Search (102 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Resource Description Framework (RDF) (2004) 0.07 
    0.07395954 = product of:
  0.19722544 = sum of:
    0.052305818 = weight(_text_:world in 3063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052305818 = score(doc=3063,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.33973572 = fieldWeight in 3063, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3063)
    0.06950463 = weight(_text_:wide in 3063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06950463 = score(doc=3063,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.3916274 = fieldWeight in 3063, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3063)
    0.075414985 = weight(_text_:web in 3063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075414985 = score(doc=3063,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 3063, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3063)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    The Resource Description Framework (RDF) integrates a variety of applications from library catalogs and world-wide directories to syndication and aggregation of news, software, and content to personal collections of music, photos, and events using XML as an interchange syntax. The RDF specifications provide a lightweight ontology system to support the exchange of knowledge on the Web. The W3C Semantic Web Activity Statement explains W3C's plans for RDF, including the RDF Core WG, Web Ontology and the RDF Interest Group.
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  2. Bechhofer, S.; Harmelen, F. van; Hendler, J.; Horrocks, I.; McGuinness, D.L.; Patel-Schneider, P.F.; Stein, L.A.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference (2004) 0.07 
    0.06763541 = product of:
  0.18036109 = sum of:
    0.04576759 = weight(_text_:world in 4684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04576759 = score(doc=4684,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.29726875 = fieldWeight in 4684, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4684)
    0.060816556 = weight(_text_:wide in 4684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060816556 = score(doc=4684,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 4684, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4684)
    0.07377695 = weight(_text_:web in 4684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07377695 = score(doc=4684,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.5643819 = fieldWeight in 4684, 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=4684)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    The Web Ontology Language OWL is a semantic markup language for publishing and sharing ontologies on the World Wide Web. OWL is developed as a vocabulary extension of RDF (the Resource Description Framework) and is derived from the DAML+OIL Web Ontology Language. This document contains a structured informal description of the full set of OWL language constructs and is meant to serve as a reference for OWL users who want to construct OWL ontologies.
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  3. RDF Primer : W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004 (2004) 0.07 
    0.06567633 = product of:
  0.1751369 = sum of:
    0.052305818 = weight(_text_:world in 3064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052305818 = score(doc=3064,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.33973572 = fieldWeight in 3064, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3064)
    0.06950463 = weight(_text_:wide in 3064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06950463 = score(doc=3064,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.3916274 = fieldWeight in 3064, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3064)
    0.05332645 = weight(_text_:web in 3064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05332645 = score(doc=3064,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 3064, 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=3064)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a language for representing information about resources in the World Wide Web. This Primer is designed to provide the reader with the basic knowledge required to effectively use RDF. It introduces the basic concepts of RDF and describes its XML syntax. It describes how to define RDF vocabularies using the RDF Vocabulary Description Language, and gives an overview of some deployed RDF applications. It also describes the content and purpose of other RDF specification documents.
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  4. Hüsken, P.: Information Retrieval im Semantic Web (2006) 0.06 
    0.05797321 = product of:
  0.15459523 = sum of:
    0.039229363 = weight(_text_:world in 4333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039229363 = score(doc=4333,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 4333, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4333)
    0.052128475 = weight(_text_:wide in 4333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052128475 = score(doc=4333,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 4333, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4333)
    0.06323739 = weight(_text_:web in 4333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06323739 = score(doc=4333,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 4333, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4333)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Das Semantic Web bezeichnet ein erweitertes World Wide Web (WWW), das die Bedeutung von präsentierten Inhalten in neuen standardisierten Sprachen wie RDF Schema und OWL modelliert. Diese Arbeit befasst sich mit dem Aspekt des Information Retrieval, d.h. es wird untersucht, in wie weit Methoden der Informationssuche sich auf modelliertes Wissen übertragen lassen. Die kennzeichnenden Merkmale von IR-Systemen wie vage Anfragen sowie die Unterstützung unsicheren Wissens werden im Kontext des Semantic Web behandelt. Im Fokus steht die Suche nach Fakten innerhalb einer Wissensdomäne, die entweder explizit modelliert sind oder implizit durch die Anwendung von Inferenz abgeleitet werden können. Aufbauend auf der an der Universität Duisburg-Essen entwickelten Retrievalmaschine PIRE wird die Anwendung unsicherer Inferenz mit probabilistischer Prädikatenlogik (pDatalog) implementiert.
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  5. Menzel, C.: Knowledge representation, the World Wide Web, and the evolution of logic (2011) 0.05 
    0.052627992 = product of:
  0.14034131 = sum of:
    0.039229363 = weight(_text_:world in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039229363 = score(doc=761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
    0.052128475 = weight(_text_:wide in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052128475 = score(doc=761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
    0.048983473 = weight(_text_:web in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048983473 = score(doc=761,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = 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)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    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
  6. OWL Web Ontology Language Guide (2004) 0.05 
    0.05019717 = product of:
  0.13385911 = sum of:
    0.032691136 = weight(_text_:world in 4687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032691136 = score(doc=4687,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 4687, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4687)
    0.043440398 = weight(_text_:wide in 4687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043440398 = score(doc=4687,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 4687, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4687)
    0.05772757 = weight(_text_:web in 4687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05772757 = score(doc=4687,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 4687, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4687)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    The World Wide Web as it is currently constituted resembles a poorly mapped geography. Our insight into the documents and capabilities available are based on keyword searches, abetted by clever use of document connectivity and usage patterns. The sheer mass of this data is unmanageable without powerful tool support. In order to map this terrain more precisely, computational agents require machine-readable descriptions of the content and capabilities of Web accessible resources. These descriptions must be in addition to the human-readable versions of that information. The OWL Web Ontology Language is intended to provide a language that can be used to describe the classes and relations between them that are inherent in Web documents and applications. This document demonstrates the use of the OWL language to - formalize a domain by defining classes and properties of those classes, - define individuals and assert properties about them, and - reason about these classes and individuals to the degree permitted by the formal semantics of the OWL language. The sections are organized to present an incremental definition of a set of classes, properties and individuals, beginning with the fundamentals and proceeding to more complex language components.
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  7. Pepper, S.; Moore, G.; TopicMaps.Org Authoring Group: XML Topic Maps (XTM) 1.0 : TopicMaps.Org Specification (2001) 0.05 
    0.049257256 = product of:
  0.13135268 = sum of:
    0.039229363 = weight(_text_:world in 1623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039229363 = score(doc=1623,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 1623, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1623)
    0.052128475 = weight(_text_:wide in 1623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052128475 = score(doc=1623,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 1623, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1623)
    0.039994836 = weight(_text_:web in 1623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039994836 = score(doc=1623,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 1623, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1623)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    This specification provides a model and grammar for representing the structure of information resources used to define topics, and the associations (relationships) between topics. Names, resources, and relationships are said to be characteristics of abstract subjects, which are called topics. Topics have their characteristics within scopes: i.e. the limited contexts within which the names and resources are regarded as their name, resource, and relationship characteristics. One or more interrelated documents employing this grammar is called a topic map.TopicMaps.Org is an independent consortium of parties developing the applicability of the topic map paradigm [ISO13250] to the World Wide Web by leveraging the XML family of specifications. This specification describes version 1.0 of XML Topic Maps (XTM) 1.0 [XTM], an abstract model and XML grammar for interchanging Web-based topic maps, written by the members of the TopicMaps.Org Authoring Group. More information on XTM and TopicMaps.Org is available at http://www.topicmaps.org/about.html. All versions of the XTM Specification are permanently licensed to the public, as provided by the Charter of TopicMaps.Org.
  8. SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Primer (2009) 0.05 
    0.049257256 = product of:
  0.13135268 = sum of:
    0.039229363 = weight(_text_:world in 4795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039229363 = score(doc=4795,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 4795, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4795)
    0.052128475 = weight(_text_:wide in 4795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052128475 = score(doc=4795,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 4795, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4795)
    0.039994836 = weight(_text_:web in 4795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039994836 = score(doc=4795,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 4795, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4795)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organisation System) provides a model for expressing the basic structure and content of concept schemes such as thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading lists, taxonomies, folksonomies, and other types of controlled vocabulary. As an application of the Resource Description Framework (RDF) SKOS allows concepts to be documented, linked and merged with other data, while still being composed, integrated and published on the World Wide Web. This document is an implementors guide for those who would like to represent their concept scheme using SKOS. In basic SKOS, conceptual resources (concepts) can be identified using URIs, labelled with strings in one or more natural languages, documented with various types of notes, semantically related to each other in informal hierarchies and association networks, and aggregated into distinct concept schemes. In advanced SKOS, conceptual resources can be mapped to conceptual resources in other schemes and grouped into labelled or ordered collections. Concept labels can also be related to each other. Finally, the SKOS vocabulary itself can be extended to suit the needs of particular communities of practice.
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  9. Weller, K.: Ontologien: Stand und Entwicklung der Semantik für WorldWideWeb (2009) 0.05 
    0.04831101 = product of:
  0.12882936 = sum of:
    0.032691136 = weight(_text_:world in 4425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032691136 = score(doc=4425,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 4425, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4425)
    0.043440398 = weight(_text_:wide in 4425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043440398 = score(doc=4425,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 4425, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4425)
    0.052697826 = weight(_text_:web in 4425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052697826 = score(doc=4425,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 4425, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4425)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Die Idee zu einem semantischen Web wurde maßgeblich geprägt (wenn auch nicht initiiert) durch eine Veröffentlichung von Tim Berners Lee, James Hendler und Ora Lassila im Jahre 2001. Darin skizzieren die Autoren ihre Version von einem erweiterten und verbesserten World Wide Web: Daten sollen so aufbereitet werden, dass nicht nur Menschen diese lesen können, sondern dass auch Computer in die Lage versetzt werden, diese zu verarbeiten und sinnvoll zu kombinieren. Sie beschreiben ein Szenario, in dem "Web agents" dem Nutzer bei der Durchführung komplexer Suchanfragen helfen, wie beispielsweise "finde einen Arzt, der eine bestimmte Behandlung anbietet, dessen Praxis in der Nähe meiner Wohnung liegt und dessen Öffnungszeiten mit meinem Terminkalender zusammenpassen". Die große Herausforderung liegt hierbei darin, dass Informationen, die über mehrere Webseiten verteilt sind, gesammelt und zu einer sinnvollen Antwort kombiniert werden müssen. Man spricht dabei vom Problem der Informationsintegration (Information Integration). Diese Vision der weltweiten Datenintegration in einem Semantic Web wurde seither vielfach diskutiert, erweitert und modifiziert, an der technischen Realisation arbeitet eine Vielzahl verschiedener Forschungseinrichtungen. Einigkeit besteht dahingehend, dass eine solche Idee nur mit der Hilfe neuer bedeutungstragender Metadaten verwirklicht werden kann. Benötigt werden also neue Ansätze zur Indexierung von Web Inhalten, die eine Suche über Wortbedeutungen und nicht über bloße Zeichenketten ermöglichen können. So soll z.B. erkannt werden, dass es sich bei "Heinrich Heine" um den Namen einer Person handelt und bei "Düsseldorf" um den Namen einer Stadt. Darüber hinaus sollen auch Verbindungen zwischen einzelnen Informationseinheiten festgehalten werden, beispielsweise dass Heinrich Heine in Düsseldorf wohnte. Wenn solche semantischen Relationen konsequent eingesetzt werden, können sie in vielen Fällen ausgenutzt werden, um neue Schlussfolgerungen zu ziehen.
  10. Doerr, M.: ¬The CIDOC CRM, an ontological approach to schema heterogeneity (2005) 0.04 
    0.044864424 = product of:
  0.11963846 = sum of:
    0.039229363 = weight(_text_:world in 1662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039229363 = score(doc=1662,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 1662, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1662)
    0.052128475 = weight(_text_:wide in 1662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052128475 = score(doc=1662,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 1662, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1662)
    0.02828062 = weight(_text_:web in 1662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02828062 = score(doc=1662,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1662, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1662)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    The creation of the World Wide Web has had a profound impact an the ease with which information can be distributed and presented. Now with more and more information becoming available, there is an increasing demand for targeted global search, comparative studies, data transfer and data migration between heterogeneous sources of cultural and scholarly contents. This requires interoperability not only at the encoding level - a task solved well by XML for instance - but also at the more complex semantics level, where lie the characteristics of the domain. In the meanwhile, the reality of semantic interoperability is getting frustrating. In the cultural area alone, dozens of "standard" and hundreds of proprietary metadata and data structures exist, as well as hundreds of terminology systems. Core systems like the Dublin Core represent a common denominator by far too small to fulfil advanced requirements. Overstretching its already limited semantics in order to capture complex contents leads to further loss of meaning.
  11. Cregan, A.: ¬An OWL DL construction for the ISO Topic Map Data Model (2005) 0.04 
    0.043856658 = product of:
  0.11695109 = sum of:
    0.032691136 = weight(_text_:world in 4718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032691136 = score(doc=4718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 4718, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4718)
    0.043440398 = weight(_text_:wide in 4718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043440398 = score(doc=4718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 4718, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4718)
    0.04081956 = weight(_text_:web in 4718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04081956 = score(doc=4718,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 4718, 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=4718)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Both Topic Maps and the W3C Semantic Web technologies are meta-level semantic maps describing relationships between information resources. Previous attempts at interoperability between XTM Topic Maps and RDF have proved problematic. The ISO's drafting of an explicit Topic Map Data Model [TMDM 05] combined with the advent of the W3C's XML and RDFbased Description Logic-equivalent Web Ontology Language [OWLDL 04] now provides the means for the construction of an unambiguous semantic model to represent Topic Maps, in a form that is equivalent to a Description Logic representation. This paper describes the construction of the proposed TMDM ISO Topic Map Standard in OWL DL (Description Logic equivalent) form. The construction is claimed to exactly match the features of the proposed TMDM. The intention is that the topic map constructs described herein, once officially published on the world-wide web, may be used by Topic Map authors to construct their Topic Maps in OWL DL. The advantage of OWL DL Topic Map construction over XTM, the existing XML-based DTD standard, is that OWL DL allows many constraints to be explicitly stated. OWL DL's suite of tools, although currently still somewhat immature, will provide the means for both querying and enforcing constraints. This goes a long way towards fulfilling the requirements for a Topic Map Query Language (TMQL) and Constraint Language (TMCL), which the Topic Map Community may choose to expend effort on extending. Additionally, OWL DL has a clearly defined formal semantics (Description Logic ref)
  12. Noy, N.F.; Musen, M.A.: PROMPT: algorithm and tool for automated ontology merging and alignment 0.04 
    0.041047715 = product of:
  0.10946057 = sum of:
    0.032691136 = weight(_text_:world in 3913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032691136 = score(doc=3913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 3913, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3913)
    0.043440398 = weight(_text_:wide in 3913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043440398 = score(doc=3913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 3913, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3913)
    0.033329032 = weight(_text_:web in 3913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033329032 = score(doc=3913,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 3913, 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=3913)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Researchers in the ontology-design field have developed the content for ontologies in many domain areas. Recently, ontologies have become increasingly common on the World- Wide Web where they provide semantics for annotations in Web pages. This distributed nature of ontology development has led to a large number of ontologies covering overlapping domains. In order for these ontologies to be reused, they first need to be merged or aligned to one another. The processes of ontology alignment and merging are usually handled manually and often constitute a large and tedious portion of the sharing process. We have developed and implemented PROMPT, an algorithm that provides a semi-automatic approach to ontology merging and alignment. PROMPT performs some tasks automatically and guides the user in performing other tasks for which his intervention is required. PROMPT also determines possible inconsistencies in the state of the ontology, which result from the user's actions, and suggests ways to remedy these inconsistencies. PROMPT is based on an extremely general knowledge model and therefore can be applied across various platforms. Our formative evaluation showed that a human expert followed 90% of the suggestions that PROMPT generated and that 74% of the total knowledge-base operations invoked by the user were suggested by PROMPT.
  13. Hitzler, P.; Janowicz, K.: Ontologies in a data driven world : finding the middle ground (2013) 0.03 
    0.03375499 = product of:
  0.13501996 = sum of:
    0.07845873 = weight(_text_:world in 803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07845873 = score(doc=803,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.50960356 = fieldWeight in 803, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=803)
    0.05656124 = weight(_text_:web in 803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05656124 = score(doc=803,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  14. Wright, H.: Semantic Web and ontologies (2018) 0.03 
    0.03364838 = product of:
  0.13459352 = sum of:
    0.060816556 = weight(_text_:wide in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060816556 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
    0.07377695 = weight(_text_:web in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07377695 = score(doc=80,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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
  15. Lange, C.: Ontologies and languages for representing mathematical knowledge on the Semantic Web (2011) 0.03 
    0.030518895 = product of:
  0.12207558 = sum of:
    0.06253081 = weight(_text_:web in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06253081 = score(doc=135,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = 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)
    0.059544772 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059544772 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23231146 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.2563144 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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
  16. Glimm, B.; Hogan, A.; Krötzsch, M.; Polleres, A.: OWL: Yet to arrive on the Web of Data? (2012) 0.03 
    0.027125614 = product of:
  0.108502455 = sum of:
    0.039229363 = weight(_text_:world in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039229363 = score(doc=4798,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 4798, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4798)
    0.06927309 = weight(_text_:web in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06927309 = score(doc=4798,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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
  17. OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases (2004) 0.03 
    0.026506104 = product of:
  0.106024414 = sum of:
    0.08431652 = weight(_text_:web in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08431652 = score(doc=4685,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.6450079 = fieldWeight in 4685, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4685)
    0.021707892 = product of:
      0.043415785 = sum of:
        0.043415785 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043415785 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14026769 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040055543 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    This document contains and presents test cases for the Web Ontology Language (OWL) approved by the Web Ontology Working Group. Many of the test cases illustrate the correct usage of the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and the formal meaning of its constructs. Other test cases illustrate the resolution of issues considered by the Working Group. Conformance for OWL documents and OWL document checkers is specified.
    Date
    14. 8.2011 13:33:22
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  18. Hollink, L.; Assem, M. van: Estimating the relevance of search results in the Culture-Web : a study of semantic distance measures (2010) 0.03 
    0.025280694 = product of:
  0.101122774 = sum of:
    0.084841855 = weight(_text_:web in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084841855 = score(doc=4649,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = 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)
    0.01628092 = product of:
      0.03256184 = sum of:
        0.03256184 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03256184 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14026769 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040055543 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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
    26.12.2011 13:40:22
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  19. Mayfield, J.; Finin, T.: Information retrieval on the Semantic Web : integrating inference and retrieval 0.02 
    0.024953254 = product of:
  0.099813014 = sum of:
    0.08081861 = weight(_text_:web in 4330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08081861 = score(doc=4330,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.6182494 = fieldWeight in 4330, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4330)
    0.018994406 = product of:
      0.03798881 = sum of:
        0.03798881 = weight(_text_:22 in 4330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03798881 = score(doc=4330,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14026769 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040055543 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    One vision of the Semantic Web is that it will be much like the Web we know today, except that documents will be enriched by annotations in machine understandable markup. These annotations will provide metadata about the documents as well as machine interpretable statements capturing some of the meaning of document content. We discuss how the information retrieval paradigm might be recast in such an environment. We suggest that retrieval can be tightly bound to inference. Doing so makes today's Web search engines useful to Semantic Web inference engines, and causes improvements in either retrieval or inference to lead directly to improvements in the other.
    Date
    12. 2.2011 17:35:22
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  20. Veltman, K.H.: Towards a Semantic Web for culture 0.02 
    0.020751415 = product of:
  0.08300566 = sum of:
    0.045298167 = weight(_text_:world in 4040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045298167 = score(doc=4040,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.29421976 = fieldWeight in 4040, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4040)
    0.037707493 = weight(_text_:web in 4040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037707493 = score(doc=4040,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 4040, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4040)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Today's semantic web deals with meaning in a very restricted sense and offers static solutions. This is adequate for many scientific, technical purposes and for business transactions requiring machine-to-machine communication, but does not answer the needs of culture. Science, technology and business are concerned primarily with the latest findings, the state of the art, i.e. the paradigm or dominant world-view of the day. In this context, history is considered non-essential because it deals with things that are out of date. By contrast, culture faces a much larger challenge, namely, to re-present changes in ways of knowing; changing meanings in different places at a given time (synchronically) and over time (diachronically). Culture is about both objects and the commentaries on them; about a cumulative body of knowledge; about collective memory and heritage. Here, history plays a central role and older does not mean less important or less relevant. Hence, a Leonardo painting that is 400 years old, or a Greek statue that is 2500 years old, typically have richer commentaries and are often more valuable than their contemporary equivalents. In this context, the science of meaning (semantics) is necessarily much more complex than semantic primitives. A semantic web in the cultural domain must enable us to trace how meaning and knowledge organisation have evolved historically in different cultures. This paper examines five issues to address this challenge: 1) different world-views (i.e. a shift from substance to function and from ontology to multiple ontologies); 2) developments in definitions and meaning; 3) distinctions between words and concepts; 4) new classes of relations; and 5) dynamic models of knowledge organisation. These issues reveal that historical dimensions of cultural diversity in knowledge organisation are also central to classification of biological diversity. New ways are proposed of visualizing knowledge using a time/space horizon to distinguish between universals and particulars. It is suggested that new visualization methods make possible a history of questions as well as of answers, thus enabling dynamic access to cultural and historical dimensions of knowledge. Unlike earlier media, which were limited to recording factual dimensions of collective memory, digital media enable us to explore theories, ways of perceiving, ways of knowing; to enter into other mindsets and world-views and thus to attain novel insights and new levels of tolerance. Some practical consequences are outlined.
    Theme
    Semantic Web

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 91
  • d 11

Types

  • a 36
  • n 12
  • r 3
  • x 2
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes