Search (24 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Tudhope, D.; Hodge, G.: Terminology registries (2007) 0.04
    0.039783698 = product of:
      0.079567395 = sum of:
        0.0453818 = weight(_text_:research in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0453818 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.31521314 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
        0.034185596 = product of:
          0.06837119 = sum of:
            0.06837119 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06837119 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050463587 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:22:07
    Source
    http://www.comp.glam.ac.uk/pages/research/hypermedia/nkos/nkos2007/programme.html
  2. Panzer, M.: Towards the "webification" of controlled subject vocabulary : a case study involving the Dewey Decimal Classification (2007) 0.04
    0.03523446 = product of:
      0.07046892 = sum of:
        0.031767257 = weight(_text_:research in 538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031767257 = score(doc=538,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 538, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=538)
        0.03870166 = product of:
          0.07740332 = sum of:
            0.07740332 = weight(_text_:network in 538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07740332 = score(doc=538,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050463587 = queryNorm
                0.3444231 = fieldWeight in 538, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=538)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    The presentation will briefly introduce a series of major principles for bringing subject terminology to the network level. A closer look at one KOS in particular, the Dewey Decimal Classification, should help to gain more insight into the perceived difficulties and potential benefits of building taxonomy services out and on top of classic large-scale vocabularies or taxonomies.
    Source
    http://www.comp.glam.ac.uk/pages/research/hypermedia/nkos/nkos2007/programme.html
  3. Waard, A. de; Fluit, C.; Harmelen, F. van: Drug Ontology Project for Elsevier (DOPE) (2007) 0.02
    0.020573113 = product of:
      0.041146226 = sum of:
        0.015474406 = weight(_text_:science in 758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015474406 = score(doc=758,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 758, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=758)
        0.025671821 = weight(_text_:research in 758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025671821 = score(doc=758,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.17831147 = fieldWeight in 758, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=758)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Innovative research institutes rely on the availability of complete and accurate information about new research and development, and it is the business of information providers such as Elsevier to provide the required information in a cost-effective way. It is very likely that the semantic web will make an important contribution to this effort, since it facilitates access to an unprecedented quantity of data. However, with the unremitting growth of scientific information, integrating access to all this information remains a significant problem, not least because of the heterogeneity of the information sources involved - sources which may use different syntactic standards (syntactic heterogeneity), organize information in very different ways (structural heterogeneity) and even use different terminologies to refer to the same information (semantic heterogeneity). The ability to address these different kinds of heterogeneity is the key to integrated access. Thesauri have already proven to be a core technology to effective information access as they provide controlled vocabularies for indexing information, and thereby help to overcome some of the problems of free-text search by relating and grouping relevant terms in a specific domain. However, currently there is no open architecture which supports the use of these thesauri for querying other data sources. For example, when we move from the centralized and controlled use of EMTREE within EMBASE.com to a distributed setting, it becomes crucial to improve access to the thesaurus by means of a standardized representation using open data standards that allow for semantic qualifications. In general, mental models and keywords for accessing data diverge between subject areas and communities, and so many different ontologies have been developed. An ideal architecture must therefore support the disclosure of distributed and heterogeneous data sources through different ontologies. The aim of the DOPE project (Drug Ontology Project for Elsevier) is to investigate the possibility of providing access to multiple information sources in the area of life science through a single interface.
  4. Jacobs, I.: From chaos, order: W3C standard helps organize knowledge : SKOS Connects Diverse Knowledge Organization Systems to Linked Data (2009) 0.02
    0.01644547 = product of:
      0.03289094 = sum of:
        0.013540106 = weight(_text_:science in 3062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013540106 = score(doc=3062,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.101861134 = fieldWeight in 3062, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3062)
        0.01935083 = product of:
          0.03870166 = sum of:
            0.03870166 = weight(_text_:network in 3062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03870166 = score(doc=3062,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050463587 = queryNorm
                0.17221154 = fieldWeight in 3062, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3062)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Content
    SKOS Adapts to the Diversity of Knowledge Organization Systems A useful starting point for understanding the role of SKOS is the set of subject headings published by the US Library of Congress (LOC) for categorizing books, videos, and other library resources. These headings can be used to broaden or narrow queries for discovering resources. For instance, one can narrow a query about books on "Chinese literature" to "Chinese drama," or further still to "Chinese children's plays." Library of Congress subject headings have evolved within a community of practice over a period of decades. By now publishing these subject headings in SKOS, the Library of Congress has made them available to the linked data community, which benefits from a time-tested set of concepts to re-use in their own data. This re-use adds value ("the network effect") to the collection. When people all over the Web re-use the same LOC concept for "Chinese drama," or a concept from some other vocabulary linked to it, this creates many new routes to the discovery of information, and increases the chances that relevant items will be found. As an example of mapping one vocabulary to another, a combined effort from the STITCH, TELplus and MACS Projects provides links between LOC concepts and RAMEAU, a collection of French subject headings used by the Bibliothèque Nationale de France and other institutions. SKOS can be used for subject headings but also many other approaches to organizing knowledge. Because different communities are comfortable with different organization schemes, SKOS is designed to port diverse knowledge organization systems to the Web. "Active participation from the library and information science community in the development of SKOS over the past seven years has been key to ensuring that SKOS meets a variety of needs," said Thomas Baker, co-chair of the Semantic Web Deployment Working Group, which published SKOS. "One goal in creating SKOS was to provide new uses for well-established knowledge organization systems by providing a bridge to the linked data cloud." SKOS is part of the Semantic Web technology stack. Like the Web Ontology Language (OWL), SKOS can be used to define vocabularies. But the two technologies were designed to meet different needs. SKOS is a simple language with just a few features, tuned for sharing and linking knowledge organization systems such as thesauri and classification schemes. OWL offers a general and powerful framework for knowledge representation, where additional "rigor" can afford additional benefits (for instance, business rule processing). To get started with SKOS, see the SKOS Primer.
  5. Hoang, H.H.; Tjoa, A.M: ¬The state of the art of ontology-based query systems : a comparison of existing approaches (2006) 0.02
    0.015720716 = product of:
      0.06288286 = sum of:
        0.06288286 = weight(_text_:research in 792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06288286 = score(doc=792,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.43677214 = fieldWeight in 792, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=792)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Based on an in-depth analysis of existing approaches in building ontology-based query systems we discuss and compare the methods, approaches to be used in current query systems using Ontology or the Semantic Web techniques. This paper identifies various relevant research directions in ontology-based querying research. Based on the results of our investigation we summarise the state of the art ontology-based query/search and name areas of further research activities.
  6. Krötzsch, M.; Hitzler, P.; Ehrig, M.; Sure, Y.: Category theory in ontology research : concrete gain from an abstract approach (2004 (?)) 0.01
    0.011790537 = product of:
      0.04716215 = sum of:
        0.04716215 = weight(_text_:research in 4538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04716215 = score(doc=4538,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.3275791 = fieldWeight in 4538, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4538)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    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
  7. Tomassen, S.L.: Research on ontology-driven information retrieval (2006 (?)) 0.01
    0.009626932 = product of:
      0.03850773 = sum of:
        0.03850773 = weight(_text_:research in 4328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03850773 = score(doc=4328,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.2674672 = fieldWeight in 4328, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4328)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    An increasing number of recent information retrieval systems make use of ontologies to help the users clarify their information needs and come up with semantic representations of documents. A particular concern here is the integration of these semantic approaches with traditional search technology. The research presented in this paper examines how ontologies can be efficiently applied to large-scale search systems for the web. We describe how these systems can be enriched with adapted ontologies to provide both an in-depth understanding of the user's needs as well as an easy integration with standard vector-space retrieval systems. The ontology concepts are adapted to the domain terminology by computing a feature vector for each concept. Later, the feature vectors are used to enrich a provided query. The whole retrieval system is under development as part of a larger Semantic Web standardization project for the Norwegian oil & gas sector.
  8. Broughton, V.: Facet analysis as a fundamental theory for structuring subject organization tools (2007) 0.01
    0.00907636 = product of:
      0.03630544 = sum of:
        0.03630544 = weight(_text_:research in 537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03630544 = score(doc=537,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 537, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=537)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Source
    http://www.comp.glam.ac.uk/pages/research/hypermedia/nkos/nkos2007/programme.html
  9. Schreiber, G.; Amin, A.; Assem, M. van; Boer, V. de; Hardman, L.; Hildebrand, M.; Omelayenko, B.; Ossenbruggen, J. van; Wielemaker, J.; Wielinga, B.; Tordai, A.; Aroyoa, L.: Semantic annotation and search of cultural-heritage collections : the MultimediaN E-Culture demonstrator (2008) 0.01
    0.0082065435 = product of:
      0.032826174 = sum of:
        0.032826174 = weight(_text_:science in 4646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032826174 = score(doc=4646,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4646, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4646)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Content
    Vgl. unter: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570826808000620. Auch unter: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark/papers/Schreiber08a.pdf. The online version of the demonstrator can be found at: http://e-culture.multimedian.nl/demo/search.
    Source
    Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the WorldWideWeb 6(2008) no.4, S.243-249
  10. Urs, S.R.; Angrosh, M.A.: Ontology-based knowledge organization systems in digital libraries : a comparison of experiments in OWL and KAON ontologies (2006 (?)) 0.01
    0.007860358 = product of:
      0.03144143 = sum of:
        0.03144143 = weight(_text_:research in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03144143 = score(doc=2799,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.21838607 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Grounded on a strong belief that ontologies enhance the performance of information retrieval systems, there has been an upsurge of interest in ontologies. Its importance is identified in diverse research fields such as knowledge engineering, knowledge representation, qualitative modeling, language engineering, database design, information integration, object-oriented analysis, information retrieval and extraction, knowledge management and agent-based systems design (Guarino, 1998). While the role-played by ontologies, automatically lends a place of legitimacy for these tools, research in this area gains greater significance in the wake of various challenges faced in the contemporary digital environment. With the objective of overcoming various pitfalls associated with current search mechanisms, ontologies are increasingly used for developing efficient information retrieval systems. An indicator of research interest in the area of ontology is the Swoogle, a search engine for Semantic Web documents, terms and data found on the Web (Ding, Li et al, 2004). Given the complex nature of the digital content archived in digital libraries, ontologies can be employed for designing efficient forms of information retrieval in digital libraries. Knowledge representation assumes greater significance due to its crucial role in ontology development. These systems aid in developing intelligent information systems, wherein the notion of intelligence implies the ability of the system to find implicit consequences of its explicitly represented knowledge (Baader and Nutt, 2003). Knowledge representation formalisms such as 'Description Logics' are used to obtain explicit knowledge representation of the subject domain. These representations are developed into ontologies, which are used for developing intelligent information systems. Against this backdrop, the paper examines the use of Description Logics for conceptually modeling a chosen domain, which would be utilized for developing domain ontologies. The knowledge representation languages identified for this purpose are Web Ontology Language (OWL) and KArlsruhe ONtology (KAON) language. Drawing upon the various technical constructs in developing ontology-based information systems, the paper explains the working of the prototypes and also presents a comparative study of the two prototypes.
  11. Griffiths, T.L.; Steyvers, M.: ¬A probabilistic approach to semantic representation (2002) 0.01
    0.007737203 = product of:
      0.030948812 = sum of:
        0.030948812 = weight(_text_:science in 3671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030948812 = score(doc=3671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 3671, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3671)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Content
    Paper, Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Vgl. auch: https://cocosci.berkeley.edu/publications.php?author=Steyvers,%20M.
  12. OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases (2004) 0.01
    0.0068371193 = product of:
      0.027348477 = sum of:
        0.027348477 = product of:
          0.054696955 = sum of:
            0.054696955 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054696955 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050463587 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4685, 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=4685)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    14. 8.2011 13:33:22
  13. Siebers, Q.H.J.F.: Implementing inference rules in the Topic maps model (2006) 0.01
    0.0068072695 = product of:
      0.027229078 = sum of:
        0.027229078 = weight(_text_:research in 4730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027229078 = score(doc=4730,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 4730, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4730)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This paper supplies a theoretical approach on implementing inference rules in the Topic Maps model. Topic Maps is an ISO standard that allows for the modeling and representation of knowledge in an interchangeable form, that can be extended by inference rules. These rules specify conditions for inferrable facts. Any implementation requires a syntax for storage in a file, a storage model and method for processing and a system to keep track of changes in the inferred facts. The most flexible and optimisable storage model is a controlled cache, giving options for processing. Keeping track of changes is done by listeners. One of the most powerful applications of inference rules in Topic Maps is interoperability. By mapping ontologies to each other using inference rules as converter, it is possible to exchange extendable knowledge. Any implementation must choose methods and options optimized for the system it runs on, with the facilities available. Further research is required to analyze optimization problems between options.
  14. Wang, Y.-H.; Jhuo, P.-S.: ¬A semantic faceted search with rule-based inference (2009) 0.01
    0.0068072695 = product of:
      0.027229078 = sum of:
        0.027229078 = weight(_text_:research in 540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027229078 = score(doc=540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 540, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=540)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    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.
  15. Prieto-Díaz, R.: ¬A faceted approach to building ontologies (2002) 0.01
    0.0068072695 = product of:
      0.027229078 = sum of:
        0.027229078 = weight(_text_:research in 2259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027229078 = score(doc=2259,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 2259, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2259)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    An ontology is "an explicit conceptualization of a domain of discourse, and thus provides a shared and common understanding of the domain." We have been producing ontologies for millennia to understand and explain our rationale and environment. From Plato's philosophical framework to modern day classification systems, ontologies are, in most cases, the product of extensive analysis and categorization. Only recently has the process of building ontologies become a research topic of interest. Today, ontologies are built very much ad-hoc. A terminology is first developed providing a controlled vocabulary for the subject area or domain of interest, then it is organized into a taxonomy where key concepts are identified, and finally these concepts are defined and related to create an ontology. The intent of this paper is to show that domain analysis methods can be used for building ontologies. Domain analysis aims at generic models that represent groups of similar systems within an application domain. In this sense, it deals with categorization of common objects and operations, with clear, unambiguous definitions of them and with defining their relationships.
  16. Assem, M. van; Menken, M.R.; Schreiber, G.; Wielemaker, J.; Wielinga, B.: ¬A method for converting thesauri to RDF/OWL (2004) 0.01
    0.006770053 = product of:
      0.027080212 = sum of:
        0.027080212 = weight(_text_:science in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027080212 = score(doc=4644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; no.3298
  17. Knorz, G.; Rein, B.: Semantische Suche in einer Hochschulontologie : Ontologie-basiertes Information-Filtering und -Retrieval mit relationalen Datenbanken (2005) 0.01
    0.0059824795 = product of:
      0.023929918 = sum of:
        0.023929918 = product of:
          0.047859836 = sum of:
            0.047859836 = weight(_text_:22 in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047859836 = score(doc=4324,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050463587 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4324, 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=4324)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    11. 2.2011 18:22:25
  18. Tzitzikas, Y.; Spyratos, N.; Constantopoulos, P.; Analyti, A.: Extended faceted ontologies (2002) 0.01
    0.005802902 = product of:
      0.023211608 = sum of:
        0.023211608 = weight(_text_:science in 2280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023211608 = score(doc=2280,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2280, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2280)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; vol. 2348
  19. Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (2003) 0.01
    0.0051278393 = product of:
      0.020511357 = sum of:
        0.020511357 = product of:
          0.041022714 = sum of:
            0.041022714 = weight(_text_:22 in 1652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.041022714 = score(doc=1652,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050463587 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1652, 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=1652)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    6. 8.2010 14:22:28
  20. Bittner, T.; Donnelly, M.; Winter, S.: Ontology and semantic interoperability (2006) 0.01
    0.0051278393 = product of:
      0.020511357 = sum of:
        0.020511357 = product of:
          0.041022714 = sum of:
            0.041022714 = weight(_text_:22 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.041022714 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050463587 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    3.12.2016 18:39:22