
    8.3124434E-4 = product of:
  0.008312443 = sum of:
    0.008312443 = product of:
      0.02493733 = sum of:
        0.02493733 = weight(_text_:22 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02493733 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Date
    3.12.2016 18:39:22
  16. Strötgen, R.: Anfragetransfers zur Integration von Internetquellen in Digitalen Bibliotheken auf der Grundlage statistischer Termrelationen (2007) 0.00 
    8.141369E-4 = product of:
  0.008141369 = sum of:
    0.008141369 = product of:
      0.024424106 = sum of:
        0.024424106 = weight(_text_:problem in 588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024424106 = score(doc=588,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.1875815 = fieldWeight in 588, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=588)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    In Digitalen Bibliotheken als integrierten Zugängen zu in der Regel mehreren verschiedenen Dokumentsammlungen tritt Heterogenität in vielerlei Spielarten auf: - als technische Heterogenität durch das Zusammenspiel verschiedener Betriebs-, Datenbank- oder Softwaresysteme, - als strukturelle Heterogenität durch das Auftreten verschiedener Dokumentstrukturen und Metadaten-Standards und schließlich - als semantische Heterogenität, wenn Dokumente mit Hilfe unterschiedlicher Ontologien (hier verwendet im weiteren Sinn von Dokumentationssprachen wie Thesauri und Klassifikationen) erschlossen wurden oder aber Dokumente überhaupt nicht mit Metadaten ausgezeichnet wurden. Semantische Heterogenität lässt sich behandeln, indem die Standardisierung von Metadaten (z.B. von der Dublin Core Metadata Initiative oder das Resource Description Framework (RDF) im Kontext des Semantic Web) vorangetrieben und ihre Verwendung gefördert wird. Allerdings besteht auf Grund der unterschiedlichen Interessen aller beteiligten Partner (u.a. Bibliotheken, Dokumentationsstellen, Datenbankproduzenten, "freie" Anbieter von Dokumentsammlungen und Datenbanken) kaum die Aussicht, dass sich durch diese Standardisierung semantische Heterogenität restlos beseitigen lässt. Insbesondere ist eine einheitliche Verwendung von Vokabularen und Ontologien nicht in Sicht. Im Projekt CARMEN wurde unter anderem das Problem der semantischen Heterogenität einerseits durch die automatische Extraktion von Metadaten aus Internetdokumenten und andererseits durch Systeme zur Transformation von Anfragen über Cross-Konkordanzen und statistisch erzeugte Relationen angegangen. Ein Teil der Ergebnisse der Arbeiten am IZ Sozialwissenschaften waren statistische Relationen zwischen Deskriptoren, die mittels Kookurrenzbeziehungen berechnet wurden. Diese Relationen wurden dann für die Übersetzung von Anfragen genutzt, um zwischen verschiedenen Ontologien oder auch Freitexttermen zu vermitteln. Das Ziel dieser Übersetzung ist die Verbesserung des (automatischen) Überstiegs zwischen unterschiedlich erschlossenen Dokumentbeständen, z.B. Fachdatenbanken und Internetdokumenten, als Lösungsansatz zur Behandlung semantischer Heterogenität.
  17. Si, L.E.; O'Brien, A.; Probets, S.: Integration of distributed terminology resources to facilitate subject cross-browsing for library portal systems (2009) 0.00 
    6.927037E-4 = product of:
  0.0069270367 = sum of:
    0.0069270367 = product of:
      0.02078111 = sum of:
        0.02078111 = weight(_text_:22 in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02078111 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    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.

Authors

Languages

  • e 16
  • d 1

Themes