Search (27 results, page 1 of 2)

0.0077534993 = product of:
  0.059443496 = sum of:
    0.017723909 = weight(_text_:und in 2245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017723909 = score(doc=2245,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 2245, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2245)
    0.02883116 = weight(_text_:im in 2245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02883116 = score(doc=2245,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.43276152 = fieldWeight in 2245, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2245)
    0.012888429 = product of:
      0.025776858 = sum of:
        0.025776858 = weight(_text_:29 in 2245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025776858 = score(doc=2245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2245, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13043478 = coord(3/23)

Abstract

Dieser Artikel adressiert einen Randbereich des Wissensmanagements: die Schnittstelle zwischen Unternehmens-externen Informationen im Internet und den Leistungsprozessen eines Unternehmens. Diese Schnittstelle ist besonders für Unternehmen von Interesse, deren Leistungsprozesse von externen Informationen abhängen und die auf diese Prozesse angewiesen sind. Wir zeigen an zwei Fallbeispielen, dass die inhaltliche Filterung von Informationen beim Eintritt ins Unternehmen ein wichtiges Werkzeug darstellt, um daran anschließende Wissens- und Informationsmanagementprozesse effizient zu gestalten.

Date

29. 9.2015 18:56:44

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/

0.004090219 = product of:
  0.047037516 = sum of:
    0.01790758 = weight(_text_:und in 3166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01790758 = score(doc=3166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 3166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3166)
    0.029129935 = weight(_text_:im in 3166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029129935 = score(doc=3166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.4372462 = fieldWeight in 3166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3166)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

0.0037654496 = product of:
  0.04330267 = sum of:
    0.0144715095 = weight(_text_:und in 2568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0144715095 = score(doc=2568,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 2568, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2568)
    0.02883116 = weight(_text_:im in 2568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02883116 = score(doc=2568,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.43276152 = fieldWeight in 2568, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2568)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

Abstract

Im Zuge der immer größeren Verfügbarkeit von Daten (Big Data) und rasanter Fortschritte im Daten-basierten maschinellen Lernen haben wir in den letzten Jahren Durchbrüche in der künstlichen Intelligenz erlebt. Dieser Vortrag beleuchtet diese Entwicklungen insbesondere im Hinblick auf die automatische Analyse von Textdaten. Anhand einfacher Beispiele illustrieren wir, wie moderne Textanalyse abläuft und zeigen wiederum anhand von Beispielen, welche praktischen Anwendungsmöglichkeiten sich heutzutage in Branchen wie dem Verlagswesen, der Finanzindustrie oder dem Consulting ergeben.

0.003675787 = product of:
  0.0845431 = sum of:
    0.0845431 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 3263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0845431 = score(doc=3263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10616633 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.7963268 = fieldWeight in 3263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3263)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

http://www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Institute/Informationswissenschaft/volkmar/1238412202wissensrep.pdf

0.0029613043 = product of:
  0.034055 = sum of:
    0.018089388 = weight(_text_:und in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018089388 = score(doc=5576,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.34630734 = fieldWeight in 5576, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5576)
    0.01596561 = product of:
      0.03193122 = sum of:
        0.03193122 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03193122 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = 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)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

Abstract

Diese Publikation beschreibt die Zusammenhänge zwischen wissenshaltigen begriffsorientierten Terminologien, Ontologien, Big Data und künstliche Intelligenz.

Date

13.12.2017 14:17:22

0.0016735381 = product of:
  0.019245688 = sum of:
    0.009666322 = product of:
      0.019332644 = sum of:
        0.019332644 = weight(_text_:29 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019332644 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009579366 = product of:
      0.019158732 = sum of:
        0.019158732 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019158732 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = 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)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

Date

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

0.0015544195 = product of:
  0.017875824 = sum of:
    0.0062852125 = product of:
      0.012570425 = sum of:
        0.012570425 = weight(_text_:1 in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012570425 = score(doc=1075,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.2171262 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.011590611 = product of:
      0.023181222 = sum of:
        0.023181222 = weight(_text_:international in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023181222 = score(doc=1075,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.2948529 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

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

Source

DC-2013: International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata: Online Proceedings [http://dcevents.dublincore.org/index.php/IntConf/dc-2013/schedConf/presentations]

0.0013303827 = product of:
  0.0152994 = sum of:
    0.008055268 = product of:
      0.016110536 = sum of:
        0.016110536 = weight(_text_:29 in 4705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016110536 = score(doc=4705,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0072441325 = product of:
      0.014488265 = sum of:
        0.014488265 = weight(_text_:international in 4705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014488265 = score(doc=4705,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 4705, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4705)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

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

0.0011114822 = product of:
  0.012782045 = sum of:
    0.007282484 = weight(_text_:im in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007282484 = score(doc=1077,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.10931155 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
    0.005499561 = product of:
      0.010999122 = sum of:
        0.010999122 = weight(_text_:1 in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010999122 = score(doc=1077,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18998542 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

Abstract

My thesis discusses two related problems that have taken center stage in the recent literature on concepts: 1) What are the individuation conditions of concepts? Under what conditions is a concept Cv(1) the same concept as a concept Cv(2)? 2) What are the possession conditions of concepts? What conditions must be satisfied for a thinker to have a concept C? The thesis defends a novel account of concepts, which I call "pluralist-contextualist": 1) Pluralism: Different concepts have different kinds of individuation and possession conditions: some concepts are individuated more "coarsely", have less demanding possession conditions and are widely shared, while other concepts are individuated more "finely" and not shared. 2) Contextualism: When a speaker ascribes a propositional attitude to a subject S, or uses his ascription to explain/predict S's behavior, the speaker's intentions in the relevant context determine the correct individuation conditions for the concepts involved in his report. In chapters 1-3 I defend a contextualist, non-Millian theory of propositional attitude ascriptions. Then, I show how contextualism can be used to offer a novel perspective on the problem of concept individuation/possession. More specifically, I employ contextualism to provide a new, more effective argument for Fodor's "publicity principle": if contextualism is true, then certain specific concepts must be shared in order for interpersonally applicable psychological generalizations to be possible. In chapters 4-5 I raise a tension between publicity and another widely endorsed principle, the "Fregean constraint" (FC): subjects who are unaware of certain identity facts and find themselves in so-called "Frege cases" must have distinct concepts for the relevant object x. For instance: the ancient astronomers had distinct concepts (HESPERUS/PHOSPHORUS) for the same object (the planet Venus). First, I examine some leading theories of concepts and argue that they cannot meet both of our constraints at the same time. Then, I offer principled reasons to think that no theory can satisfy (FC) while also respecting publicity. (FC) appears to require a form of holism, on which a concept is individuated by its global inferential role in a subject S and can thus only be shared by someone who has exactly the same inferential dispositions as S. This explains the tension between publicity and (FC), since holism is clearly incompatible with concept shareability. To solve the tension, I suggest adopting my pluralist-contextualist proposal: concepts involved in Frege cases are holistically individuated and not public, while other concepts are more coarsely individuated and widely shared; given this "plurality" of concepts, we will then need contextual factors (speakers' intentions) to "select" the specific concepts to be employed in our intentional generalizations in the relevant contexts. In chapter 6 I develop the view further by contrasting it with some rival accounts. First, I examine a very different kind of pluralism about concepts, which has been recently defended by Daniel Weiskopf, and argue that it is insufficiently radical. Then, I consider the inferentialist accounts defended by authors like Peacocke, Rey and Jackson. Such views, I argue, are committed to an implausible picture of reference determination, on which our inferential dispositions fix the reference of our concepts: this leads to wrong predictions in all those cases of scientific disagreement where two parties have very different inferential dispositions and yet seem to refer to the same natural kind.

Content

Vgl.: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/3462. - Steht nicht im Volltext zur Verfügung.

0.0010052753 = product of:
  0.011560665 = sum of:
    0.0051164515 = weight(_text_:und in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051164515 = score(doc=4639,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.09795051 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
    0.0064442144 = product of:
      0.012888429 = sum of:
        0.012888429 = weight(_text_:29 in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012888429 = score(doc=4639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

Date

29. 7.2011 14:44:56

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

9.4379415E-4 = product of:
  0.021707265 = sum of:
    0.021707265 = weight(_text_:und in 1101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021707265 = score(doc=1101,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.41556883 = fieldWeight in 1101, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1101)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

Graphendatenbanken sind darauf optimiert, stark miteinander vernetzte Informationen effizient zu speichern und greifbar zu machen. Welchen Ansprüchen müssen Abfragesprachen genügen, damit sie für die Arbeit mit diesen Datenbanken geeignet sind? Bei der Aufarbeitung realer Informationen zeigt sich, dass ein hoher, aber unterschätzter Wert in den Beziehungen zwischen Elementen steckt. Seien es Ereignisse aus Geschichte und Politik, Personen in realen und virtuellen sozialen Netzen, Proteine und Gene, Abhängigkeiten in Märkten und Ökonomien oder Rechnernetze, Computer, Software und Anwender - alles ist miteinander verbunden. Der Graph ist ein Datenmodell, das solche Verbindungsgeflechte abbilden kann. Leider lässt sich das Modell mit relationalen und Aggregat-orientierten NoSQL-Datenbanken ab einer gewissen Komplexität jedoch schwer handhaben. Graphendatenbanken sind dagegen darauf optimiert, solche stark miteinander vernetzten Informationen effizient zu speichern und greifbar zu machen. Auch komplexe Fragen lassen sich durch ausgefeilte Abfragen schnell beantworten. Hierbei kommt es auf die geeignete Abfragesprache an.

7.864951E-4 = product of:
  0.018089388 = sum of:
    0.018089388 = weight(_text_:und in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018089388 = score(doc=2358,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.34630734 = fieldWeight in 2358, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2358)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Missing-Link-Wenn-der-Kasten-denkt-Niklas-Luhmann-und-die-Folgen-3919843.html

5.0393963E-4 = product of:
  0.011590611 = sum of:
    0.011590611 = product of:
      0.023181222 = sum of:
        0.023181222 = weight(_text_:international in 5788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023181222 = score(doc=5788,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.2948529 = fieldWeight in 5788, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5788)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL 2019, Montreal, QC, Canada, June 17-21, 2019 [https://doi.org/10.1145/3322640.3326735]

4.4094716E-4 = product of:
  0.010141784 = sum of:
    0.010141784 = product of:
      0.020283569 = sum of:
        0.020283569 = weight(_text_:international in 4761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020283569 = score(doc=4761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.2579963 = fieldWeight in 4761, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2010), Poster Volume, Beijing, China. Ed.: Chu-Ren Huang and Dan Jurafsky

3.8929522E-4 = product of:
  0.00895379 = sum of:
    0.00895379 = weight(_text_:und in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00895379 = score(doc=604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

3.779547E-4 = product of:
  0.008692958 = sum of:
    0.008692958 = product of:
      0.017385917 = sum of:
        0.017385917 = weight(_text_:international in 4703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017385917 = score(doc=4703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.22113968 = fieldWeight in 4703, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4703)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

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

3.779547E-4 = product of:
  0.008692958 = sum of:
    0.008692958 = product of:
      0.017385917 = sum of:
        0.017385917 = weight(_text_:international in 4762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017385917 = score(doc=4762,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.22113968 = fieldWeight in 4762, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4762)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2011), Oxford, UK. Eds.: Johan Bos and Stephen Pulman

3.779547E-4 = product of:
  0.008692958 = sum of:
    0.008692958 = product of:
      0.017385917 = sum of:
        0.017385917 = weight(_text_:international in 4799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017385917 = score(doc=4799,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.22113968 = fieldWeight in 4799, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4799)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

2010 2nd International Conference on Education Technology and Computer (ICETC)

3.470785E-4 = product of:
  0.007982805 = sum of:
    0.007982805 = product of:
      0.01596561 = sum of:
        0.01596561 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01596561 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = 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)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Date

16.11.2018 14:22:01

2.4153895E-4 = product of:
  0.0055553955 = sum of:
    0.0055553955 = product of:
      0.011110791 = sum of:
        0.011110791 = weight(_text_:1 in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011110791 = score(doc=3297,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.19191428 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

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.

Content

Vgl.: http://oa.upm.es/2646/1/JCR01.pdf.