Search (114 results, page 6 of 6)

2.6853982E-4 = product of:
  0.004565177 = sum of:
    0.004565177 = weight(_text_:in in 3883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004565177 = score(doc=3883,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.13442196 = fieldWeight in 3883, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3883)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

At VVWW-7 (Brisbane, 1997), Tim Berners-Lee outlined his vision of a global reasoning web. At VVWW- 8 (Toronto, May 1998), he developed this into a vision of a semantic web, where one Gould search not just for isolated words, but for meaning in the form of logically provable claims. In the past four years this vision has spread with amazing speed. The semantic web has been adopted by the European Commission as one of the important goals of the Sixth Framework Programme. In the United States it has become linked with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). While this quest to achieve a semantic web is new, the quest for meaning in language has a history that is almost as old as language itself. Accordingly this paper opens with a survey of the historical background. The contributions of the Dublin Core are reviewed briefly. To achieve a semantic web requires both syntactic and semantic interoperability. These challenges are outlined. A basic contention of this paper is that semantic interoperability requires much more than a simple agreement concerning the static meaning of a term. Different levels of agreement (local, regional, national and international) are involved and these levels have their own history. Hence, one of the larger challenges is to create new systems of knowledge organization, which identify and connect these different levels. With respect to meaning or semantics, early twentieth century pioneers such as Wüster were hopeful that it might be sufficient to limit oneself to isolated terms and words without reference to the larger grammatical context: to concept systems rather than to propositional logic. While a fascination with concept systems implicitly dominates many contemporary discussions, this paper suggests why this approach is not sufficient. The final section of this paper explores how an approach using propositional logic could lead to a new approach to universals and particulars. This points to a re-organization of knowledge, and opens the way for a vision of a semantic web with all the historical and cultural richness and complexity of language itself.

Footnote

Initially written for Dublin Core Meeting in 2000 which rejected the article.

2.6853982E-4 = product of:
  0.004565177 = sum of:
    0.004565177 = weight(_text_:in in 2324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004565177 = score(doc=2324,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.13442196 = fieldWeight in 2324, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2324)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

During the years 2006 and 2007, the BnF has collaborated with the National Library of the Netherlands within the framework of the Dutch project STITCH. This project, through concrete experiments, investigates semantic interoperability, especially in relation to searching. How can we conduct semantic searches across several digital heritage collections? The metadata related to content analysis are often heterogeneous. Beyond using manual mapping of semantically similar entities, STITCH explores the techniques of the semantic web, particularly ontology mapping. This paper is about an experiment made on two digital iconographic collections: Mandragore, iconographic database of the Manuscript Department of the BnF, and the Medieval Illuminated manuscripts collection of the KB. While the content of these two collections is similar, they have been processed differently and the vocabularies used to index their content is very different. Vocabularies in Mandragore and Iconclass are both controlled and hierarchical but they do not have the same semantic and structure. This difference is of particular interest to the STITCH project, as it aims to study automatic alignment of two vocabularies. The collaborative experiment started with a precise analysis of each of the vocabularies; that included concepts and their representation, lexical properties of the terms used, semantic relationships, etc. The team of Dutch researchers then studied and implemented mechanisms of alignment of the two vocabularies. The initial models being different, there had to be a common standard in order to enable procedures of alignment. RDF and SKOS were selected for that. The experiment lead to building a prototype that allows for querying in both databases at the same time through a single interface. The descriptors of each vocabulary are used as search terms for all images regardless of the collection they belong to. This experiment is only one step in the search for solutions that aim at making navigation easier between heritage collections that have heterogeneous metadata.

2.6001257E-4 = product of:
  0.004420214 = sum of:
    0.004420214 = weight(_text_:in in 1908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004420214 = score(doc=1908,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 1908, 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=1908)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

Purpose - To demonstrate that newer developments in the semantic web community, particularly those based on ontologies (simple knowledge organization system and others) mitigate common arguments from the digital library (DL) community against participation in the Semantic web. Design/methodology/approach - The approach is a semantic web discussion focusing on the weak structure of the Web and the lack of consideration given to the semantic content during indexing. Findings - The points criticised by the semantic web and ontology approaches are the same as those of the DL "Shell model approach" from the mid-1990s, with emphasis on the centrality of its heterogeneity components (used, for example, in vascoda). The Shell model argument began with the "invisible web", necessitating the restructuring of DL approaches. The conclusion is that both approaches fit well together and that the Shell model, with its semantic heterogeneity components, can be reformulated on the semantic web basis. Practical implications - A reinterpretation of the DL approaches of semantic heterogeneity and adapting to standards and tools supported by the W3C should be the best solution. It is therefore recommended that - although most of the semantic web standards are not technologically refined for commercial applications at present - all individual DL developments should be checked for their adaptability to the W3C standards of the semantic web. Originality/value - A unique conceptual analysis of the parallel developments emanating from the digital library and semantic web communities.

2.6001257E-4 = product of:
  0.004420214 = sum of:
    0.004420214 = weight(_text_:in in 3367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004420214 = score(doc=3367,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 3367, 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=3367)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

Ontology mapping is one of the core tasks for ontology interoperability. It is aimed to find semantic relationships between entities (i.e. concept, attribute, and relation) of two ontologies. It benefits many applications, such as integration of ontology based web data sources, interoperability of agents or web services. To reduce the amount of users' effort as much as possible, (semi-) automatic ontology mapping is becoming more and more important to bring it into fruition. In the existing literature, many approaches have found considerable interest by combining several different similar/mapping strategies (namely multi-strategy based mapping). However, experiments show that the multi-strategy based mapping does not always outperform its single-strategy counterpart. In this paper, we mainly aim to deal with two problems: (1) for a new, unseen mapping task, should we select a multi-strategy based algorithm or just one single-strategy based algorithm? (2) if the task is suitable for multi-strategy, then how to select the strategies into the final combined scenario? We propose an approach of multiple strategies detections for ontology mapping. The results obtained so far show that multi-strategy detection improves on precision and recall significantly.

Content

Beitrag anlässlich: Workshop on The Semantic Computing Initiative (SeC 2005) --- From Semantic Web to Semantic World --- to be held in conjunction with The 14th Int'l Conf. on World Wide Web (WWW2005); vgl.: http://www.instsec.org/2005ws/.

2.5475924E-4 = product of:
  0.004330907 = sum of:
    0.004330907 = weight(_text_:in in 4538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004330907 = score(doc=4538,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = 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)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

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

2.401893E-4 = product of:
  0.004083218 = sum of:
    0.004083218 = weight(_text_:in in 1955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004083218 = score(doc=1955,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 1955, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1955)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

Dublin Core recommends controlled terminology for the subject of a resource. Knowledge organization systems (KOS), such as classifications, gazetteers, taxonomies and thesauri, provide controlled vocabularies that organize and structure concepts for indexing, classifying, browsing and search. For example, a thesaurus employs a set of standard semantic relationships (ISO 2788, ISO 5964), and major thesauri have a large entry vocabulary of terms considered equivalent for retrieval purposes. Many KOS have been made available for Web-based access. However, they are often not fully integrated into indexing and search systems and the full potential for networked and programmatic access remains untapped. The lack of standardized access and interchange formats impedes wider use of KOS resources. We developed a Web demonstrator (www.comp.glam.ac.uk/~FACET/webdemo/) for the FACET project (www.comp.glam.ac.uk/~facet/facetproject.html) that explored thesaurus-based query expansion with the Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus. A Web demonstrator was implemented via Active Server Pages (ASP) with server-side scripting and compiled server-side components for database access, and cascading style sheets for presentation. The browser-based interactive interface permits dynamic control of query term expansion. However, being based on a custom thesaurus representation and API, the techniques cannot be applied directly to thesauri in other formats on the Web. General programmatic access requires commonly agreed protocols, for example, building on Web and Grid services. The development of common KOS representation formats and service protocols are closely linked. Linda Hill and colleagues argued in 2002 for a general KOS service protocol from which protocols for specific types of KOS can be derived. Thus, in the future, a combination of thesaurus and query protocols might permit a thesaurus to be used with a choice of search tools on various kinds of databases. Service-oriented architectures bring an opportunity for moving toward a clearer separation of interface components from the underlying data sources. In our view, basing distributed protocol services on the atomic elements of thesaurus data structures and relationships is not necessarily the best approach because client operations that require multiple client-server calls would carry too much overhead. This would limit the interfaces that could be offered by applications following such a protocol. Advanced interactive interfaces require protocols that group primitive thesaurus data elements (via their relationships) into composites to achieve reasonable response.

2.1229935E-4 = product of:
  0.003609089 = sum of:
    0.003609089 = weight(_text_:in in 172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003609089 = score(doc=172,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 172, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=172)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

This paper is a current assessment of the status of metadata creation and mapping between catalogerdefined field names and Dublin Core (DC) metadata elements across three digital image collections. The metadata elements that evince the most frequently inaccurate, inconsistent and incomplete DC metadata application are identified. As well, the most frequently occurring locally added metadata elements and associated pattern development are examined. For this, a randomly collected sample of 659 metadata item records from three digital image collections is analyzed. Implications and issues drawn from the evaluation of the current status of metadata creation and mapping are also discussed in relation to the issue of semantic interoperability of concept representation across digital image collections. The findings of the study suggest that conceptual ambiguities and semantic overlaps inherent among some DC metadata elements hinder semantic interoperability. The DC metadata scheme needs to be refined in order to disambiguate semantic relations of certain DC metadata elements that present semantic overlaps and conceptual ambiguities between element names and their corresponding definitions. The findings of the study also suggest that the development of mediation mechanisms such as concept networks that facilitate the metadata creation and mapping process are critically needed for enhancing metadata quality.

2.1229935E-4 = product of:
  0.003609089 = sum of:
    0.003609089 = weight(_text_:in in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003609089 = score(doc=1171,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

Amid the debates about whether folksonomies will supplant controlled vocabularies and whether the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system have outlived their usefulness, libraries, museums and other organizations continue to require efficient, effective access to controlled vocabularies for creating consistent metadata for their collections . In this article, we present an approach for using Web services to interact with controlled vocabularies. Services are implemented within a service-oriented architecture (SOA) framework. SOA is an approach to distributed computing where services are loosely coupled and discoverable on the network. A set of experimental services for controlled vocabularies is provided through the Microsoft Office (MS) Research task pane (a small window or sidebar that opens up next to Internet Explorer (IE) and other Microsoft Office applications). The research task pane is a built-in feature of IE when MS Office 2003 is loaded. The research pane enables a user to take advantage of a number of research and reference services accessible over the Internet. Web browsers, such as Mozilla Firefox and Opera, also provide sidebars which could be used to deliver similar, loosely-coupled Web services.

2.1016564E-4 = product of:
  0.0035728158 = sum of:
    0.0035728158 = weight(_text_:in in 3717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035728158 = score(doc=3717,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = 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)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

2.1016564E-4 = product of:
  0.0035728158 = sum of:
    0.0035728158 = weight(_text_:in in 155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035728158 = score(doc=155,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 155, 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=155)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

XML bietet zwar durchaus das allgemein akzeptierte Verfahren zum Austausch strukturierter Daten, das in vielen Anwendungen benötigt wird, ist aber dennoch nicht ausreichend, Interoperabilität zwischen anwendungen sicherzustellen. Probleme können auf verschiedenen Ebenen entstehen, beginned bei so grundlegenden Dingen wie Zeichenkodierungen, bis hin zu Problemen des inhaltlichen Verständnisses von XML Dokumenten. Im vorliegeneden Artikel soll auf den letzteren Aspekt näher eingegangen werden, also die Frage, was notwendig ist, damit der Austausch von XML nicht nur syntaktisch funktioniert, sondern auch auf einem gemeinsamen Verständnis beider Seiten basiert.

1.8014197E-4 = product of:
  0.0030624135 = sum of:
    0.0030624135 = weight(_text_:in in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0030624135 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

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.

1.5011833E-4 = product of:
  0.0025520115 = sum of:
    0.0025520115 = weight(_text_:in in 3152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0025520115 = score(doc=3152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 3152, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3152)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Content

Table of Contents Part I: Accepted Papers Christoph Tempich and Raphael Volz: Towards a benchmark for Semantic Web reasoners - an analysis of the DAML ontology library M. Carmen Suarez-Figueroa and Asuncion Gomez-Perez: Results of Taxonomic Evaluation of RDF(S) and DAML+OIL ontologies using RDF(S) and DAML+OIL Validation Tools and Ontology Platforms import services Volker Haarslev and Ralf Möller: Racer: A Core Inference Engine for the Semantic Web Mikhail Kazakov and Habib Abdulrab: DL-workbench: a metamodeling approach to ontology manipulation Thorsten Liebig and Olaf Noppens: OntoTrack: Fast Browsing and Easy Editing of Large Ontologie Frederic Fürst, Michel Leclere, and Francky Trichet: TooCoM : a Tool to Operationalize an Ontology with the Conceptual Graph Model Naoki Sugiura, Masaki Kurematsu, Naoki Fukuta, Noriaki Izumi, and Takahira Yamaguchi: A domain ontology engineering tool with general ontologies and text corpus Howard Goldberg, Alfredo Morales, David MacMillan, and Matthew Quinlan: An Ontology-Driven Application to Improve the Prescription of Educational Resources to Parents of Premature Infants Part II: Experiment Contributions Domain natural language description for the experiment Raphael Troncy, Antoine Isaac, and Veronique Malaise: Using XSLT for Interoperability: DOE and The Travelling Domain Experiment Christian Fillies: SemTalk EON2003 Semantic Web Export / Import Interface Test Óscar Corcho, Asunción Gómez-Pérez, Danilo José Guerrero-Rodríguez, David Pérez-Rey, Alberto Ruiz-Cristina, Teresa Sastre-Toral, M. Carmen Suárez-Figueroa: Evaluation experiment of ontology tools' interoperability with the WebODE ontology engineering workbench Holger Knublauch: Case Study: Using Protege to Convert the Travel Ontology to UML and OWL Franz Calvo and John Gennari: Interoperability of Protege 2.0 beta and OilEd 3.5 in the Domain Knowledge of Osteoporosis

1.5011833E-4 = product of:
  0.0025520115 = sum of:
    0.0025520115 = weight(_text_:in in 543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0025520115 = score(doc=543,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 543, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=543)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

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.

1.5011833E-4 = product of:
  0.0025520115 = sum of:
    0.0025520115 = weight(_text_:in in 922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0025520115 = score(doc=922,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 922, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=922)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a multi-strategic matching and merging approach to find correspondences between ontologies based on the syntactic or semantic characteristics and constraints of the Topic Maps. Our multi-strategic matching approach consists of a linguistic module and a Topic Map constraints-based module. A linguistic module computes similarities between concepts using morphological analysis, string normalization and tokenization and language-dependent heuristics. A Topic Map constraints-based module takes advantage of several Topic Maps-dependent techniques such as a topic property-based matching, a hierarchy-based matching, and an association-based matching. This is a composite matching procedure and need not generate a cross-pair of all topics from the ontologies because unmatched pairs of topics can be removed by characteristics and constraints of the Topic Maps. Merging between Topic Maps follows the matching operations. We set up the MERGE function to integrate two Topic Maps into a new Topic Map, which satisfies such merge requirements as entity preservation, property preservation, relation preservation, and conflict resolution. For our experiments, we used oriental philosophy ontologies, western philosophy ontologies, Yahoo western philosophy dictionary, and Wikipedia philosophy ontology as input ontologies. Our experiments show that the automatically generated matching results conform to the outputs generated manually by domain experts and can be of great benefit to the following merging operations.