Search (54 results, page 1 of 3)

0.057686016 = product of:
  0.11537203 = sum of:
    0.041913155 = weight(_text_:services in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041913155 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
    0.07345888 = sum of:
      0.035327382 = weight(_text_:management in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035327382 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
      0.038131498 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038131498 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, 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=3387)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Libraries are the tools we use to learn and to answer our questions. The quality of our work depends, among others, on the quality of the tools we use. Recent research in digital libraries is focused, on one hand on improving the infrastructure of the digital library management systems (DLMS), and on the other on improving the metadata models used to annotate collections of objects maintained by DLMS. The latter includes, among others, the semantic web and social networking technologies. Recently, the semantic web and social networking technologies are being introduced to the digital libraries domain. The expected outcome is that the overall quality of information discovery in digital libraries can be improved by employing social and semantic technologies. In this chapter we present the results of an evaluation of social and semantic end-user information discovery services for the digital libraries.

Date

1. 8.2010 12:35:22

0.036253784 = product of:
  0.07250757 = sum of:
    0.041913155 = weight(_text_:services in 229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041913155 = score(doc=229,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 229, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=229)
    0.030594414 = product of:
      0.06118883 = sum of:
        0.06118883 = weight(_text_:management in 229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06118883 = score(doc=229,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.38701317 = fieldWeight in 229, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

While much of a company's knowledge can be found in text repositories, current content management systems have limited capabilities for structuring and interpreting documents. In the emerging Semantic Web, search, interpretation and aggregation can be addressed by ontology-based semantic mark-up. In this paper, we examine semantic annotation, identify a number of requirements, and review the current generation of semantic annotation systems. This analysis shows that, while there is still some way to go before semantic annotation tools will be able to address fully all the knowledge management needs, research in the area is active and making good progress.

Source

Web semantics: science, services and agents on the World Wide Web. 4(2006) no.1, S.14-28

0.033446696 = product of:
  0.06689339 = sum of:
    0.041913155 = weight(_text_:services in 3379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041913155 = score(doc=3379,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 3379, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3379)
    0.024980234 = product of:
      0.049960468 = sum of:
        0.049960468 = weight(_text_:management in 3379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049960468 = score(doc=3379,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.31599492 = fieldWeight in 3379, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3379)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The main motivation of this chapter was to gather existing requirements and solutions, and to present a generic architectural design of semantic digital libraries. This design is meant to answer a number of requirements, such as interoperability or ability to exchange resources and solutions, and set up the foundations for the best practices in the new domain of semantic digital libraries. We start by presenting the library from different high-level perspectives, i.e., user (see Sect. 2) and metadata (see Sect. 1) perspective; this overview narrows the scope and puts emphasis on certain aspects related to the system perspective, i.e., the architecture of the actual digital library management system. We conclude by presenting the system architecture from three perspectives: top-down layered architecture (see Sect. 3), vertical architecture of core services (see Sect. 4), and stack of enabling infrastructures (see Sect. 5); based upon the observations and evaluation of the contemporary state of the art presented in the previous sections, these last three subsections will describe an in-depth model of the digital library management system.

0.032057434 = product of:
  0.06411487 = sum of:
    0.049395125 = weight(_text_:services in 672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049395125 = score(doc=672,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.28682584 = fieldWeight in 672, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=672)
    0.014719742 = product of:
      0.029439485 = sum of:
        0.029439485 = weight(_text_:management in 672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029439485 = score(doc=672,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 672, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=672)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This chapter describes not so much what digital libraries are but what digital libraries with semantic support could and should be. It discusses the nature of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) and how KOS can support digital library users. It projects a vision for designers to make and for users to demand better digital libraries. What is a digital library? The term \Digital Library" (DL) is used to refer to a range of systems, from digital object and metadata repositories, reference-linking systems, archives, and content management systems to complex systems that integrate advanced digital library services and support for research and practice communities. A DL may offer many technology-enabled functions and services that support users, both as information producers and as information users. Many of these functions appear in information systems that would not normally be considered digital libraries, making boundaries even more blurry. Instead of pursuing the hopeless quest of coming up with the definition of digital library, we present a framework that allows a clear and somewhat standardized description of any information system so that users can select the system(s) that best meet their requirements. Section 2 gives a broad outline for more detail see the DELOS DL Reference Model.

0.022958733 = product of:
  0.045917466 = sum of:
    0.027942104 = weight(_text_:services in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027942104 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.1622532 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
    0.017975362 = product of:
      0.035950724 = sum of:
        0.035950724 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035950724 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.21886435 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In order to transfer the Chinese Classified Thesaurus (CCT) into a machine-processable format and provide CCT-based Web services, a pilot study has been conducted in which a variety of selected CCT classes and mapped thesaurus entries are encoded with SKOS. OWL and RDFS are also used to encode the same contents for the purposes of feasibility and cost-benefit comparison. CCT is a collected effort led by the National Library of China. It is an integration of the national standards Chinese Library Classification (CLC) 4th edition and Chinese Thesaurus (CT). As a manually created mapping product, CCT provides for each of the classes the corresponding thesaurus terms, and vice versa. The coverage of CCT includes four major clusters: philosophy, social sciences and humanities, natural sciences and technologies, and general works. There are 22 main-classes, 52,992 sub-classes and divisions, 110,837 preferred thesaurus terms, 35,690 entry terms (non-preferred terms), and 59,738 pre-coordinated headings (Chinese Classified Thesaurus, 2005) Major challenges of encoding this large vocabulary comes from its integrated structure. CCT is a result of the combination of two structures (illustrated in Figure 1): a thesaurus that uses ISO-2788 standardized structure and a classification scheme that is basically enumerative, but provides some flexibility for several kinds of synthetic mechanisms Other challenges include the complex relationships caused by differences of granularities of two original schemes and their presentation with various levels of SKOS elements; as well as the diverse coordination of entries due to the use of auxiliary tables and pre-coordinated headings derived from combining classes, subdivisions, and thesaurus terms, which do not correspond to existing unique identifiers. The poster reports the progress, shares the sample SKOS entries, and summarizes problems identified during the SKOS encoding process. Although OWL Lite and OWL Full provide richer expressiveness, the cost-benefit issues and the final purposes of encoding CCT raise questions of using such approaches.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.019525139 = product of:
  0.078100555 = sum of:
    0.078100555 = weight(_text_:services in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.078100555 = score(doc=2661,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.45351148 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Research on semantic web services promises greater interoperability among software agents and web services by enabling content-based automated service discovery and interaction and by utilizing. Although this is to be based on use of shared ontologies published on the semantic web, services produced and described by different developers may well use different, perhaps partly overlapping, sets of ontologies. Interoperability will depend on ontology mappings and architectures supporting the associated translation processes. The question we ask is, does the traditional approach of introducing mediator agents to translate messages between requestors and services work in such an open environment? This article reviews some of the processing assumptions that were made in the development of the semantic web service modeling ontology OWL-S and argues that, as a practical matter, the translation function cannot always be isolated in mediators. Ontology mappings need to be published on the semantic web just as ontologies themselves are. The translation for service discovery, service process model interpretation, task negotiation, service invocation, and response interpretation may then be distributed to various places in the architecture so that translation can be done in the specific goal-oriented informational contexts of the agents performing these processes. We present arguments for assigning translation responsibility to particular agents in the cases of service invocation, response translation, and match- making.

0.014818538 = product of:
  0.059274152 = sum of:
    0.059274152 = weight(_text_:services in 6014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059274152 = score(doc=6014,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.344191 = fieldWeight in 6014, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6014)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ontologies are nowadays used for many applications requiring data, services and resources in general to be interoperable and machine understandable. Such applications are for example web service discovery and composition, information integration across databases, intelligent search, etc. The general idea is that data and services are semantically described with respect to ontologies, which are formal specifications of a domain of interest, and can thus be shared and reused in a way such that the shared meaning specified by the ontology remains formally the same across different parties and applications. As the cost of creating ontologies is relatively high, different proposals have emerged for learning ontologies from structured and unstructured resources. In this article we examine the maturity of techniques for ontology learning from textual resources, addressing the question whether the state-of-the-art is mature enough to produce ontologies 'on demand'.

0.014818538 = product of:
  0.059274152 = sum of:
    0.059274152 = weight(_text_:services in 3383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059274152 = score(doc=3383,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.344191 = fieldWeight in 3383, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3383)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The initial research on semantic digital libraries resulted in the design and implementation of JeromeDL; current research on online social networking and information discovery delivered new sets of features that were implemented in JeromeDL. Eventually, this digital library has been redesigned to follow the architecture of a social semantic digital library. JeromeDL describes each resource using three types of metadata: structure, bibliographic and community. It delivers services leveraging each of these information types. Annotations based on the structure and legacy metadata, and bibliographic ontology are rendered to the users in one, mixed, representation of library resources. Community annotations are managed by separate services, such as social semantic collaborative filtering or blogging component

0.012348781 = product of:
  0.049395125 = sum of:
    0.049395125 = weight(_text_:services in 1078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049395125 = score(doc=1078,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.28682584 = fieldWeight in 1078, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1078)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Domain ontologies very rarely model verbs as relations holding between concepts. However, the role of the verb as a central connecting element between concepts is undeniable. Verbs specify the interaction between the participants of some action or event by expressing relations between them. In parallel, it can be argued from an ontology engineering point of view that verbs express a relation between two classes that specify domain and range. The work described here is concerned with relation extraction for ontology extension along these lines. We describe a system (RelExt) that is capable of automatically identifying highly relevant triples (pairs of concepts connected by a relation) over concepts from an existing ontology. RelExt works by extracting relevant verbs and their grammatical arguments (i.e. terms) from a domain-specific text collection and computing corresponding relations through a combination of linguistic and statistical processing. The paper includes a detailed description of the system architecture and evaluation results on a constructed benchmark. RelExt has been developed in the context of the SmartWeb project, which aims at providing intelligent information services via mobile broadband devices on the FIFA World Cup that will be hosted in Germany in 2006. Such services include location based navigational information as well as question answering in the football domain.

0.012224671 = product of:
  0.048898686 = sum of:
    0.048898686 = weight(_text_:services in 504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048898686 = score(doc=504,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 504, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=504)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article introduces the Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS), a Semantic Web language for representing controlled structured vocabularies, including thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading systems and taxonomies. SKOS provides a framework for publishing thesauri, classification schemes, and subject indexes on the Web, and for applying these systems to resource collections that are part of the SemanticWeb. SemanticWeb applications may harvest and merge SKOS data, to integrate and enhances retrieval service across multiple collections (e.g. libraries). This article also describes some alternatives for integrating Semantic Web services based on the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and SKOS into a distributed enterprise architecture.

0.011775794 = product of:
  0.047103178 = sum of:
    0.047103178 = product of:
      0.094206356 = sum of:
        0.094206356 = weight(_text_:management in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.094206356 = score(doc=4407,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.5958457 = fieldWeight in 4407, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The global economy is rapidly becoming more and more knowledge intensive. Knowledge is now widely recognized as the fourth production factor, on an equal footing with the traditional production factors of labour, capital and materials. Managing knowledge is as important as the traditional management of labour, capital and materials. In this book, we have shown how Semantic Web technology can make an important contribution to knowledge management.

Source

Towards the semantic Web: ontology-driven knowledge management. Eds.: J. Davies, u.a

0.010478289 = product of:
  0.041913155 = sum of:
    0.041913155 = weight(_text_:services in 1638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041913155 = score(doc=1638,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 1638, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1638)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Web semantics: science, services and agents on the World Wide Web. 7(2009) no.3, S.177-188

0.010478289 = product of:
  0.041913155 = sum of:
    0.041913155 = weight(_text_:services in 2519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041913155 = score(doc=2519,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 2519, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2519)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Workforce development is a multidisciplinary domain in which policy, laws and regulations, social services, training and education, and information technology and systems are heavily involved. It is essential to have a semantic base accepted by the workforce development community for knowledge sharing and exchange. This paper describes how such a semantic base-the Workforce Open Knowledge Exchange (WOKE) Ontology-was built by using the adaptive modeling approach. The focus of this paper is to address questions such as how ontology designers should extract and model concepts obtained from different sources and what methodologies are useful along the steps of ontology development. The paper proposes a methodology framework "adaptive modeling" and explains the methodology through examples and some lessons learned from the process of developing the WOKE ontology.

0.010478289 = product of:
  0.041913155 = sum of:
    0.041913155 = weight(_text_:services in 3404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041913155 = score(doc=3404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 3404, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3404)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Web semantics: science, services and agents on the World Wide Web. 6(2008) no.3, S.203-217

0.01030382 = product of:
  0.04121528 = sum of:
    0.04121528 = product of:
      0.08243056 = sum of:
        0.08243056 = weight(_text_:management in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08243056 = score(doc=2262,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.521365 = fieldWeight in 2262, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Over the past few years, we have seen a growing interest in the potential of both peer-to-peer (P2P) computing and the use of more formal approaches to knowledge management, involving the development of ontologies. This penultimate chapter discusses possibilities that both approaches may offer for more effective and efficient knowledge management. In particular, we investigate how the two paradigms may be combined. In this chapter, we describe our vision in terms of a set of future steps that need to be taken to bring the results described in earlier chapters to their full potential.

Source

Towards the semantic Web: ontology-driven knowledge management. Eds.: J. Davies, u.a

0.008831846 = product of:
  0.035327382 = sum of:
    0.035327382 = product of:
      0.070654765 = sum of:
        0.070654765 = weight(_text_:management in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070654765 = score(doc=4410,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.44688427 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The ontology middleware discussed in this chapter can be seen as 'administrative' software infrastructure that makes the rest of the modules in a knowledge management toolset easier to integrate into real-world applications. The central issue is to make the methodology and modules available to society as a self-sufficient platform with mature support for development, management, maintenance, and use of middle-size and large knowledge bases. This chapter starts with an explanation of the required features of ontology middleware in the context of our knowledge management architecture and the terminology used In Section 11.2 the problem of versioning and tracking change is discussed. Section 11.3 presents the versioning model and its implementation that is developed in the project, and Section 11.4 describes the functionality of the instance reasoning module.

Source

Towards the semantic Web: ontology-driven knowledge management. Eds.: J. Davies, u.a

0.008831846 = product of:
  0.035327382 = sum of:
    0.035327382 = product of:
      0.070654765 = sum of:
        0.070654765 = weight(_text_:management in 4865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070654765 = score(doc=4865,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.44688427 = fieldWeight in 4865, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Content Management Systeme (CMS) sind in vielen Organisationen bereits seit längerer Zeit fester Bestandteil zur Verwaltung und kollaborativen Bearbeitung von Text- und Multimedia-Inhalten. Im Zuge der rasch ansteigenden Fülle an Informationen und somit auch Wissen wird die Überschaubarkeit der Datenbestände jedoch massiv eingeschränkt. Diese und zusätzliche Anforderungen, wie automatisch Datenquellen aus dem World Wide Web (WWW) zu extrahieren, lassen traditionelle CMS immer mehr an ihre Grenzen stoßen. Dieser Beitrag diskutiert die neuen Herausforderungen an traditionelle CMS und bietet Lösungsvorschläge, wie CMS kombiniert mit semantischen Technologien diesen Herausforderungen begegnen können. Die Autoren stellen eine generische Systemarchitektur für Content Management Systeme vor, die einerseits Inhalte für das Semantic Web generieren, andererseits Content aus dem Web 2.0 syndizieren können und bei der Aufbereitung des Content den User mittels semantischer Technologien wie Reasoning oder Informationsextraktion unterstützen. Dabei wird auf Erfahrungen bei der prototypischen Implementierung von semantischer Technologie in ein bestehendes CMS System zurückgegriffen.

Theme

Content Management System

0.008731907 = product of:
  0.03492763 = sum of:
    0.03492763 = weight(_text_:services in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492763 = score(doc=3384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Service-oriented architectures, and the wider acceptance of decentralized peer-to-peer architectures enable the transition from integrated, centrally controlled systems to federated and dynamic configurable systems. The benefits for the individual service providers and users are robustness of the system, independence of central authorities and flexibility in the usage of services. This chapter provides details of the European project BRICKS, which aims at enabling integrated access to distributed resources in the Cultural Heritage domain. The target audience is broad and heterogeneous and involves cultural heritage and educational institutions, the research community, industry, and the general public. The project idea is motivated by the fact that the amount of digital information and digitized content is continuously increasing but still much effort has to be expended to discover and access it. The reasons for such a situation are heterogeneous data formats, restricted access, proprietary access interfaces, etc. Typical usage scenarios are integrated queries among several knowledge resource, e.g. to discover all Italian artifacts from the Renaissance in European museums. Another example is to follow the life cycle of historic documents, whose physical copies are distributed all over Europe. A standard method for integrated access is to place all available content and metadata in a central place. Unfortunately, such a solution requires a quite powerful and costly infrastructure if the volume of data is large. Considerations of cost optimization are highly important for Cultural Heritage institutions, especially if they are funded from public money. Therefore, better usage of the existing resources, i.e. a decentralized/P2P approach promises to deliver a significantly less costly system,and does not mean sacrificing too much on the performance side.

0.0076486035 = product of:
  0.030594414 = sum of:
    0.030594414 = product of:
      0.06118883 = sum of:
        0.06118883 = weight(_text_:management in 4400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06118883 = score(doc=4400,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.38701317 = fieldWeight in 4400, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4400)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ontologies are a core element of the knowledge management architecture described in Chapter 1. In this chapter we describe a methodology for application driven ontology development, covering the whole project lifecycle from the kick off phase to the maintenance phase. Existing methodologies and practical ontology development experiences have in common that they start from the identification of the purpose of the ontology and the need for domain knowledge acquisition. They differ in their foci and following steps to be taken. In our approach of the ontology development process, we integrate aspects from existing methodologies and lessons learned from practical experience (as described in the Section 3.7). We put ontology development into a wider organizational context by performing an a priori feasibility study. The feasibility study is based on CommonKADS. We modified certain aspects of CommonKADS for a tight integration of the feasibility study into our methodology.

Source

Towards the semantic Web: ontology-driven knowledge management. Eds.: J. Davies, u.a

0.007211172 = product of:
  0.028844688 = sum of:
    0.028844688 = product of:
      0.057689376 = sum of:
        0.057689376 = weight(_text_:management in 4402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057689376 = score(doc=4402,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.3648795 = fieldWeight in 4402, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4402)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ontologies need to be stored, sometimes aligned and their evolution needs to be managed. All these tasks together are called ontology management. Alignment is a central task in ontology re-use. Re-use of existing ontologies often requires considerable effort: the ontologies either need to be integrated, which means that they are merged into one new ontology, or the ontologies can be kept separate. In both cases, the ontologies have to be aligned, which means that they have to be brought into mutual agreement. The problems that underlie the difficulties in integrating and aligning are the mismatches that may exist between separate ontologies. Ontologies can differ at the language level, which can mean that they are represented in a different syntax, or that the expressiveness of the ontology language is dissimilar. Ontologies also can have mismatches at the model level, for example, in the paradigm, or modelling style. Ontology alignment is very relevant in a Semantic Web context. The Semantic Web will provide us with a lot of freely accessible domain specific ontologies. To form a real web of semantics - which will allow computers to combine and infer implicit knowledge - those separate ontologies should be aligned and linked.
Support for evolving ontologies is required in almost all situations where ontologies are used in real-world applications. In those cases, ontologies are often developed by several persons and will continue to evolve over time, because of changes in the real world, adaptations to different tasks, or alignments to other ontologies. To prevent that such changes will invalidate existing usage, a change management methodology is needed. This involves advanced versioning methods for the development and the maintenance of ontologies, but also configuration management, that takes care of the identification, relations and interpretation of ontology versions. All these aspects come together in integrated ontology library systems. When the number of different ontologies is increasing, the task of storing, maintaining and re-organizing them to secure the successful re-use of ontologies is challenging. Ontology library systems can help in the grouping and reorganizing ontologies for further re-use, integration, maintenance, mapping and versioning. Basically, a library system offers various functions for managing, adapting and standardizing groups of ontologies. Such integrated systems are a requirement for the Semantic Web to grow further and scale up. In this chapter, we describe a number of results with respect to the above mentioned areas. We start with a description of the alignment task and show a meta-ontology that is developed to specify the mappings. Then, we discuss the problems that are caused by evolving ontologies and describe two important elements of a change management methodology. Finally, in Section 4.4 we survey existing library systems and formulate a wish-list of features of an ontology library system.

Source

Towards the semantic Web: ontology-driven knowledge management. Eds.: J. Davies, u.a