Search (245 results, page 13 of 13)

  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Fluit, C.; Horst, H. ter; Meer, J. van der; Sabou, M.; Mika, P.: Spectacle (2004) 0.00
    1.8014197E-4 = product of:
      0.0030624135 = sum of:
        0.0030624135 = weight(_text_:in in 4337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0030624135 = score(doc=4337,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 4337, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4337)
      0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    
    Abstract
    Many Semantic Web initiatives improve the capabilities of machines to exchange the meaning of information with other machines. These efforts lead to an increased quality of the application's results, but their user interfaces take little or no advantage of the semantic richness. For example, an ontology-based search engine will use its ontology when evaluating the user's query (e.g. for query formulation, disambiguation or evaluation), but fails to use it to significantly enrich the presentation of the results to a human user. For example, one could imagine replacing the endless list of hits with a structured presentation based on the semantic properties of the hits. Another problem is that the modelling of a domain is done from a single perspective (most often that of the information provider). Therefore, presentation based on the resulting ontology is unlikely to satisfy the needs of all the different types of users of the information. So even assuming an ontology for the domain is in place, mapping that ontology to the needs of individual users - based on their tasks, expertise and personal preferences - is not trivial.
  2. OWL Web Ontology Language Overview (2004) 0.00
    1.8014197E-4 = product of:
      0.0030624135 = sum of:
        0.0030624135 = weight(_text_:in in 4682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0030624135 = score(doc=4682,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 4682, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4682)
      0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    
    Abstract
    The OWL Web Ontology Language is designed for use by applications that need to process the content of information instead of just presenting information to humans. OWL facilitates greater machine interpretability of Web content than that supported by XML, RDF, and RDF Schema (RDF-S) by providing additional vocabulary along with a formal semantics. OWL has three increasingly-expressive sublanguages: OWL Lite, OWL DL, and OWL Full. This document is written for readers who want a first impression of the capabilities of OWL. It provides an introduction to OWL by informally describing the features of each of the sublanguages of OWL. Some knowledge of RDF Schema is useful for understanding this document, but not essential. After this document, interested readers may turn to the OWL Guide for more detailed descriptions and extensive examples on the features of OWL. The normative formal definition of OWL can be found in the OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax.
  3. SKOS Core Guide (2005) 0.00
    1.8014197E-4 = product of:
      0.0030624135 = sum of:
        0.0030624135 = weight(_text_:in in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0030624135 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
      0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    
    Abstract
    SKOS Core provides a model for expressing the basic structure and content of concept schemes such as thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading lists, taxonomies, 'folksonomies', other types of controlled vocabulary, and also concept schemes embedded in glossaries and terminologies. The SKOS Core Vocabulary is an application of the Resource Description Framework (RDF), that can be used to express a concept scheme as an RDF graph. Using RDF allows data to be linked to and/or merged with other data, enabling data sources to be distributed across the web, but still be meaningfully composed and integrated. This document is a guide using the SKOS Core Vocabulary, for readers who already have a basic understanding of RDF concepts. This edition of the SKOS Core Guide [SKOS Core Guide] is a W3C Public Working Draft. It is the authoritative guide to recommended usage of the SKOS Core Vocabulary at the time of publication.
  4. Tzitzikas, Y.: Collaborative ontology-based information indexing and retrieval (2002) 0.00
    1.6983949E-4 = product of:
      0.0028872713 = sum of:
        0.0028872713 = weight(_text_:in in 2281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0028872713 = score(doc=2281,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.08501591 = fieldWeight in 2281, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2281)
      0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    
    Abstract
    An information system like the Web is a continuously evolving system consisting of multiple heterogeneous information sources, covering a wide domain of discourse, and a huge number of users (human or software) with diverse characteristics and needs, that produce and consume information. The challenge nowadays is to build a scalable information infrastructure enabling the effective, accurate, content based retrieval of information, in a way that adapts to the characteristics and interests of the users. The aim of this work is to propose formally sound methods for building such an information network based on ontologies which are widely used and are easy to grasp by ordinary Web users. The main results of this work are: - A novel scheme for indexing and retrieving objects according to multiple aspects or facets. The proposed scheme is a faceted scheme enriched with a method for specifying the combinations of terms that are valid. We give a model-theoretic interpretation to this model and we provide mechanisms for inferring the valid combinations of terms. This inference service can be exploited for preventing errors during the indexing process, which is very important especially in the case where the indexing is done collaboratively by many users, and for deriving "complete" navigation trees suitable for browsing through the Web. The proposed scheme has several advantages over the hierarchical classification schemes currently employed by Web catalogs, namely, conceptual clarity (it is easier to understand), compactness (it takes less space), and scalability (the update operations can be formulated more easily and be performed more effciently). - A exible and effecient model for building mediators over ontology based information sources. The proposed mediators support several modes of query translation and evaluation which can accommodate various application needs and levels of answer quality. The proposed model can be used for providing users with customized views of Web catalogs. It can also complement the techniques for building mediators over relational sources so as to support approximate translation of partially ordered domain values.
  5. Soergel, D.: Digital libraries and knowledge organization (2009) 0.00
    1.5011833E-4 = product of:
      0.0025520115 = sum of:
        0.0025520115 = weight(_text_:in in 672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0025520115 = score(doc=672,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 672, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=672)
      0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    
    Abstract
    This chapter describes not so much what digital libraries are but what digital libraries with semantic support could and should be. It discusses the nature of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) and how KOS can support digital library users. It projects a vision for designers to make and for users to demand better digital libraries. What is a digital library? The term \Digital Library" (DL) is used to refer to a range of systems, from digital object and metadata repositories, reference-linking systems, archives, and content management systems to complex systems that integrate advanced digital library services and support for research and practice communities. A DL may offer many technology-enabled functions and services that support users, both as information producers and as information users. Many of these functions appear in information systems that would not normally be considered digital libraries, making boundaries even more blurry. Instead of pursuing the hopeless quest of coming up with the definition of digital library, we present a framework that allows a clear and somewhat standardized description of any information system so that users can select the system(s) that best meet their requirements. Section 2 gives a broad outline for more detail see the DELOS DL Reference Model.

Languages

  • e 165
  • d 75

Types

  • a 146
  • el 83
  • m 18
  • x 18
  • n 9
  • s 6
  • r 5
  • p 1
  • More… Less…

Subjects

Classifications