Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.09923969 = product of:
  0.19847938 = sum of:
    0.13840169 = weight(_text_:objects in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13840169 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
    0.0600777 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0600777 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22182742 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = 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(2/4)

Abstract

Faceted Knowledge Representation provides a formalism for implementing knowledge systems. The basic notions of faceted knowledge representation are "unit", "relation", "facet" and "interpretation". Units are atomic elements and can be abstract elements or refer to external objects in an application. Relations are sequences or matrices of 0 and 1's (binary matrices). Facets are relational structures that combine units and relations. Each facet represents an aspect or viewpoint of a knowledge system. Interpretations are mappings that can be used to translate between different representations. This paper introduces the basic notions of faceted knowledge representation. The formalism is applied here to an abstract modeling of a faceted thesaurus as used in information retrieval.

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31

0.027961366 = product of:
  0.11184546 = sum of:
    0.11184546 = weight(_text_:objects in 694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11184546 = score(doc=694,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.33219194 = fieldWeight in 694, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=694)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

More and more information is available on-line every day. The greater the amount of on-line information, the greater the demand for tools that process and disseminate this information. Processing electronic information in the form of text and answering users' queries about that information intelligently is one of the great challenges in natural language processing and information retrieval. The research presented in this talk is centered on the latter of these two tasks: intelligent information retrieval. In order for information to be retrieved, it first needs to be formalized in a database or knowledge base. The ontology for this formalization and assumptions it is based on are crucial to successful intelligent information retrieval. We have concentrated our effort on developing an ontology for representing knowledge in the domains of experimental sciences, molecular biology in particular. We show that existing ontological models cannot be readily applied to represent this domain adequately. For example, the fundamental notion of ontology design that every "real" object is defined as an instance of a category seems incompatible with the universe where objects can change their category as a result of experimental procedures. Another important problem is representing complex structures such as DNA, mixtures, populations of molecules, etc., that are very common in molecular biology. We present extensions that need to be made to an ontology to cover these issues: the representation of transformations that change the structure and/or category of their participants, and the component relations and spatial structures of complex objects. We demonstrate examples of how the proposed representations can be used to improve the quality and completeness of answers to user queries; discuss techniques for evaluating ontologies and show a prototype of an Information Retrieval System that we developed.

0.027961366 = product of:
  0.11184546 = sum of:
    0.11184546 = weight(_text_:objects in 3568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11184546 = score(doc=3568,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.33219194 = fieldWeight in 3568, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3568)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

G. Gainotti, M.C. Silveri, A. Daniele, L. Giustolisi, Neuroanatomical Correlates of Category-specific Semantic Disorders: A Critical Survey. J. S. Snowden, H. L. Griffiths, D. Neary, Autobiographical Experience and Word Meaning. L. Cipolotti, E.K. Warrington, Towards a Unitary Account of Access Dysphasia: A Single Case Study. E. Forde, G.W. Humphreys, Refractory Semantics in Global Aphasia: On Semantic Organisation and the Access-Storage Distinction in Neuropsychology. A. E. Hillis, A. Caramazza, The Compositionality of Lexical Semantic Representations: Clues from Semantic Errors in Object Naming. H.E. Moss, L.K. Tyler, Investigating Semantic Memory Impairments: The Contribution of Semantic Priming. K.R. Laws, S.A. Humber, D.J.C. Ramsey, R.A. McCarthy, Probing Sensory and Associative Semantics for Animals and Objects in Normal Subjects. K.R. Laws, J.J. Evans, J. R. Hodges, R.A. McCarthy, Naming without Knowing and Appearance without Associations: Evidence for Constructive Processes in Semantic Memory? J. Powell, J. Davidoff, Selective Impairments of Object-knowledge in a Case of Acquired Cortical Blindness. J.R. Hodges, N. Graham, K. Patterson, Charting the Progression in Semantic Dementia: Implications for the Organisation of Semantic Memory. E. Funnell, Objects and Properties: A Study of the Breakdown of Semantic Memory. L.J. Tippett, S. McAuliffe, M. J. Farrar, Preservation of Categorical Knowledge in Alzheimer's Disease: A Computational Account. G. W. Humphreys, C. Lamote, T.J. Lloyd-Jones, An Interactive Activation Approach to Object Processing: Effects of Structural Similarity, Name Frequency, and Task in Normality and Pathology.

0.021456322 = product of:
  0.08582529 = sum of:
    0.08582529 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08582529 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22182742 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, 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=6089)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Pages

S.11-22

0.017165057 = product of:
  0.06866023 = sum of:
    0.06866023 = weight(_text_:22 in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06866023 = score(doc=4476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22182742 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4476, 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=4476)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1.10.2018 14:13:22

0.012873792 = product of:
  0.05149517 = sum of:
    0.05149517 = weight(_text_:22 in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05149517 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22182742 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2230, 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=2230)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (ACM SIGIR '96), Zürich, Switzerland, August 18-22, 1996. Eds.: H.P. Frei et al

0.012873792 = product of:
  0.05149517 = sum of:
    0.05149517 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05149517 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22182742 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31