Search (40 results, page 1 of 2)

0.0145474505 = product of:
  0.04364235 = sum of:
    0.029623196 = weight(_text_:internet in 2245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029623196 = score(doc=2245,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.2609436 = fieldWeight in 2245, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2245)
    0.014019156 = product of:
      0.042057466 = sum of:
        0.042057466 = weight(_text_:29 in 2245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042057466 = score(doc=2245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.00697805 = product of:
  0.0418683 = sum of:
    0.0418683 = product of:
      0.06280245 = sum of:
        0.0315431 = weight(_text_:29 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0315431 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = 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)
        0.03125935 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03125935 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

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

0.0061715 = product of:
  0.037028998 = sum of:
    0.037028998 = weight(_text_:internet in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037028998 = score(doc=2358,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.3261795 = fieldWeight in 2358, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2358)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Gerade haben die Soziologen den 90. Geburstag des Systemtheoretikers Niklas Luhmann gefeiert. Die Informatiker stecken mitten in einem anspruchsvollen Digitalisierungsprojekt, seinen Gedankenkasten, sein "hölzernes Privat-Internet", zu verdaten.

0.005824238 = product of:
  0.017472714 = sum of:
    0.013091727 = weight(_text_:internet in 4393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013091727 = score(doc=4393,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.11532187 = fieldWeight in 4393, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4393)
    0.0043809866 = product of:
      0.013142959 = sum of:
        0.013142959 = weight(_text_:29 in 4393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013142959 = score(doc=4393,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.097163305 = fieldWeight in 4393, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4393)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Content

Vgl. auch Mitgliederbrief Ernst-Schröder-Zentrum, Nr.41: "Die aktuelle Entwicklung insbesondere der Internettechnologien führte in den letzten Jahren zu einem Wieder-Erwachen des Interesses von Forschern und Anwendern an (technischen) Ontologien. Typische Visionen in diesem Zusammenhang sind das ,Semantic Web' und das ,Internet der Dinge' (Web 3.0). Technische Ontologien sind formale, zeichenvermittelte symbolische Repräsentationen von lebensweltlichen Zusammenhängen, die notwendigerweise zu einem großen Teil von ihrem Kontextbezug gelöst werden und über die ursprünglichen lebensweltlichen Zusammenhänge hinaus computerverarbeitbar verfügbar werden. Häufig werden dafür XML-basierte Beschreibungssprachen eingesetzt wie z.B. der OWL-Standard. Trotz des großen Interesses sind jedoch umfangreiche und erfolgreiche Beispiele von in größerem Umfang praktisch eingesetzten (technischen) Ontologien eher die Ausnahme. Die zentrale Fragestellung unseres Beitrags ist daher, ob es eventuell grundlegendere (möglicherweise auch außertechnische) Hürden gibt auf dem Weg zu einer Verwirklichung der oft visionären Vorstellungen, wie z.B. zukünftig E-Commerce und E-Business und ,Wissensmanagement' durch technische Ontologien unterstützt werden könnten: Oder ist alles vielleicht ,nur' eine Frage der Zeit, bis wir durch ausreichend leistungsfähige Technologien für solche technischen Ontologien die Versprechungen des ,Internet der Dinge' verwirklichen können?

Source

http://www.cba.neu.edu/uploadedFiles/Site_Sections/OLKC_2010/Program_Overview/Parallel_Sessions/180_Wyssusek_Abstract_Ontologies%20in%20Knowledge%20Management%281%29.pdf

0.0043639094 = product of:
  0.026183454 = sum of:
    0.026183454 = weight(_text_:internet in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026183454 = score(doc=306,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.23064373 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Internet of Things (IoT) brings the third development wave of the global information industry which makes users, network and perception devices cooperate more closely. However, if IoT has security problems, it may cause a variety of damage and even threaten human lives and properties. To improve the abilities of monitoring, providing emergency response and predicting the development trend of IoT security, a new paradigm called network security situation awareness (NSSA) is proposed. However, it is limited by its ability to mine and evaluate security situation elements from multi-source heterogeneous network security information. To solve this problem, this paper proposes an IoT network security situation awareness model using situation reasoning method based on semantic ontology and user-defined rules. Ontology technology can provide a unified and formalized description to solve the problem of semantic heterogeneity in the IoT security domain. In this paper, four key sub-domains are proposed to reflect an IoT security situation: context, attack, vulnerability and network flow. Further, user-defined rules can compensate for the limited description ability of ontology, and hence can enhance the reasoning ability of our proposed ontology model. The examples in real IoT scenarios show that the ability of the network security situation awareness that adopts our situation reasoning method is more comprehensive and more powerful reasoning abilities than the traditional NSSA methods. [http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7999187/]

0.0040889205 = product of:
  0.024533523 = sum of:
    0.024533523 = product of:
      0.07360057 = sum of:
        0.07360057 = weight(_text_:29 in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07360057 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

4. 9.2011 12:29:09

0.0037028994 = product of:
  0.022217397 = sum of:
    0.022217397 = weight(_text_:internet in 540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022217397 = score(doc=540,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 540, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=540)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Semantic Search has become an active research of Semantic Web in recent years. The classification methodology plays a pretty critical role in the beginning of search process to disambiguate irrelevant information. However, the applications related to Folksonomy suffer from many obstacles. This study attempts to eliminate the problems resulted from Folksonomy using existing semantic technology. We also focus on how to effectively integrate heterogeneous ontologies over the Internet to acquire the integrity of domain knowledge. A faceted logic layer is abstracted in order to strengthen category framework and organize existing available ontologies according to a series of steps based on the methodology of faceted classification and ontology construction. The result showed that our approach can facilitate the integration of inconsistent or even heterogeneous ontologies. This paper also generalizes the principles of picking appropriate facets with which our facet browser completely complies so that better semantic search result can be obtained.

0.003304347 = product of:
  0.01982608 = sum of:
    0.01982608 = product of:
      0.059478242 = sum of:
        0.059478242 = weight(_text_:29 in 3671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059478242 = score(doc=3671,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.43971092 = fieldWeight in 3671, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3671)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 6.2015 14:55:01
29. 6.2015 16:09:05

0.00308575 = product of:
  0.018514499 = sum of:
    0.018514499 = weight(_text_:internet in 3059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018514499 = score(doc=3059,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 3059, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3059)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Information Systems (IS) is among the most widespread terms in the Computer Science field but a well founded, widely accepted theory of IS is still missing. With the Internet publication of the FRISCO report, the IFIP task group "FRamework of Information System COncepts" has taken a first step towards such a theory. Among the major achievements of this report are: (1) it builds on a solid basis formed by semiotics and ontology, (2) it defines a compendium of about 100 core IS concepts in a coherent and consistent way, (3) it goes beyond the common narrow view of information systems as pure technical artefacts by adopting an interdisciplinary, socio-technical view on them. In the autumn of 1999, a first review of the report and its impact was undertaken at the ISCO-4 conference in Leiden. In a workshop specifically devoted to the subject, the original aims and goals of FRISCO were confirmed to be still valid and the overall approach and achievements of the report were acknowledged. On the other hand, the workshop revealed some misconceptions, errors and weaknesses of the report in its present form, which are to be removed through a comprehensive revision now under way. This paper reports on the results of the Leiden conference and the current revision activities. It also points out some important consequences of the FRISCO approach as a whole.

0.00308575 = product of:
  0.018514499 = sum of:
    0.018514499 = weight(_text_:internet in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018514499 = score(doc=3297,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0028943846 = product of:
  0.017366307 = sum of:
    0.017366307 = product of:
      0.05209892 = sum of:
        0.05209892 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05209892 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

13.12.2017 14:17:22

0.0028943846 = product of:
  0.017366307 = sum of:
    0.017366307 = product of:
      0.05209892 = sum of:
        0.05209892 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05209892 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:07

0.0024685997 = product of:
  0.014811598 = sum of:
    0.014811598 = weight(_text_:internet in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014811598 = score(doc=311,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.1304718 = fieldWeight in 311, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=311)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper looks at Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) to investigate how a faceted classification can be expressed in RDF and shared on the Semantic Web. Statement of the Problem Faceted classification outlines facets as well as subfacets and facet values. Hierarchical relationships and associative relationships are established in a faceted classification. RDF is used to describe how a specific URI has a relationship to a facet value. Not only does RDF decompose "information into pieces," but by incorporating facet values RDF also given the URI the hierarchical and associative relationships expressed in the faceted classification. Combining faceted classification and RDF creates more knowledge than if the two stood alone. An application understands the subjectpredicate-object relationship in RDF and can display hierarchical and associative relationships based on the object (facet) value. This paper continues to investigate if the above idea is indeed useful, used, and applicable. If so, how can a faceted classification be expressed in RDF? What would this expression look like? Literature Review This paper used the same articles as the paper A Survey of Faceted Classification: History, Uses, Drawbacks and the Semantic Web (Putkey, 2010). In that paper, appropriate resources were discovered by searching in various databases for "faceted classification" and "faceted search," either in the descriptor or title fields. Citations were also followed to find more articles as well as searching the Internet for the same terms. To retrieve the documents about RDF, searches combined "faceted classification" and "RDF, " looking for these words in either the descriptor or title.

0.002336526 = product of:
  0.014019156 = sum of:
    0.014019156 = product of:
      0.042057466 = sum of:
        0.042057466 = weight(_text_:29 in 537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042057466 = score(doc=537,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 537, 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=537)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

26.12.2011 13:21:29

0.002336526 = product of:
  0.014019156 = sum of:
    0.014019156 = product of:
      0.042057466 = sum of:
        0.042057466 = weight(_text_:29 in 4256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042057466 = score(doc=4256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 4256, 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=4256)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 1.2011 18:45:23

0.0023155077 = product of:
  0.0138930455 = sum of:
    0.0138930455 = product of:
      0.041679136 = sum of:
        0.041679136 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041679136 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

14. 8.2011 13:33:22

0.0023155077 = product of:
  0.0138930455 = sum of:
    0.0138930455 = product of:
      0.041679136 = sum of:
        0.041679136 = weight(_text_:22 in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041679136 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.0021819547 = product of:
  0.013091727 = sum of:
    0.013091727 = weight(_text_:internet in 2678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013091727 = score(doc=2678,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.11532187 = fieldWeight in 2678, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2678)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Eine neue visuelle Ordnung Martin Hirsch ist der Enkel des Nobelpreisträgers Werner Heisenberg. Außerdem ist er Hirnforscher und beschäftigt sich seit Jahren mit der Frage: Was tut mein Kopf eigentlich, während ich hirnforsche? Ralf von Grafenstein ist Marketingexperte und spezialisiert auf Dienstleistungen im Internet. Zusammen haben sie also am 1. Dezember 2008 eine Firma in Berlin gegründet, deren Heiliger Gral besagte Scheibe ist, auf der - das ist die Idee - bald die ganze Welt, die Internetwelt zumindest, Platz finden soll. Die Scheibe heißt eyePlorer, was sich als Aufforderung an ihre Nutzer versteht. Die sollen auf einer neuartigen, eben scheibenförmigen Plattform die unermesslichen Datensätze des Internets in eine neue visuelle Ordnung bringen. Der Schlüssel dafür, da waren sich Hirsch und von Grafenstein sicher, liegt in der Hirnforschung, denn warum nicht die assoziativen Fähigkeiten des Menschen auf Suchmaschinen übertragen? Anbieter wie Google lassen von solchen Ansätzen bislang die Finger. Hier setzt man dafür auf Volltextprogramme, also sprachbegabte Systeme, die letztlich aber, genau wie die Schlagwortsuche, nur zu opak gerankten Linksammlungen führen. Weiter als auf Seite zwei des Suchergebnisses wagt sich der träge Nutzer meistens nicht vor. Weil sie niemals wahrgenommen wird, fällt eine Menge möglicherweise kostbare Information unter den Tisch.
Wenn die Maschine denkt Zur Hybris des Projekts passt, dass der eyePlorer ursprünglich HAL heißen sollte - wie der außer Rand und Band geratene Bordcomputer aus Kubricks "2001: Odyssee im Weltraum". Wenn man die Buchstaben aber jeweils um eine Alphabetposition nach rechts verrückt, ergibt sich IBM. Was passiert mit unserem Wissen, wenn die Maschine selbst anfängt zu denken? Ralf von Grafenstein macht ein ernstes Gesicht. "Es ist nicht unser Ansinnen, sie alleinzulassen. Es geht bei uns ja nicht nur darum, zu finden, sondern auch mitzumachen. Die Community ist wichtig. Der Dialog ist beiderseitig." Der Lotse soll in Form einer wachsamen Gemeinschaft also an Bord bleiben. Begünstigt wird diese Annahme auch durch die aufkommenden Anfasstechnologien, mit denen das iPhone derzeit so erfolgreich ist: "Allein zehn Prozent der menschlichen Gehirnleistung gehen auf den Pinzettengriff zurück." Martin Hirsch wundert sich, dass diese Erkenntnis von der IT-Branche erst jetzt berücksichtigt wird. Auf berührungssensiblen Bildschirmen sollen die Nutzer mit wenigen Handgriffen bald spielerisch Inhalte schaffen und dem System zur Verfügung stellen. So wird aus der Suchmaschine ein "Sparringspartner" und aus einem Informationsknopf ein "Knowledge Nugget". Wie auch immer man die Erkenntniszutaten des Internetgroßmarkts serviert: Wissen als Zeitwort ist ein länglicher Prozess. Im Moment sei die Maschine noch auf dem Stand eines Zweijährigen, sagen ihre Schöpfer. Sozialisiert werden soll sie demnächst im Internet, ihre Erziehung erfolgt dann durch die Nutzer. Als er Martin Hirsch mit seiner Scheibe zum ersten Mal gesehen habe, dachte Ralf von Grafenstein: "Das ist überfällig! Das wird kommen! Das muss raus!" Jetzt ist es da, klein, unschuldig und unscheinbar. Man findet es bei Google."

0.0020444603 = product of:
  0.012266762 = sum of:
    0.012266762 = product of:
      0.036800284 = sum of:
        0.036800284 = weight(_text_:29 in 4121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036800284 = score(doc=4121,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4121, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4121)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 6.2015 14:51:28

0.0020444603 = product of:
  0.012266762 = sum of:
    0.012266762 = product of:
      0.036800284 = sum of:
        0.036800284 = weight(_text_:29 in 4471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036800284 = score(doc=4471,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4471, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4471)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

14. 8.2011 14:29:06