Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0059357807 = product of:
  0.023743123 = sum of:
    0.023743123 = product of:
      0.047486246 = sum of:
        0.047486246 = weight(_text_:software in 1101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047486246 = score(doc=1101,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 1101, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1101)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Graphendatenbanken sind darauf optimiert, stark miteinander vernetzte Informationen effizient zu speichern und greifbar zu machen. Welchen Ansprüchen müssen Abfragesprachen genügen, damit sie für die Arbeit mit diesen Datenbanken geeignet sind? Bei der Aufarbeitung realer Informationen zeigt sich, dass ein hoher, aber unterschätzter Wert in den Beziehungen zwischen Elementen steckt. Seien es Ereignisse aus Geschichte und Politik, Personen in realen und virtuellen sozialen Netzen, Proteine und Gene, Abhängigkeiten in Märkten und Ökonomien oder Rechnernetze, Computer, Software und Anwender - alles ist miteinander verbunden. Der Graph ist ein Datenmodell, das solche Verbindungsgeflechte abbilden kann. Leider lässt sich das Modell mit relationalen und Aggregat-orientierten NoSQL-Datenbanken ab einer gewissen Komplexität jedoch schwer handhaben. Graphendatenbanken sind dagegen darauf optimiert, solche stark miteinander vernetzten Informationen effizient zu speichern und greifbar zu machen. Auch komplexe Fragen lassen sich durch ausgefeilte Abfragen schnell beantworten. Hierbei kommt es auf die geeignete Abfragesprache an.

0.0039571873 = product of:
  0.01582875 = sum of:
    0.01582875 = product of:
      0.0316575 = sum of:
        0.0316575 = weight(_text_:software in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0316575 = score(doc=4639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.17532499 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This thesis focuses on conversion of vocabularies for representation and integration of collections on the Semantic Web. A secondary focus is how to represent metadata schemas (RDF Schemas representing metadata element sets) such that they interoperate with vocabularies. The primary domain in which we operate is that of cultural heritage collections. The background worldview in which a solution is sought is that of the Semantic Web research paradigmwith its associated theories, methods, tools and use cases. In other words, we assume the SemanticWeb is in principle able to provide the context to realize interoperable collections. Interoperability is dependent on the interplay between representations and the applications that use them. We mean applications in the widest sense, such as "search" and "annotation". These applications or tasks are often present in software applications, such as the E-Culture application. It is therefore necessary that applications requirements on the vocabulary representation are met. This leads us to formulate the following problem statement: HOW CAN EXISTING VOCABULARIES BE MADE AVAILABLE TO SEMANTIC WEB APPLICATIONS?

0.0039571873 = product of:
  0.01582875 = sum of:
    0.01582875 = product of:
      0.0316575 = sum of:
        0.0316575 = weight(_text_:software in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0316575 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.17532499 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Mathematics is a ubiquitous foundation of science, technology, and engineering. Specific areas, such as numeric and symbolic computation or logics, enjoy considerable software support. Working mathematicians have recently started to adopt Web 2.0 environment, such as blogs and wikis, but these systems lack machine support for knowledge organization and reuse, and they are disconnected from tools such as computer algebra systems or interactive proof assistants.We argue that such scenarios will benefit from Semantic Web technology. Conversely, mathematics is still underrepresented on the Web of [Linked] Data. There are mathematics-related Linked Data, for example statistical government data or scientific publication databases, but their mathematical semantics has not yet been modeled. We argue that the services for the Web of Data will benefit from a deeper representation of mathematical knowledge. Mathematical knowledge comprises logical and functional structures - formulæ, statements, and theories -, a mixture of rigorous natural language and symbolic notation in documents, application-specific metadata, and discussions about conceptualizations, formalizations, proofs, and (counter-)examples. Our review of approaches to representing these structures covers ontologies for mathematical problems, proofs, interlinked scientific publications, scientific discourse, as well as mathematical metadata vocabularies and domain knowledge from pure and applied mathematics. Many fields of mathematics have not yet been implemented as proper Semantic Web ontologies; however, we show that MathML and OpenMath, the standard XML-based exchange languages for mathematical knowledge, can be fully integrated with RDF representations in order to contribute existing mathematical knowledge to theWeb of Data. We conclude with a roadmap for getting the mathematical Web of Data started: what datasets to publish, how to interlink them, and how to take advantage of these new connections.

0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4553, 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=4553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

16.11.2018 14:22:01