Search (27 results, page 2 of 2)

0.002667959 = product of:
  0.013339795 = sum of:
    0.013339795 = product of:
      0.02667959 = sum of:
        0.02667959 = weight(_text_:management in 4320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02667959 = score(doc=4320,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 4320, 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=4320)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

An information-seeking system is described which combines traditional keyword querying of WWW resources with the ability to browse and query against RD annotations of those resources. RDF(S) and RDF are used to specify and populate an ontology and the resultant RDF annotations are then indexed along with the full text of the annotated resources. The resultant index allows both keyword querying against the full text of the document and the literal values occurring in the RDF annotations, along with the ability to browse and query the ontology. We motivate our approach as a key enabler for fully exploiting the Semantic Web in the area of knowledge management and argue that the ability to combine searching and browsing behaviours more fully supports a typical information-seeking task. The approach is characterised as "low threshold, high ceiling" in the sense that where RDF annotations exist they are exploited for an improved information-seeking experience but where they do not yet exist, a search capability is still available.

0.002667959 = product of:
  0.013339795 = sum of:
    0.013339795 = product of:
      0.02667959 = sum of:
        0.02667959 = weight(_text_:management in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02667959 = score(doc=3297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.002667959 = product of:
  0.013339795 = sum of:
    0.013339795 = product of:
      0.02667959 = sum of:
        0.02667959 = weight(_text_:management in 756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02667959 = score(doc=756,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 756, 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=756)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Conceptual models are artifacts representing conceptualizations of particular domains. Hence, multi-domain model catalogs serve as empirical sources of knowledge and insights about specific domains, about the use of a modeling language's constructs, as well as about the patterns and anti-patterns recurrent in the models of that language crosscutting different domains. However, to support domain and language learning, model reuse, knowledge discovery for humans, and reliable automated processing and analysis by machines, these catalogs must be built following generally accepted quality requirements for scientific data management. Especially, all scientific (meta)data-including models-should be created using the FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability). In this paper, we report on the construction of a FAIR model catalog for Ontology-Driven Conceptual Modeling research, a trending paradigm lying at the intersection of conceptual modeling and ontology engineering in which the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) and OntoUML emerged among the most adopted technologies. In this initial release, the catalog includes over a hundred models, developed in a variety of contexts and domains. The paper also discusses the research implications for (ontology-driven) conceptual modeling of such a resource.

0.0021343674 = product of:
  0.010671836 = sum of:
    0.010671836 = product of:
      0.021343673 = sum of:
        0.021343673 = weight(_text_:management in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021343673 = score(doc=2799,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.001886532 = product of:
  0.0094326595 = sum of:
    0.0094326595 = product of:
      0.018865319 = sum of:
        0.018865319 = weight(_text_:management in 4393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018865319 = score(doc=4393,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.13166454 = fieldWeight in 4393, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4393)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Zweifelsohne hat die wissenschaftshistorisch begründete Bevorzugung epistemischen Wissens in Verbindung mit der symbolischen Repräsentation (z.B. in Büchern und zunehmend auch in digitaler, computerverarbeitbarer Form) wesentlich zur Herausbildung unseres aktuellen materiellen Wohlstands und technologischen Fortschritts in den Industrieländern beigetragen. Vielleicht hat jedoch gerade dieser Siegeszug der epistemischen, symbolhaft repräsentierten Seite menschlichen Wissens auch dazu beigetragen, dass die eher verdeckten Beiträge der begleitenden sozialen Prozesse und impliziten Anteile menschlichen Wissens erst in den allerletzten Jahren wieder zunehmend Aufmerksamkeit erhalten. Nur vor dieser wissenschaftshistorischen Kulisse kann schließlich auch erklärt werden, dass in vielen Organisationen das Schlagwort vom ,Wissens-management' oft verkürzend so verstanden wurde, von (technischen) Wissensrepräsentationssystemen zu erhoffen, dass sie als Technologie bereits unmittelbar zum gegenseitigen Wissensaustausch und Wissenstransfer für die Menschen beitragen würden, was in der Praxis dann jedoch oft nicht so wie erhofft eingetreten ist.

0.0018675713 = product of:
  0.009337856 = sum of:
    0.009337856 = product of:
      0.018675713 = sum of:
        0.018675713 = weight(_text_:management in 53) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018675713 = score(doc=53,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.13034125 = fieldWeight in 53, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=53)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

# Community action on all ontologies (quality, FAIRness, conformity) Archivo is extensible and allows contributions to give consumers a central place to encode their requirements. We envision fostering adherence to standards and strengthening incentives for publishers to build a better (FAIRer) web of ontologies. 1. SHACL (https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/, co-edited by DBpedia's CTO D. Kontokostas) enables easy testing of ontologies. Archivo offers free SHACL continuous integration testing for ontologies. Anyone can implement their SHACL tests and add them to the SHACL library on Github. We believe that there are many synergies, i.e. SHACL tests for your ontology are helpful for others as well. 2. We are looking for ontology experts to join DBpedia and discuss further validation (e.g. stars) to increase FAIRness and quality of ontologies. We are forming a steering committee and also a PC for the upcoming Vocarnival at SEMANTiCS 2021. Please message hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de <mailto:hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>if you would like to join. We would like to extend the Archivo platform with relevant visualisations, tests, editing aides, mapping management tools and quality checks.

0.0016007755 = product of:
  0.0080038775 = sum of:
    0.0080038775 = product of:
      0.016007755 = sum of:
        0.016007755 = weight(_text_:management in 3391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016007755 = score(doc=3391,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.11172107 = fieldWeight in 3391, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3391)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Short Papers * A Database Backend for OWL, Jörg Henss, Joachim Kleb and Stephan Grimm. * Unifying SysML and OWL, Henson Graves. * The OWLlink Protocol, Thorsten Liebig, Marko Luther and Olaf Noppens. * A Reasoning Broker Framework for OWL, Juergen Bock, Tuvshintur Tserendorj, Yongchun Xu, Jens Wissmann and Stephan Grimm. * Change Representation For OWL 2 Ontologies, Raul Palma, Peter Haase, Oscar Corcho and Asunción Gómez-Pérez. * Practical Aspects of Query Rewriting for OWL 2, Héctor Pérez-Urbina, Ian Horrocks and Boris Motik. * CSage: Use of a Configurable Semantically Attributed Graph Editor as Framework for Editing and Visualization, Lawrence Levin. * A Conformance Test Suite for the OWL 2 RL/RDF Rules Language and the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics, Michael Schneider and Kai Mainzer. * Improving the Data Quality of Relational Databases using OBDA and OWL 2 QL, Olivier Cure. * Temporal Classes and OWL, Natalya Keberle. * Using Ontologies for Medical Image Retrieval - An Experiment, Jasmin Opitz, Bijan Parsia and Ulrike Sattler. * Task Representation and Retrieval in an Ontology-Guided Modelling System, Yuan Ren, Jens Lemcke, Andreas Friesen, Tirdad Rahmani, Srdjan Zivkovic, Boris Gregorcic, Andreas Bartho, Yuting Zhao and Jeff Z. Pan. * A platform for reasoning with OWL-EL knowledge bases in a Peer-to-Peer environment, Alexander De Leon and Michel Dumontier. * Axiomé: a Tool for the Elicitation and Management of SWRL Rules, Saeed Hassanpour, Martin O'Connor and Amar Das. * SQWRL: A Query Language for OWL, Martin O'Connor and Amar Das. * Classifying ELH Ontologies In SQL Databases, Vincent Delaitre and Yevgeny Kazakov. * A Semantic Web Approach to Represent and Retrieve Information in a Corporate Memory, Ana B. Rios-Alvarado, R. Carolina Medina-Ramirez and Ricardo Marcelin-Jimenez. * Towards a Graphical Notation for OWL 2, Elisa Kendall, Roy Bell, Roger Burkhart, Mark Dutra and Evan Wallace.