Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024841055 = product of:
  0.074523166 = sum of:
    0.074523166 = weight(_text_:resources in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074523166 = score(doc=80,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.39925572 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Semantic Web and ontologies can help archaeologists combine and share data, making it more open and useful. Archaeologists create diverse types of data, using a wide variety of technologies and methodologies. Like all research domains, these data are increasingly digital. The creation of data that are now openly and persistently available from disparate sources has also inspired efforts to bring archaeological resources together and make them more interoperable. This allows functionality such as federated cross-search across different datasets, and the mapping of heterogeneous data to authoritative structures to build a single data source. Ontologies provide the structure and relationships for Semantic Web data, and have been developed for use in cultural heritage applications generally, and archaeology specifically. A variety of online resources for archaeology now incorporate Semantic Web principles and technologies.

0.015055953 = product of:
  0.045167856 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 3264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=3264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 3264, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3264)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We scho how the beenfits of the view-based search method, developed within the information retrieval community, can be extended with ontology-based search, developed within the Semantic Web community, and with semantic recommendations. As a proof of the concept, we have implemented an ontology-and view-based search engine and recommendations system Ontogaotr for RDF(S) repositories. Ontogator is innovative in two ways. Firstly, the RDFS.based ontologies used for annotating metadata are used in the user interface to facilitate view-based information retrieval. The views provide the user with an overview of the repositorys contents and a vocabulary for expressing search queries. Secondlyy, a semantic browsing function is provided by a recommender system. This system enriches instance level metadata by ontologies and provides the user with links to semantically related relevant resources. The semantic linkage is specified in terms of logical rules. To illustrate and discuss the ideas, a deployed application of Ontogator to a photo repository of the Helsinki University Museum is presented.

0.014194889 = product of:
  0.042584665 = sum of:
    0.042584665 = weight(_text_:resources in 4796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042584665 = score(doc=4796,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.22814612 = fieldWeight in 4796, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4796)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The mission of the W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group, chartered from May 2010 through August 2011, has been "to help increase global interoperability of library data on the Web, by bringing together people involved in Semantic Web activities - focusing on Linked Data - in the library community and beyond, building on existing initiatives, and identifying collaboration tracks for the future." In Linked Data [LINKEDDATA], data is expressed using standards such as Resource Description Framework (RDF) [RDF], which specifies relationships between things, and Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs, or "Web addresses") [URI]. This final report of the Incubator Group examines how Semantic Web standards and Linked Data principles can be used to make the valuable information assets that library create and curate - resources such as bibliographic data, authorities, and concept schemes - more visible and re-usable outside of their original library context on the wider Web. The Incubator Group began by eliciting reports on relevant activities from parties ranging from small, independent projects to national library initiatives (see the separate report, Library Linked Data Incubator Group: Use Cases) [USECASE]. These use cases provided the starting point for the work summarized in the report: an analysis of the benefits of library Linked Data, a discussion of current issues with regard to traditional library data, existing library Linked Data initiatives, and legal rights over library data; and recommendations for next steps. The report also summarizes the results of a survey of current Linked Data technologies and an inventory of library Linked Data resources available today (see also the more detailed report, Library Linked Data Incubator Group: Datasets, Value Vocabularies, and Metadata Element Sets) [VOCABDATASET].

0.014194889 = product of:
  0.042584665 = sum of:
    0.042584665 = weight(_text_:resources in 699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042584665 = score(doc=699,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.22814612 = fieldWeight in 699, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=699)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Background: Because of the increasing number of electronic resources, designing efficient tools to retrieve and exploit them is a major challenge. Some improvements have been offered by semantic Web technologies and applications based on domain ontologies. In life science, for instance, the Gene Ontology is widely exploited in genomic applications and the Medical Subject Headings is the basis of biomedical publications indexation and information retrieval process proposed by PubMed. However current search engines suffer from two main drawbacks: there is limited user interaction with the list of retrieved resources and no explanation for their adequacy to the query is provided. Users may thus be confused by the selection and have no idea on how to adapt their queries so that the results match their expectations. Results: This paper describes an information retrieval system that relies on domain ontology to widen the set of relevant documents that is retrieved and that uses a graphical rendering of query results to favor user interactions. Semantic proximities between ontology concepts and aggregating models are used to assess documents adequacy with respect to a query. The selection of documents is displayed in a semantic map to provide graphical indications that make explicit to what extent they match the user's query; this man/machine interface favors a more interactive and iterative exploration of data corpus, by facilitating query concepts weighting and visual explanation. We illustrate the benefit of using this information retrieval system on two case studies one of which aiming at collecting human genes related to transcription factors involved in hemopoiesis pathway. Conclusions: The ontology based information retrieval system described in this paper (OBIRS) is freely available at: http://www.ontotoolkit.mines-ales.fr/ObirsClient/. This environment is a first step towards a user centred application in which the system enlightens relevant information to provide decision help.

0.012546628 = product of:
  0.037639882 = sum of:
    0.037639882 = weight(_text_:resources in 5864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037639882 = score(doc=5864,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.20165458 = fieldWeight in 5864, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5864)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Current retrieval and recommendation approaches rely on hard-wired data models. This hinders personalized cus-tomizations to meet information needs of users in a more flexible manner. Therefore, the paper investigates how similarity-basedretrieval strategies can be combined with graph queries to enable users or system providers to explore repositories in the LinkedOpen Data (LOD) cloud more thoroughly. For this purpose, we developed novel content-based recommendation approaches.They rely on concept annotations of Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) vocabularies and a SPARQL-based querylanguage that facilitates advanced and personalized requests for openly available knowledge graphs. We have comprehensivelyevaluated the novel search strategies in several test cases and example application domains (i.e., travel search and multimediaretrieval). The results of the web-based online experiments showed that our approaches increase the recall and diversity of rec-ommendations or at least provide a competitive alternative strategy of resource access when conventional methods do not providehelpful suggestions. The findings may be of use for Linked Data-enabled recommender systems (LDRS) as well as for semanticsearch engines that can consume LOD resources. (PDF) Similarity-based knowledge graph queries for recommendation retrieval. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333358714_Similarity-based_knowledge_graph_queries_for_recommendation_retrieval [accessed May 21 2020].

0.011546515 = product of:
  0.034639545 = sum of:
    0.034639545 = product of:
      0.06927909 = sum of:
        0.06927909 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06927909 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5576, 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=5576)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

13.12.2017 14:17:22

0.010037302 = product of:
  0.030111905 = sum of:
    0.030111905 = weight(_text_:resources in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030111905 = score(doc=311,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.16132367 = fieldWeight in 311, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=311)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper looks at Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) to investigate how a faceted classification can be expressed in RDF and shared on the Semantic Web. Statement of the Problem Faceted classification outlines facets as well as subfacets and facet values. Hierarchical relationships and associative relationships are established in a faceted classification. RDF is used to describe how a specific URI has a relationship to a facet value. Not only does RDF decompose "information into pieces," but by incorporating facet values RDF also given the URI the hierarchical and associative relationships expressed in the faceted classification. Combining faceted classification and RDF creates more knowledge than if the two stood alone. An application understands the subjectpredicate-object relationship in RDF and can display hierarchical and associative relationships based on the object (facet) value. This paper continues to investigate if the above idea is indeed useful, used, and applicable. If so, how can a faceted classification be expressed in RDF? What would this expression look like? Literature Review This paper used the same articles as the paper A Survey of Faceted Classification: History, Uses, Drawbacks and the Semantic Web (Putkey, 2010). In that paper, appropriate resources were discovered by searching in various databases for "faceted classification" and "faceted search," either in the descriptor or title fields. Citations were also followed to find more articles as well as searching the Internet for the same terms. To retrieve the documents about RDF, searches combined "faceted classification" and "RDF, " looking for these words in either the descriptor or title.

0.008782639 = product of:
  0.026347917 = sum of:
    0.026347917 = weight(_text_:resources in 4803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026347917 = score(doc=4803,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.14115821 = fieldWeight in 4803, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4803)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Thanks to the recent Linked Data initiative, the foundations of the Semantic Web have been built. Shared, open and linked RDF datasets give us the possibility to exploit both the strong theoretical results and the robust technologies and tools developed since the seminal paper in the Semantic Web appeared in 2001. In a simplistic way, we may think at the Semantic Web as a ultra large distributed database we can query to get information coming from different sources. In fact, every dataset exposes a SPARQL endpoint to make the data accessible through exact queries. If we know the URI of the famous actress Nicole Kidman in DBpedia we may retrieve all the movies she acted with a simple SPARQL query. Eventually we may aggregate this information with users ratings and genres from IMDB. Even though these are very exciting results and applications, there is much more behind the curtains. Datasets come with the description of their schema structured in an ontological way. Resources refer to classes which are in turn organized in well structured and rich ontologies. Exploiting also this further feature we go beyond the notion of a distributed database and we can refer to the Semantic Web as a distributed knowledge base. If in our knowledge base we have that Paris is located in France (ontological level) and that Moulin Rouge! is set in Paris (data level) we may query the Semantic Web (interpreted as a set of interconnected datasets and related ontologies) to return all the movies starred by Nicole Kidman set in France and Moulin Rouge! will be in the final result set. The ontological level makes possible to infer new relations among data.

0.008557925 = product of:
  0.025673775 = sum of:
    0.025673775 = product of:
      0.05134755 = sum of:
        0.05134755 = weight(_text_:management in 2245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05134755 = score(doc=2245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.29792285 = fieldWeight in 2245, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Open journal of knowledge management. 2013, Ausgabe VII = http://www.community-of-knowledge.de/beitrag/semantische-filterung-ein-werkzeug-zur-steigerung-der-effizienz-im-wissensmanagement/

0.0074881846 = product of:
  0.022464553 = sum of:
    0.022464553 = product of:
      0.044929106 = sum of:
        0.044929106 = weight(_text_:management in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044929106 = score(doc=604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

iQvoc is a new open source SKOS-XL vocabulary management tool developed by the Federal Environment Agency, Germany, and innoQ Deutschland GmbH. Its immediate purpose is maintaining and publishing reference vocabularies in the upcoming Linked Data cloud of environmental information, but it may be easily adapted to host any SKOS- XL compliant vocabulary. iQvoc is implemented as a Ruby on Rails application running on top of JRuby - the Java implementation of the Ruby Programming Language. To increase the user experience when editing content, iQvoc uses heavily the JavaScript library jQuery.

0.0069279084 = product of:
  0.020783724 = sum of:
    0.020783724 = product of:
      0.04156745 = sum of:
        0.04156745 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04156745 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4649, 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=4649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

26.12.2011 13:40:22

0.0057732575 = product of:
  0.017319772 = sum of:
    0.017319772 = product of:
      0.034639545 = sum of:
        0.034639545 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034639545 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

16.11.2018 14:22:01

0.005348703 = product of:
  0.016046109 = sum of:
    0.016046109 = product of:
      0.032092217 = sum of:
        0.032092217 = weight(_text_:management in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032092217 = score(doc=3297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 3297, 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=3297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ontologies have proven to be an essential element in many applications. They are used in agent systems, knowledge management systems, and e-commerce platforms. They can also generate natural language, integrate intelligent information, provide semantic-based access to the Internet, and extract information from texts in addition to being used in many other applications to explicitly declare the knowledge embedded in them. However, not only are ontologies useful for applications in which knowledge plays a key role, but they can also trigger a major change in current Web contents. This change is leading to the third generation of the Web-known as the Semantic Web-which has been defined as "the conceptual structuring of the Web in an explicit machine-readable way."1 This definition does not differ too much from the one used for defining an ontology: "An ontology is an explicit, machinereadable specification of a shared conceptualization."2 In fact, new ontology-based applications and knowledge architectures are developing for this new Web. A common claim for all of these approaches is the need for languages to represent the semantic information that this Web requires-solving the heterogeneous data exchange in this heterogeneous environment. Here, we don't decide which language is best of the Semantic Web. Rather, our goal is to help developers find the most suitable language for their representation needs. The authors analyze the most representative ontology languages created for the Web and compare them using a common framework.