Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

0.0183509 = product of:
  0.091754496 = sum of:
    0.06060208 = weight(_text_:web in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06060208 = score(doc=4649,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.64902663 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
    0.031152412 = product of:
      0.04672862 = sum of:
        0.023469873 = weight(_text_:29 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023469873 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
        0.023258746 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023258746 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

More and more cultural heritage institutions publish their collections, vocabularies and metadata on the Web. The resulting Web of linked cultural data opens up exciting new possibilities for searching and browsing through these cultural heritage collections. We report on ongoing work in which we investigate the estimation of relevance in this Web of Culture. We study existing measures of semantic distance and how they apply to two use cases. The use cases relate to the structured, multilingual and multimodal nature of the Culture Web. We distinguish between measures using the Web, such as Google distance and PMI, and measures using the Linked Data Web, i.e. the semantic structure of metadata vocabularies. We perform a small study in which we compare these semantic distance measures to human judgements of relevance. Although it is too early to draw any definitive conclusions, the study provides new insights into the applicability of semantic distance measures to the Web of Culture, and clear starting points for further research.

Date

29. 7.2011 14:44:56
26.12.2011 13:40:22

Theme

Semantic Web

0.007640626 = product of:
  0.038203128 = sum of:
    0.0329876 = weight(_text_:web in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0329876 = score(doc=4639,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.35328537 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
    0.0052155275 = product of:
      0.015646582 = sum of:
        0.015646582 = weight(_text_:29 in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015646582 = score(doc=4639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

This thesis focuses on conversion of vocabularies for representation and integration of collections on the Semantic Web. A secondary focus is how to represent metadata schemas (RDF Schemas representing metadata element sets) such that they interoperate with vocabularies. The primary domain in which we operate is that of cultural heritage collections. The background worldview in which a solution is sought is that of the Semantic Web research paradigmwith its associated theories, methods, tools and use cases. In other words, we assume the SemanticWeb is in principle able to provide the context to realize interoperable collections. Interoperability is dependent on the interplay between representations and the applications that use them. We mean applications in the widest sense, such as "search" and "annotation". These applications or tasks are often present in software applications, such as the E-Culture application. It is therefore necessary that applications requirements on the vocabulary representation are met. This leads us to formulate the following problem statement: HOW CAN EXISTING VOCABULARIES BE MADE AVAILABLE TO SEMANTIC WEB APPLICATIONS?
We refine the problem statement into three research questions. The first two focus on the problem of conversion of a vocabulary to a Semantic Web representation from its original format. Conversion of a vocabulary to a representation in a Semantic Web language is necessary to make the vocabulary available to SemanticWeb applications. In the last question we focus on integration of collection metadata schemas in a way that allows for vocabulary representations as produced by our methods. Academisch proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad Doctor aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Dutch Research School for Information and Knowledge Systems.

Date

29. 7.2011 14:44:56

0.007123591 = product of:
  0.035617955 = sum of:
    0.029157192 = weight(_text_:web in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029157192 = score(doc=4553,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
    0.006460763 = product of:
      0.019382289 = sum of:
        0.019382289 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019382289 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Semantic Web knowledge representation standards, and in particular RDF and OWL, often come endowed with a formal semantics which is considered to be of fundamental importance for the field. Reasoning, i.e., the drawing of logical inferences from knowledge expressed in such standards, is traditionally based on logical deductive methods and algorithms which can be proven to be sound and complete and terminating, i.e. correct in a very strong sense. For various reasons, though, in particular the scalability issues arising from the ever increasing amounts of Semantic Web data available and the inability of deductive algorithms to deal with noise in the data, it has been argued that alternative means of reasoning should be investigated which bear high promise for high scalability and better robustness. From this perspective, deductive algorithms can be considered the gold standard regarding correctness against which alternative methods need to be tested. In this paper, we show that it is possible to train a Deep Learning system on RDF knowledge graphs, such that it is able to perform reasoning over new RDF knowledge graphs, with high precision and recall compared to the deductive gold standard.

Date

16.11.2018 14:22:01

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0060652317 = product of:
  0.030326158 = sum of:
    0.023806747 = weight(_text_:web in 4705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023806747 = score(doc=4705,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4705, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4705)
    0.00651941 = product of:
      0.019558229 = sum of:
        0.019558229 = weight(_text_:29 in 4705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019558229 = score(doc=4705,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4705, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4705)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Date

29. 7.2011 14:44:56

Source

The Semantic Web - ISWC 2010. 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, Shanghai, China, November 7-11, 2010, Revised Selected Papers, Part I. Eds.: Peter F. Patel-Schneider et al

0.0053233504 = product of:
  0.053233504 = sum of:
    0.053233504 = weight(_text_:web in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053233504 = score(doc=3297,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

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.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0052698483 = product of:
  0.05269848 = sum of:
    0.05269848 = weight(_text_:web in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05269848 = score(doc=80,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.5643819 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

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.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.00494814 = product of:
  0.0494814 = sum of:
    0.0494814 = weight(_text_:web in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0494814 = score(doc=4798,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.5299281 = fieldWeight in 4798, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4798)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Seven years on from OWL becoming a W3C recommendation, and two years on from the more recent OWL 2 W3C recommendation, OWL has still experienced only patchy uptake on the Web. Although certain OWL features (like owl:sameAs) are very popular, other features of OWL are largely neglected by publishers in the Linked Data world. This may suggest that despite the promise of easy implementations and the proposal of tractable profiles suggested in OWL's second version, there is still no "right" standard fragment for the Linked Data community. In this paper, we (1) analyse uptake of OWL on the Web of Data, (2) gain insights into the OWL fragment that is actually used/usable on the Web, where we arrive at the conclusion that this fragment is likely to be a simplified profile based on OWL RL, (3) propose and discuss such a new fragment, which we call OWL LD (for Linked Data).

Content

Beitrag des Workshops: Linked Data on the Web (LDOW2012), April 16, 2012 Lyon, France; vgl.: http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2012/.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.00494814 = product of:
  0.0494814 = sum of:
    0.0494814 = weight(_text_:web in 4802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0494814 = score(doc=4802,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.5299281 = fieldWeight in 4802, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4802)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The power of search is with no doubt one of the main aspects for the success of the Web. Currently available search engines on the Web allow to return results with a high precision. Nevertheless, if we limit our attention only to lookup search we are missing another important search task. In exploratory search, the user is willing not only to find documents relevant with respect to her query but she is also interested in learning, discovering and understanding novel knowledge on complex and sometimes unknown topics. In the paper we address this issue presenting LED, a web based system that aims to improve (lookup) Web search by enabling users to properly explore knowledge associated to her query. We rely on DBpedia to explore the semantics of keywords within the query thus suggesting potentially interesting related topics/keywords to the user.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0047613494 = product of:
  0.047613494 = sum of:
    0.047613494 = weight(_text_:web in 51) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047613494 = score(doc=51,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 51, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=51)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The increasingly pervasive nature of the Web, expanding to devices and things in everydaylife, along with new trends in Artificial Intelligence call for new paradigms and a new look onKnowledge Representation and Processing at scale for the Semantic Web. The emerging, but stillto be concretely shaped concept of "Knowledge Graphs" provides an excellent unifying metaphorfor this current status of Semantic Web research. More than two decades of Semantic Webresearch provides a solid basis and a promising technology and standards stack to interlink data,ontologies and knowledge on the Web. However, neither are applications for Knowledge Graphsas such limited to Linked Open Data, nor are instantiations of Knowledge Graphs in enterprises- while often inspired by - limited to the core Semantic Web stack. This report documents theprogram and the outcomes of Dagstuhl Seminar 18371 "Knowledge Graphs: New Directions forKnowledge Representation on the Semantic Web", where a group of experts from academia andindustry discussed fundamental questions around these topics for a week in early September 2018,including the following: what are knowledge graphs? Which applications do we see to emerge?Which open research questions still need be addressed and which technology gaps still need tobe closed?

Theme

Semantic Web

0.004466542 = product of:
  0.04466542 = sum of:
    0.04466542 = weight(_text_:web in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04466542 = score(doc=135,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.47835067 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

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

Content

Vgl.: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/ontologies-and-languages-representing-mathematical-knowledge-semantic-web http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/sites/default/files/swj122_2.pdf.

Source

Semantic Web journal. 2(2012), no.x

0.004409071 = product of:
  0.04409071 = sum of:
    0.04409071 = weight(_text_:web in 4803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04409071 = score(doc=4803,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.47219574 = fieldWeight in 4803, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4803)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

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.
The Linked Data initiative and the state of the art in semantic technologies led off all brand new search and mash-up applications. The basic idea is to have smarter lookup services for a huge, distributed and social knowledge base. All these applications catch and (re)propose, under a semantic data perspective, the view of the classical Web as a distributed collection of documents to retrieve. The interlinked nature of the Web, and consequently of the Semantic Web, is exploited (just) to collect and aggregate data coming from different sources. Of course, this is a big step forward in search and Web technologies, but if we limit our investi- gation to retrieval tasks, we miss another important feature of the current Web: browsing and in particular exploratory browsing (a.k.a. exploratory search). Thanks to its hyperlinked nature, the Web defined a new way of browsing documents and knowledge: selection by lookup, navigation and trial-and-error tactics were, and still are, exploited by users to search for relevant information satisfying some initial requirements. The basic assumptions behind a lookup search, typical of Information Retrieval (IR) systems, are no more valid in an exploratory browsing context. An IR system, such as a search engine, assumes that: the user has a clear picture of what she is looking for ; she knows the terminology of the specific knowledge space. On the other side, as argued in, the main challenges in exploratory search can be summarized as: support querying and rapid query refinement; other facets and metadata-based result filtering; leverage search context; support learning and understanding; other visualization to support insight/decision making; facilitate collaboration. In Section 3 we will show two applications for exploratory search in the Semantic Web addressing some of the above challenges.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.004040139 = product of:
  0.040401388 = sum of:
    0.040401388 = weight(_text_:web in 4703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040401388 = score(doc=4703,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 4703, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4703)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

In Linked Data, the use of owl:sameAs is ubiquitous in interlinking data-sets. There is however, ongoing discussion about its use, and potential misuse, particularly with regards to interactions with inference. In fact, owl:sameAs can be viewed as encoding only one point on a scale of similarity, one that is often too strong for many of its current uses. We describe how referentially opaque contexts that do not allow inference exist, and then outline some varieties of referentially-opaque alternatives to owl:sameAs. Finally, we report on an empirical experiment over randomly selected owl:sameAs statements from the Web of data. This theoretical apparatus and experiment shed light upon how owl:sameAs is being used (and misused) on the Web of data.

Source

The Semantic Web - ISWC 2010. 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, Shanghai, China, November 7-11, 2010, Revised Selected Papers, Part I. Eds.: Peter F. Patel-Schneider et al

0.004040139 = product of:
  0.040401388 = sum of:
    0.040401388 = weight(_text_:web in 4834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040401388 = score(doc=4834,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 4834, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4834)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

In Linked Data, the use of owl:sameAs is ubiquitous in 'inter-linking' data-sets. However, there is a lurking suspicion within the Linked Data community that this use of owl:sameAs may be somehow incorrect, in particular with regards to its interactions with inference. In fact, owl:sameAs can be considered just one type of 'identity link', a link that declares two items to be identical in some fashion. After reviewing the definitions and history of the problem of identity in philosophy and knowledge representation, we outline four alternative readings of owl:sameAs, showing with examples how it is being (ab)used on the Web of data. Then we present possible solutions to this problem by introducing alternative identity links that rely on named graphs.

Source

Linked Data on the Web (LDOW2010). Proceedings of the WWW2010 Workshop on Linked Data on the Web. Raleigh, USA, April 27, 2010. Edited by Christian Bizer et al

0.004040139 = product of:
  0.040401388 = sum of:
    0.040401388 = weight(_text_:web in 803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040401388 = score(doc=803,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 803, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=803)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0038090795 = product of:
  0.038090795 = sum of:
    0.038090795 = weight(_text_:web in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038090795 = score(doc=1075,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Content

Tutorial topics and outline 1. Tutorial Background Overview The Semantic Web, Linked Data, and the Resource Description Framework 2. Ontology Basics and RDFS Tutorial Semantic modeling, domain ontologies, and RDF Vocabulary Description Language (RDFS) concepts and terminology Examples: domain ontologies, models, and schemas Exercises 3. OWL Overview Tutorial Web Ontology Language (OWL): selected concepts and terminology Exercises

0.0035630676 = product of:
  0.035630677 = sum of:
    0.035630677 = weight(_text_:web in 4796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035630677 = score(doc=4796,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.38159183 = fieldWeight in 4796, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4796)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

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].
Key recommendations of the report are: - That library leaders identify sets of data as possible candidates for early exposure as Linked Data and foster a discussion about Open Data and rights; - That library standards bodies increase library participation in Semantic Web standardization, develop library data standards that are compatible with Linked Data, and disseminate best-practice design patterns tailored to library Linked Data; - That data and systems designers design enhanced user services based on Linked Data capabilities, create URIs for the items in library datasets, develop policies for managing RDF vocabularies and their URIs, and express library data by re-using or mapping to existing Linked Data vocabularies; - That librarians and archivists preserve Linked Data element sets and value vocabularies and apply library experience in curation and long-term preservation to Linked Data datasets.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0034988632 = product of:
  0.03498863 = sum of:
    0.03498863 = weight(_text_:web in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03498863 = score(doc=761,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

In this paper, I have traced a series of evolutionary adaptations of FOL motivated entirely by its use by knowledge engineers to represent and share information on the Web culminating in the development of Common Logic. While the primary goal in this paper has been to document this evolution, it is arguable, I think that CL's syntactic and semantic egalitarianism better realizes the goal "topic neutrality" that a logic should ideally exemplify - understood, at least in part, as the idea that logic should as far as possible not itself embody any metaphysical presuppositions. Instead of retaining the traditional metaphysical divisions of FOL that reflect its Fregean origins, CL begins as it were with a single, metaphysically homogeneous domain in which, potentially, anything can play the traditional roles of object, property, relation, and function. Note that the effect of this is not to destroy traditional metaphysical divisions. Rather, it simply to refrain from building those divisions explicitly into one's logic; instead, such divisions are left to the user to introduce and enforce axiomatically in an explicit metaphysical theory.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0033667826 = product of:
  0.033667825 = sum of:
    0.033667825 = weight(_text_:web in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033667825 = score(doc=2861,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Today's conventional search engines hardly do provide the essential content relevant to the user's search query. This is because the context and semantics of the request made by the user is not analyzed to the full extent. So here the need for a semantic web search arises. SWS is upcoming in the area of web search which combines Natural Language Processing and Artificial Intelligence. The objective of the work done here is to design, develop and implement a semantic search engine- SIEU(Semantic Information Extraction in University Domain) confined to the university domain. SIEU uses ontology as a knowledge base for the information retrieval process. It is not just a mere keyword search. It is one layer above what Google or any other search engines retrieve by analyzing just the keywords. Here the query is analyzed both syntactically and semantically. The developed system retrieves the web results more relevant to the user query through keyword expansion. The results obtained here will be accurate enough to satisfy the request made by the user. The level of accuracy will be enhanced since the query is analyzed semantically. The system will be of great use to the developers and researchers who work on web. The Google results are re-ranked and optimized for providing the relevant links. For ranking an algorithm has been applied which fetches more apt results for the user query.

0.0033329446 = product of:
  0.033329446 = sum of:
    0.033329446 = weight(_text_:web in 4733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033329446 = score(doc=4733,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 4733, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4733)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Ontologies are often viewed as the answer to the need for inter-operable semantics in modern information systems. The explosion of textual information on the "Read/Write" Web coupled with the increasing demand for ontologies to power the Semantic Web have made (semi-)automatic ontology learning from text a very promising research area. This together with the advanced state in related areas such as natural language processing have fuelled research into ontology learning over the past decade. This survey looks at how far we have come since the turn of the millennium, and discusses the remaining challenges that will define the research directions in this area in the near future.

0.003011342 = product of:
  0.03011342 = sum of:
    0.03011342 = weight(_text_:web in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03011342 = score(doc=311,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.32250395 = fieldWeight in 311, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=311)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

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.
Methodology Based on information from research papers, more research was done on SKOS and examples of SKOS and shared faceted classifications in the Semantic Web and about SKOS and how to express SKOS in RDF/XML. Once confident with these ideas, the author used a faceted taxonomy created in a Vocabulary Design class and encoded it using SKOS. Instead of writing RDF in a program such as Notepad, a thesaurus tool was used to create the taxonomy according to SKOS standards and then export the thesaurus in RDF/XML format. These processes and tools are then analyzed. Results The initial statement of the problem was simply an extension of the survey paper done earlier in this class. To continue on with the research, more research was done into SKOS - a standard for expressing thesauri, taxonomies and faceted classifications so they can be shared on the semantic web.