Search (28 results, page 1 of 2)

0.023477197 = product of:
  0.11738598 = sum of:
    0.11738598 = sum of:
      0.082784034 = weight(_text_:etc in 1852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.082784034 = score(doc=1852,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
            0.036484417 = queryNorm
          0.41891038 = fieldWeight in 1852, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1852)
      0.034601945 = weight(_text_:22 in 1852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034601945 = score(doc=1852,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.036484417 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1852, 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=1852)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Ontologien werden eingesetzt, um durch semantische Fundierung insbesondere für das Dokumentenretrieval eine grundlegend bessere Basis zu haben, als dies gegenwärtiger Stand der Technik ist. Vorgestellt wird eine an der FH Darmstadt entwickelte und eingesetzte Ontologie, die den Gegenstandsbereich Hochschule sowohl breit abdecken und gleichzeitig differenziert semantisch beschreiben soll. Das Problem der semantischen Suche besteht nun darin, dass sie für Informationssuchende so einfach wie bei gängigen Suchmaschinen zu nutzen sein soll, und gleichzeitig auf der Grundlage des aufwendigen Informationsmodells hochwertige Ergebnisse liefern muss. Es wird beschrieben, welche Möglichkeiten die verwendete Software K-Infinity bereitstellt und mit welchem Konzept diese Möglichkeiten für eine semantische Suche nach Dokumenten und anderen Informationseinheiten (Personen, Veranstaltungen, Projekte etc.) eingesetzt werden.

Date

11. 2.2011 18:22:58

0.014172435 = product of:
  0.035431087 = sum of:
    0.02060168 = product of:
      0.04120336 = sum of:
        0.04120336 = weight(_text_:problems in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04120336 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 4820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4820)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.014829405 = product of:
      0.02965881 = sum of:
        0.02965881 = weight(_text_:22 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02965881 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

One of the major problems facing systems for Computer Aided Design (CAD), Architecture Engineering and Construction (AEC) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) applications today is the lack of interoperability among the various systems. When integrating software applications, substantial di culties can arise in translating information from one application to the other. In this paper, we focus on semantic di culties that arise in software integration. Applications may use di erent terminologies to describe the same domain. Even when appli-cations use the same terminology, they often associate di erent semantics with the terms. This obstructs information exchange among applications. To cir-cumvent this obstacle, we need some way of explicitly specifying the semantics for each terminology in an unambiguous fashion. Ontologies can provide such specification. It will be the task of this paper to explain what ontologies are and how they can be used to facilitate interoperability between software systems used in computer aided design, architecture engineering and construction, and geographic information processing.

Date

3.12.2016 18:39:22

0.0110863 = product of:
  0.02771575 = sum of:
    0.013734453 = product of:
      0.027468907 = sum of:
        0.027468907 = weight(_text_:problems in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027468907 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.18241036 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013981297 = product of:
      0.027962593 = sum of:
        0.027962593 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027962593 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.010241869 = product of:
  0.051209345 = sum of:
    0.051209345 = product of:
      0.10241869 = sum of:
        0.10241869 = weight(_text_:etc in 3084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10241869 = score(doc=3084,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.5182672 = fieldWeight in 3084, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3084)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Ontologies have moved beyond the domains of library science, philosophy, and knowledge representation. They are now the concerns of marketing departments, CEOs, and mainstream business. Research analyst companies such as Forrester Research report on the critical roles of ontologies in support of browsing and search for e-commerce and in support of interoperability for facilitation of knowledge management and configuration. One now sees ontologies used as central controlled vocabularies that are integrated into catalogues, databases, web publications, knowledge management applications, etc. Large ontologies are essential components in many online applications including search (such as Yahoo and Lycos), e-commerce (such as Amazon and eBay), configuration (such as Dell and PC-Order), etc. One also sees ontologies that have long life spans, sometimes in multiple projects (such as UMLS, SIC codes, etc.). Such diverse usage generates many implications for ontology environments. In this paper, we will discuss ontologies and requirements in their current instantiations on the web today. We will describe some desirable properties of ontologies. We will also discuss how both simple and complex ontologies are being and may be used to support varied applications. We will conclude with a discussion of emerging trends in ontologies and their environments and briefly mention our evolving ontology evolution environment.

0.008362452 = product of:
  0.041812256 = sum of:
    0.041812256 = product of:
      0.08362451 = sum of:
        0.08362451 = weight(_text_:etc in 3377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08362451 = score(doc=3377,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.4231634 = fieldWeight in 3377, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3377)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The structural and syntactic web put in place in the early 90s is still much the same as what we use today: resources (web pages, files, etc.) connected by untyped hyperlinks. By untyped, we mean that there is no easy way for a computer to figure out what a link between two pages means - for example, on the W3C website, there are hundreds of links to the various organisations that are registered members of the association, but there is nothing explicitly saying that the link is to an organisation that is a "member of" the W3C or what type of organisation is represented by the link. On John's work page, he links to many papers he has written, but it does not explicitly say that he is the author of those papers or that he wrote such-and-such when he was working at a particular university. In fact, the Web was envisaged to be much more, as one can see from the image in Fig. 1 which is taken from Tim Berners Lee's original outline for the Web in 1989, entitled "Information Management: A Proposal". In this, all the resources are connected by links describing the type of relationships, e.g. "wrote", "describe", "refers to", etc. This is a precursor to the Semantic Web which we will come back to later.

0.0071366318 = product of:
  0.03568316 = sum of:
    0.03568316 = product of:
      0.07136632 = sum of:
        0.07136632 = weight(_text_:problems in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07136632 = score(doc=660,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.47391602 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this article is to give a non-technical overview of some of the technical progress made recently on tackling three fundamental problems in the area of formal knowledge representation/artificial intelligence. These are the Frame Problem, the Ramification Problem, and the Qualification Problem. The article aims to describe the development of two logic-based languages, the Event Calculus and Modular-E, to address various aspects of these issues. The article also aims to set this work in the wider context of contemporary developments in applied logic, non-monotonic reasoning and formal theories of common sense. Design/methodology/approach - The study applies symbolic logic to model aspects of human knowledge and reasoning. Findings - The article finds that there are fundamental interdependencies between the three problems mentioned above. The conceptual framework shared by the Event Calculus and Modular-E is appropriate for providing principled solutions to them. Originality/value - This article provides an overview of an important approach to dealing with three fundamental issues in artificial intelligence.

0.007095774 = product of:
  0.03547887 = sum of:
    0.03547887 = product of:
      0.07095774 = sum of:
        0.07095774 = weight(_text_:etc in 6014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07095774 = score(doc=6014,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.35906604 = fieldWeight in 6014, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6014)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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'.

0.0059471927 = product of:
  0.029735964 = sum of:
    0.029735964 = product of:
      0.059471928 = sum of:
        0.059471928 = weight(_text_:problems in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059471928 = score(doc=2497,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.39493 = fieldWeight in 2497, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2497)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

The paper describes current work on the generation of a thesaurus format from the schedules of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition (BC2). The practical problems that occur in moving from a concept based approach to a terminological approach cluster around issues of vocabulary control that are not fully addressed in a systematic structure. These difficulties can be exacerbated within domains in the humanities because large numbers of culture specific terms may need to be accommodated in any thesaurus. The ways in which these problems can be resolved within the context of a semi-automated approach to the thesaurus generation have consequences for the management of classification data in the source vocabulary. The way in which the vocabulary is marked up for the purpose of machine manipulation is described, and some of the implications for editorial policy are discussed and examples given. The value of the classification notation as a language independent representation and mapping tool should not be sacrificed in such an exercise.

0.0059131454 = product of:
  0.029565725 = sum of:
    0.029565725 = product of:
      0.05913145 = sum of:
        0.05913145 = weight(_text_:etc in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05913145 = score(doc=3384,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.004855863 = product of:
  0.024279313 = sum of:
    0.024279313 = product of:
      0.048558626 = sum of:
        0.048558626 = weight(_text_:problems in 1980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048558626 = score(doc=1980,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.322459 = fieldWeight in 1980, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1980)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate that semantic issues underlie all research questions within Library and Information Science (LIS, or, as hereafter, IS) and, in particular, the subfield known as Knowledge Organization (KO). Further, it seeks to show that semantics is a field influenced by conflicting views and discusses why it is important to argue for the most fruitful one of these. Moreover, the chapter demonstrates that IS has not yet addressed semantic problems in systematic fashion and examines why the field is very fragmented and without a proper theoretical basis. The focus here is on broad interdisciplinary issues and the long-term perspective. The theoretical problems involving semantics and concepts are very complicated. Therefore, this chapter starts by considering tools developed in KO for information retrieval (IR) as basically semantic tools. In this way, it establishes a specific IS focus on the relation between KO and semantics. It is well known that thesauri consist of a selection of concepts supplemented with information about their semantic relations (such as generic relations or "associative relations"). Some words in thesauri are "preferred terms" (descriptors), whereas others are "lead-in terms." The descriptors represent concepts. The difference between "a word" and "a concept" is that different words may have the same meaning and similar words may have different meanings, whereas one concept expresses one meaning.

0.0047305166 = product of:
  0.023652581 = sum of:
    0.023652581 = product of:
      0.047305163 = sum of:
        0.047305163 = weight(_text_:etc in 4405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047305163 = score(doc=4405,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.23937736 = fieldWeight in 4405, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4405)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Developing ontologies is central to our vision of Semantic Web-based knowledge management. The methodology described in Chapter 3 guides the development of ontologies for different applications. However, because of the size of ontologies, their complexity, their formal underpinnings and the necessity to come towards a shared understanding within a group of people when defining an ontology, ontology construction is still far from being a well-understood process. Concerning the methodology, OntoEdit focuses on three of the main steps for ontology development (the methodology is described in Chapter 3), viz. the kick off, refinement, and evaluation. We describe the steps supported by OntoEdit and focus on collaborative aspects that occur during each of the step. First, all requirements of the envisaged ontology are collected during the kick off phase. Typically for ontology engineering, ontology engineers and domain experts are joined in a team that works together on a description of the domain and the goal of the ontology, design guidelines, available knowledge sources (e.g. re-usable ontologies and thesauri, etc.), potential users and use cases and applications supported by the ontology. The output of this phase is a semiformal description of the ontology. Second, during the refinement phase, the team extends the semi-formal description in several iterations and formalizes it in an appropriate representation language like RDF(S) or, more advanced, DAML1OIL. The output of this phase is a mature ontology (the 'target ontology'). Third, the target ontology needs to be evaluated according to the requirement specifications. Typically this phase serves as a proof for the usefulness of ontologies (and ontology-based applications) and may involve the engineering team as well as end users of the targeted application. The output of this phase is an evaluated ontology, ready for roll-out into a productive environment. Support for these collaborative development steps within the ontology development methodology is crucial in order to meet the conflicting needs for ease of use and construction of complex ontology structures. We now illustrate OntoEdit's support for each of the supported steps. The examples shown are taken from the Swiss Life case study on skills management (cf. Chapter 12).

0.0047305166 = product of:
  0.023652581 = sum of:
    0.023652581 = product of:
      0.047305163 = sum of:
        0.047305163 = weight(_text_:etc in 700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047305163 = score(doc=700,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.23937736 = fieldWeight in 700, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=700)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The Semantic Web realization depends on the availability of a critical mass of metadata for the web content, associated with the respective formal knowledge about the world. We claim that the Semantic Web, at its current stage of development, is in a state of a critical need of metadata generation and usage schemata that are specific, well-defined and easy to understand. This paper introduces our vision for a holistic architecture for semantic annotation, indexing, and retrieval of documents with regard to extensive semantic repositories. A system (called KIM), implementing this concept, is presented in brief and it is used for the purposes of evaluation and demonstration. A particular schema for semantic annotation with respect to real-world entities is proposed. The underlying philosophy is that a practical semantic annotation is impossible without some particular knowledge modelling commitments. Our understanding is that a system for such semantic annotation should be based upon a simple model of real-world entity classes, complemented with extensive instance knowledge. To ensure the efficiency, ease of sharing, and reusability of the metadata, we introduce an upper-level ontology (of about 250 classes and 100 properties), which starts with some basic philosophical distinctions and then goes down to the most common entity types (people, companies, cities, etc.). Thus it encodes many of the domain-independent commonsense concepts and allows straightforward domain-specific extensions. On the basis of the ontology, a large-scale knowledge base of entity descriptions is bootstrapped, and further extended and maintained. Currently, the knowledge bases usually scales between 105 and 106 descriptions. Finally, this paper presents a semantically enhanced information extraction system, which provides automatic semantic annotation with references to classes in the ontology and to instances. The system has been running over a continuously growing document collection (currently about 0.5 million news articles), so it has been under constant testing and evaluation for some time now. On the basis of these semantic annotations, we perform semantic based indexing and retrieval where users can mix traditional information retrieval (IR) queries and ontology-based ones. We argue that such large-scale, fully automatic methods are essential for the transformation of the current largely textual web into a Semantic Web.

0.0041203364 = product of:
  0.02060168 = sum of:
    0.02060168 = product of:
      0.04120336 = sum of:
        0.04120336 = weight(_text_:problems in 2489) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04120336 = score(doc=2489,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 2489, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2489)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

It is proposed that sufficient research into ontology design has not been achieved and that this deficiency has led to the insufficiency of ontology in reinforcing its communications frameworks, knowledge sharing and re-use applications. In order to diagnose the problems of ontology research, I first survey the notion of ontology in the context of ontology design, based on a Means-Ends tool provided by a Cognitive Work Analysis. The potential contributions of knowledge organization in library and information sciences that can be used to improve the limitations of ontology research are demonstrated. I propose a context-centered view as an approach for ontology design, and present faceted classification as an appropriate method for structuring ontology. In addition, I also provides a case study of wine ontology in order to demonstrate how knowledge organization approaches in library and information science can improve ontology design.

0.0041203364 = product of:
  0.02060168 = sum of:
    0.02060168 = product of:
      0.04120336 = sum of:
        0.04120336 = weight(_text_:problems in 540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04120336 = score(doc=540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 540, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Semantic Search has become an active research of Semantic Web in recent years. The classification methodology plays a pretty critical role in the beginning of search process to disambiguate irrelevant information. However, the applications related to Folksonomy suffer from many obstacles. This study attempts to eliminate the problems resulted from Folksonomy using existing semantic technology. We also focus on how to effectively integrate heterogeneous ontologies over the Internet to acquire the integrity of domain knowledge. A faceted logic layer is abstracted in order to strengthen category framework and organize existing available ontologies according to a series of steps based on the methodology of faceted classification and ontology construction. The result showed that our approach can facilitate the integration of inconsistent or even heterogeneous ontologies. This paper also generalizes the principles of picking appropriate facets with which our facet browser completely complies so that better semantic search result can be obtained.

0.0041203364 = product of:
  0.02060168 = sum of:
    0.02060168 = product of:
      0.04120336 = sum of:
        0.04120336 = weight(_text_:problems in 4538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04120336 = score(doc=4538,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 4538, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4538)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.003954508 = product of:
  0.019772539 = sum of:
    0.019772539 = product of:
      0.039545078 = sum of:
        0.039545078 = weight(_text_:22 in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039545078 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3376, 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=3376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

31. 7.2010 16:58:22

0.0038846903 = product of:
  0.019423451 = sum of:
    0.019423451 = product of:
      0.038846903 = sum of:
        0.038846903 = weight(_text_:problems in 4402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038846903 = score(doc=4402,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.2579672 = fieldWeight in 4402, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4402)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.0034601947 = product of:
  0.017300973 = sum of:
    0.017300973 = product of:
      0.034601945 = sum of:
        0.034601945 = weight(_text_:22 in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034601945 = score(doc=5095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5095, 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=5095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2016 17:47:06

0.0034336136 = product of:
  0.017168067 = sum of:
    0.017168067 = product of:
      0.034336135 = sum of:
        0.034336135 = weight(_text_:problems in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034336135 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.22801295 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the issue of scope in topic maps. Topic maps are a form of knowledge representation suitable for solving a number of complex problems in the area of information management, ranging from findability (navigation and querying) to knowledge management and enterprise application integration (EAI). The topic map paradigm has its roots in efforts to understand the essential semantics of back-of-book indexes in order that they might be captured in a form suitable for computer processing. Once understood, the model of a back-of-book index was generalised in order to cover the needs of digital information, and extended to encompass glossaries and thesauri, as well as indexes. The resulting core model, of typed topics, associations, and occurrences, has many similarities with the semantic networks developed by the artificial intelligence community for representing knowledge structures. One key requirement of topic maps from the earliest days was to be able to merge indexes from disparate origins. This requirement accounts for two further concepts that greatly enhance the power of topic maps: subject identity and scope. This paper concentrates on scope, but also includes a brief discussion of the feature known as the topic naming constraint, with which it is closely related. It is based on the authors' experience in creating topic maps (in particular, the Italian Opera Topic Map, and in implementing processing systems for topic maps (in particular, the Ontopia Topic Map Engine and Navigator.

0.0034336136 = product of:
  0.017168067 = sum of:
    0.017168067 = product of:
      0.034336135 = sum of:
        0.034336135 = weight(_text_:problems in 2097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034336135 = score(doc=2097,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.22801295 = fieldWeight in 2097, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2097)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Interpretation of semantic propositions in free-text documents such as MEDLINE citations would provide valuable support for biomedical applications, and several approaches to semantic interpretation are being pursued in the biomedical informatics community. In this paper, we describe a methodology for interpreting linguistic structures that encode hypernymic propositions, in which a more specific concept is in a taxonomic relationship with a more general concept. In order to effectively process these constructions, we exploit underspecified syntactic analysis and structured domain knowledge from the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS). After introducing the syntactic processing on which our system depends, we focus on the UMLS knowledge that supports interpretation of hypernymic propositions. We first use semantic groups from the Semantic Network to ensure that the two concepts involved are compatible; hierarchical information in the Metathesaurus then determines which concept is more general and which more specific. A preliminary evaluation of a sample based on the semantic group Chemicals and Drugs provides 83% precision. An error analysis was conducted and potential solutions to the problems encountered are presented. The research discussed here serves as a paradigm for investigating the interaction between domain knowledge and linguistic structure in natural language processing, and could also make a contribution to research on automatic processing of discourse structure. Additional implications of the system we present include its integration in advanced semantic interpretation processors for biomedical text and its use for information extraction in specific domains. The approach has the potential to support a range of applications, including information retrieval and ontology engineering.