Search (144 results, page 8 of 8)

  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Waard, A. de; Fluit, C.; Harmelen, F. van: Drug Ontology Project for Elsevier (DOPE) (2007) 0.00
    7.6892605E-4 = product of:
      0.0069203344 = sum of:
        0.0069203344 = product of:
          0.013840669 = sum of:
            0.013840669 = weight(_text_:web in 758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013840669 = score(doc=758,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02940506 = queryNorm
                0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 758, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=758)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    
    Abstract
    Innovative research institutes rely on the availability of complete and accurate information about new research and development, and it is the business of information providers such as Elsevier to provide the required information in a cost-effective way. It is very likely that the semantic web will make an important contribution to this effort, since it facilitates access to an unprecedented quantity of data. However, with the unremitting growth of scientific information, integrating access to all this information remains a significant problem, not least because of the heterogeneity of the information sources involved - sources which may use different syntactic standards (syntactic heterogeneity), organize information in very different ways (structural heterogeneity) and even use different terminologies to refer to the same information (semantic heterogeneity). The ability to address these different kinds of heterogeneity is the key to integrated access. Thesauri have already proven to be a core technology to effective information access as they provide controlled vocabularies for indexing information, and thereby help to overcome some of the problems of free-text search by relating and grouping relevant terms in a specific domain. However, currently there is no open architecture which supports the use of these thesauri for querying other data sources. For example, when we move from the centralized and controlled use of EMTREE within EMBASE.com to a distributed setting, it becomes crucial to improve access to the thesaurus by means of a standardized representation using open data standards that allow for semantic qualifications. In general, mental models and keywords for accessing data diverge between subject areas and communities, and so many different ontologies have been developed. An ideal architecture must therefore support the disclosure of distributed and heterogeneous data sources through different ontologies. The aim of the DOPE project (Drug Ontology Project for Elsevier) is to investigate the possibility of providing access to multiple information sources in the area of life science through a single interface.
  2. Stuckenschmidt, H.; Harmelen, F van; Waard, A. de; Scerri, T.; Bhogal, R.; Buel, J. van; Crowlesmith, I.; Fluit, C.; Kampman, A.; Broekstra, J.; Mulligen, E. van: Exploring large document repositories with RDF technology : the DOPE project (2004) 0.00
    7.6892605E-4 = product of:
      0.0069203344 = sum of:
        0.0069203344 = product of:
          0.013840669 = sum of:
            0.013840669 = weight(_text_:web in 762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013840669 = score(doc=762,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02940506 = queryNorm
                0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 762, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=762)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    
    Abstract
    This thesaurus-based search system uses automatic indexing, RDF-based querying, and concept-based visualization of results to support exploration of large online document repositories. Innovative research institutes rely on the availability of complete and accurate information about new research and development. Information providers such as Elsevier make it their business to provide the required information in a cost-effective way. The Semantic Web will likely contribute significantly to this effort because it facilitates access to an unprecedented quantity of data. The DOPE project (Drug Ontology Project for Elsevier) explores ways to provide access to multiple lifescience information sources through a single interface. With the unremitting growth of scientific information, integrating access to all this information remains an important problem, primarily because the information sources involved are so heterogeneous. Sources might use different syntactic standards (syntactic heterogeneity), organize information in different ways (structural heterogeneity), and even use different terminologies to refer to the same information (semantic heterogeneity). Integrated access hinges on the ability to address these different kinds of heterogeneity. Also, mental models and keywords for accessing data generally diverge between subject areas and communities; hence, many different ontologies have emerged. An ideal architecture must therefore support the disclosure of distributed and heterogeneous data sources through different ontologies. To serve this need, we've developed a thesaurus-based search system that uses automatic indexing, RDF-based querying, and concept-based visualization. We describe here the conversion of an existing proprietary thesaurus to an open standard format, a generic architecture for thesaurus-based information access, an innovative user interface, and results of initial user studies with the resulting DOPE system.
  3. Fischer, D.H.: ¬Ein Lehrbeispiel für eine Ontologie : OpenCyc (2004) 0.00
    6.728103E-4 = product of:
      0.0060552927 = sum of:
        0.0060552927 = product of:
          0.012110585 = sum of:
            0.012110585 = weight(_text_:web in 4568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.012110585 = score(doc=4568,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02940506 = queryNorm
                0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 4568, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4568)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    
    Abstract
    Es wird ein einführender Überblick über das seit Frühjahr 2002 allgemein verfügbare Ontologiesystem OpenCyc und seine gegenwärtige Wissensbasis gegeben. Das System ist Prototyp eines logikbasierten Wissensrepräsentationssystems und der lnhalt der fortschreib-baren Wissensbasis ist eine universelle Dachontologie, die als ein Extrakt aus langjähriger Erfahrung mit ihrer Anwendung angesehen werden kann. Die Wissensrepräsentationssprache CycL von OpenCyc konkurriert mit der bisher weniger ausdrucksstarken Sprache OWL, die von den W3C-Gremien für das "Semantic Web"standardisiert wird.
  4. Khoo, S.G.; Na, J.-C.: Semantic relations in information science (2006) 0.00
    5.766945E-4 = product of:
      0.0051902505 = sum of:
        0.0051902505 = product of:
          0.010380501 = sum of:
            0.010380501 = weight(_text_:web in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.010380501 = score(doc=1978,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02940506 = queryNorm
                0.108171105 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    
    Abstract
    This chapter examines the nature of semantic relations and their main applications in information science. The nature and types of semantic relations are discussed from the perspectives of linguistics and psychology. An overview of the semantic relations used in knowledge structures such as thesauri and ontologies is provided, as well as the main techniques used in the automatic extraction of semantic relations from text. The chapter then reviews the use of semantic relations in information extraction, information retrieval, question-answering, and automatic text summarization applications. Concepts and relations are the foundation of knowledge and thought. When we look at the world, we perceive not a mass of colors but objects to which we automatically assign category labels. Our perceptual system automatically segments the world into concepts and categories. Concepts are the building blocks of knowledge; relations act as the cement that links concepts into knowledge structures. We spend much of our lives identifying regular associations and relations between objects, events, and processes so that the world has an understandable structure and predictability. Our lives and work depend on the accuracy and richness of this knowledge structure and its web of relations. Relations are needed for reasoning and inferencing. Chaffin and Herrmann (1988b, p. 290) noted that "relations between ideas have long been viewed as basic to thought, language, comprehension, and memory." Aristotle's Metaphysics (Aristotle, 1961; McKeon, expounded on several types of relations. The majority of the 30 entries in a section of the Metaphysics known today as the Philosophical Lexicon referred to relations and attributes, including cause, part-whole, same and opposite, quality (i.e., attribute) and kind-of, and defined different types of each relation. Hume (1955) pointed out that there is a connection between successive ideas in our minds, even in our dreams, and that the introduction of an idea in our mind automatically recalls an associated idea. He argued that all the objects of human reasoning are divided into relations of ideas and matters of fact and that factual reasoning is founded on the cause-effect relation. His Treatise of Human Nature identified seven kinds of relations: resemblance, identity, relations of time and place, proportion in quantity or number, degrees in quality, contrariety, and causation. Mill (1974, pp. 989-1004) discoursed on several types of relations, claiming that all things are either feelings, substances, or attributes, and that attributes can be a quality (which belongs to one object) or a relation to other objects.

Languages

  • e 104
  • d 38

Types

  • a 76
  • el 59
  • n 12
  • x 10
  • m 8
  • s 5
  • r 2
  • p 1
  • More… Less…

Subjects