-
Hollink, L.; Assem, M. van: Estimating the relevance of search results in the Culture-Web : a study of semantic distance measures (2010)
0.05
0.04836211 = product of:
0.09672422 = sum of:
0.09672422 = sum of:
0.054454714 = weight(_text_:l in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054454714 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20667124 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = queryNorm
0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
0.042269506 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042269506 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18208572 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = 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)
- Date
- 26.12.2011 13:40:22
-
Schreiber, G.; Amin, A.; Assem, M. van; Boer, V. de; Hardman, L.; Hildebrand, M.; Omelayenko, B.; Ossenbruggen, J. van; Wielemaker, J.; Wielinga, B.; Tordai, A.; Aroyoa, L.: Semantic annotation and search of cultural-heritage collections : the MultimediaN E-Culture demonstrator (2008)
0.02
0.019252649 = product of:
0.038505297 = sum of:
0.038505297 = product of:
0.077010594 = sum of:
0.077010594 = weight(_text_:l in 4646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.077010594 = score(doc=4646,freq=4.0), product of:
0.20667124 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = queryNorm
0.37262368 = fieldWeight in 4646, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4646)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Schreiber, G.; Amin, A.; Assem, M. van; Boer, V. de; Hardman, L.; Hildebrand, M.; Hollink, L.; Huang, Z.; Kersen, J. van; Niet, M. de; Omelayenko, B.; Ossenbruggen, J. van; Siebes, R.; Taekema, J.; Wielemaker, J.; Wielinga, B.: MultimediaN E-Culture demonstrator (2006)
0.02
0.019252649 = product of:
0.038505297 = sum of:
0.038505297 = product of:
0.077010594 = sum of:
0.077010594 = weight(_text_:l in 4648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.077010594 = score(doc=4648,freq=4.0), product of:
0.20667124 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = queryNorm
0.37262368 = fieldWeight in 4648, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4648)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Wachsmann, L.: Entwurf und Implementierung eines Modells zur Visualisierung von OWL-Properties als Protégé-PlugIn mit Layoutalgorithmen aus Graphviz (2008)
0.02
0.018151572 = product of:
0.036303144 = sum of:
0.036303144 = product of:
0.07260629 = sum of:
0.07260629 = weight(_text_:l in 4173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07260629 = score(doc=4173,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20667124 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = queryNorm
0.35131297 = fieldWeight in 4173, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4173)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Drewer, P.; Massion, F; Pulitano, D: Was haben Wissensmodellierung, Wissensstrukturierung, künstliche Intelligenz und Terminologie miteinander zu tun? (2017)
0.02
0.017612295 = product of:
0.03522459 = sum of:
0.03522459 = product of:
0.07044918 = sum of:
0.07044918 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07044918 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18208572 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 13.12.2017 14:17:22
-
Tudhope, D.; Hodge, G.: Terminology registries (2007)
0.02
0.017612295 = product of:
0.03522459 = sum of:
0.03522459 = product of:
0.07044918 = sum of:
0.07044918 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07044918 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18208572 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 26.12.2011 13:22:07
-
OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases (2004)
0.01
0.014089836 = product of:
0.028179672 = sum of:
0.028179672 = product of:
0.056359343 = sum of:
0.056359343 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056359343 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18208572 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4685, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4685)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 14. 8.2011 13:33:22
-
Hauff-Hartig, S.: Wissensrepräsentation durch RDF: Drei angewandte Forschungsbeispiele : Bitte recht vielfältig: Wie Wissensgraphen, Disco und FaBiO Struktur in Mangas und die Humanities bringen (2021)
0.01
0.014089836 = product of:
0.028179672 = sum of:
0.028179672 = product of:
0.056359343 = sum of:
0.056359343 = weight(_text_:22 in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056359343 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18208572 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 318, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=318)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 5.2021 12:43:05
-
Hollink, L.; Assem, M. van; Wang, S.; Isaac, A.; Schreiber, G.: Two variations on ontology alignment evaluation : methodological issues (2008)
0.01
0.0136136785 = product of:
0.027227357 = sum of:
0.027227357 = product of:
0.054454714 = sum of:
0.054454714 = weight(_text_:l in 4645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054454714 = score(doc=4645,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20667124 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = queryNorm
0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 4645, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4645)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Knorz, G.; Rein, B.: Semantische Suche in einer Hochschulontologie : Ontologie-basiertes Information-Filtering und -Retrieval mit relationalen Datenbanken (2005)
0.01
0.012328606 = product of:
0.024657212 = sum of:
0.024657212 = product of:
0.049314424 = sum of:
0.049314424 = weight(_text_:22 in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049314424 = score(doc=4324,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18208572 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4324, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4324)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 11. 2.2011 18:22:25
-
Mayfield, J.; Finin, T.: Information retrieval on the Semantic Web : integrating inference and retrieval
0.01
0.012328606 = product of:
0.024657212 = sum of:
0.024657212 = product of:
0.049314424 = sum of:
0.049314424 = weight(_text_:22 in 4330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049314424 = score(doc=4330,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18208572 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4330, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4330)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 12. 2.2011 17:35:22
-
Priss, U.: Faceted knowledge representation (1999)
0.01
0.012328606 = product of:
0.024657212 = sum of:
0.024657212 = product of:
0.049314424 = sum of:
0.049314424 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049314424 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18208572 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 17:30:31
-
Zhang, L.; Liu, Q.L.; Zhang, J.; Wang, H.F.; Pan, Y.; Yu, Y.: Semplore: an IR approach to scalable hybrid query of Semantic Web data (2007)
0.01
0.011344733 = product of:
0.022689465 = sum of:
0.022689465 = product of:
0.04537893 = sum of:
0.04537893 = weight(_text_:l in 231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04537893 = score(doc=231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20667124 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = queryNorm
0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=231)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Wenige, L.; Ruhland, J.: Similarity-based knowledge graph queries for recommendation retrieval (2019)
0.01
0.011344733 = product of:
0.022689465 = sum of:
0.022689465 = product of:
0.04537893 = sum of:
0.04537893 = weight(_text_:l in 5864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04537893 = score(doc=5864,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20667124 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = queryNorm
0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 5864, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5864)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (2003)
0.01
0.010567376 = product of:
0.021134753 = sum of:
0.021134753 = product of:
0.042269506 = sum of:
0.042269506 = weight(_text_:22 in 1652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042269506 = score(doc=1652,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18208572 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1652, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1652)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 6. 8.2010 14:22:28
-
Bittner, T.; Donnelly, M.; Winter, S.: Ontology and semantic interoperability (2006)
0.01
0.010567376 = product of:
0.021134753 = sum of:
0.021134753 = product of:
0.042269506 = sum of:
0.042269506 = weight(_text_:22 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042269506 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18208572 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4820, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4820)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 3.12.2016 18:39:22
-
Priss, U.: Description logic and faceted knowledge representation (1999)
0.01
0.010567376 = product of:
0.021134753 = sum of:
0.021134753 = product of:
0.042269506 = sum of:
0.042269506 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042269506 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18208572 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2655, 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=2655)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 17:30:31
-
Beppler, F.D.; Fonseca, F.T.; Pacheco, R.C.S.: Hermeneus: an architecture for an ontology-enabled information retrieval (2008)
0.01
0.010567376 = product of:
0.021134753 = sum of:
0.021134753 = product of:
0.042269506 = sum of:
0.042269506 = weight(_text_:22 in 3261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042269506 = score(doc=3261,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18208572 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3261, 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=3261)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 28.11.2016 12:43:22
-
Scheir, P.; Pammer, V.; Lindstaedt, S.N.: Information retrieval on the Semantic Web : does it exist? (2007)
0.01
0.010447147 = product of:
0.020894295 = sum of:
0.020894295 = product of:
0.08357718 = sum of:
0.08357718 = weight(_text_:authors in 4329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08357718 = score(doc=4329,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23704608 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = queryNorm
0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 4329, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4329)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Plenty of contemporary attempts to search exist that are associated with the area of Semantic Web. But which of them qualify as information retrieval for the Semantic Web? Do such approaches exist? To answer these questions we take a look at the nature of the Semantic Web and Semantic Desktop and at definitions for information and data retrieval. We survey current approaches referred to by their authors as information retrieval for the Semantic Web or that use Semantic Web technology for search.
-
Fischer, D.H.: Converting a thesaurus to OWL : Notes on the paper "The National Cancer Institute's Thesaurus and Ontology" (2004)
0.01
0.009047496 = product of:
0.018094992 = sum of:
0.018094992 = product of:
0.07237997 = sum of:
0.07237997 = weight(_text_:authors in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07237997 = score(doc=2362,freq=6.0), product of:
0.23704608 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.05199731 = queryNorm
0.30534133 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The paper analysed here is a kind of position paper. In order to get a better under-standing of the reported work I used the retrieval interface of the thesaurus, the so-called NCI DTS Browser accessible via the Web3, and I perused the cited OWL file4 with numerous "Find" and "Find next" string searches. In addition the file was im-ported into Protégé 2000, Release 2.0, with OWL Plugin 1.0 and Racer Plugin 1.7.14. At the end of the paper's introduction the authors say: "In the following sections, this paper will describe the terminology development process at NCI, and the issues associated with converting a description logic based nomenclature to a semantically rich OWL ontology." While I will not deal with the first part, i.e. the terminology development process at NCI, I do not see the thesaurus as a description logic based nomenclature, or its cur-rent state and conversion already result in a "rich" OWL ontology. What does "rich" mean here? According to my view there is a great quantity of concepts and links but a very poor description logic structure which enables inferences. And what does the fol-lowing really mean, which is said a few lines previously: "Although editors have defined a number of named ontologic relations to support the description-logic based structure of the Thesaurus, additional relation-ships are considered for inclusion as required to support dependent applications."
According to my findings several relations available in the thesaurus query interface as "roles", are not used, i.e. there are not yet any assertions with them. And those which are used do not contribute to complete concept definitions of concepts which represent thesaurus main entries. In other words: The authors claim to already have a "description logic based nomenclature", where there is not yet one which deserves that title by being much more than a thesaurus with strict subsumption and additional inheritable semantic links. In the last section of the paper the authors say: "The most time consuming process in this conversion was making a careful analysis of the Thesaurus to understand the best way to translate it into OWL." "For other conversions, these same types of distinctions and decisions must be made. The expressive power of a proprietary encoding can vary widely from that in OWL or RDF. Understanding the original semantics and engineering a solution that most closely duplicates it is critical for creating a useful and accu-rate ontology." My question is: What decisions were made and are they exemplary, can they be rec-ommended as "the best way"? I raise strong doubts with respect to that, and I miss more profound discussions of the issues at stake. The following notes are dedicated to a critical description and assessment of the results of that conversion activity. They are written in a tutorial style more or less addressing students, but myself being a learner especially in the field of medical knowledge representation I do not speak "ex cathedra".
