Search (228 results, page 2 of 12)

  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Monireh, E.; Sarker, M.K.; Bianchi, F.; Hitzler, P.; Doran, D.; Xie, N.: Reasoning over RDF knowledge bases using deep learning (2018) 0.02
    0.018982807 = product of:
      0.037965614 = sum of:
        0.037965614 = sum of:
          0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.006765375 = score(doc=4553,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
          0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03120024 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Semantic Web knowledge representation standards, and in particular RDF and OWL, often come endowed with a formal semantics which is considered to be of fundamental importance for the field. Reasoning, i.e., the drawing of logical inferences from knowledge expressed in such standards, is traditionally based on logical deductive methods and algorithms which can be proven to be sound and complete and terminating, i.e. correct in a very strong sense. For various reasons, though, in particular the scalability issues arising from the ever increasing amounts of Semantic Web data available and the inability of deductive algorithms to deal with noise in the data, it has been argued that alternative means of reasoning should be investigated which bear high promise for high scalability and better robustness. From this perspective, deductive algorithms can be considered the gold standard regarding correctness against which alternative methods need to be tested. In this paper, we show that it is possible to train a Deep Learning system on RDF knowledge graphs, such that it is able to perform reasoning over new RDF knowledge graphs, with high precision and recall compared to the deductive gold standard.
    Date
    16.11.2018 14:22:01
    Type
    a
  2. Baião Salgado Silva, G.; Lima, G.Â. Borém de Oliveira: Using topic maps in establishing compatibility of semantically structured hypertext contents (2012) 0.02
    0.018529613 = product of:
      0.037059225 = sum of:
        0.037059225 = sum of:
          0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.005858987 = score(doc=633,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
                2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                  6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
          0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03120024 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Considering the characteristics of hypertext systems and problems such as cognitive overload and the disorientation of users, this project studies subject hypertext documents that have undergone conceptual structuring using facets for content representation and improvement of information retrieval during navigation. The main objective was to assess the possibility of the application of topic map technology for automating the compatibilization process of these structures. For this purpose, two dissertations from the UFMG Information Science Post-Graduation Program were adopted as samples. Both dissertations had been duly analyzed and structured on the MHTX (Hypertextual Map) prototype database. The faceted structures of both dissertations, which had been represented in conceptual maps, were then converted into topic maps. It was then possible to use the merge property of the topic maps to promote the semantic interrelationship between the maps and, consequently, between the hypertextual information resources proper. The merge results were then analyzed in the light of theories dealing with the compatibilization of languages developed within the realm of information technology and librarianship from the 1960s on. The main goals accomplished were: (a) the detailed conceptualization of the merge process of the topic maps, considering the possible compatibilization levels and the applicability of this technology in the integration of faceted structures; and (b) the production of a detailed sequence of steps that may be used in the implementation of topic maps based on faceted structures.
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:39:23
    Type
    a
  3. Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M.; Bar-Ilan, J.: Towards maximal unification of semantically diverse ontologies for controversial domains (2014) 0.02
    0.017542839 = product of:
      0.035085678 = sum of:
        0.035085678 = sum of:
          0.010125486 = weight(_text_:a in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.010125486 = score(doc=1634,freq=28.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.19066721 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
                5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                  28.0 = termFreq=28.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
          0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.02496019 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - Ontologies are prone to wide semantic variability due to subjective points of view of their composers. The purpose of this paper is to propose a new approach for maximal unification of diverse ontologies for controversial domains by their relations. Design/methodology/approach - Effective matching or unification of multiple ontologies for a specific domain is crucial for the success of many semantic web applications, such as semantic information retrieval and organization, document tagging, summarization and search. To this end, numerous automatic and semi-automatic techniques were proposed in the past decade that attempt to identify similar entities, mostly classes, in diverse ontologies for similar domains. Apparently, matching individual entities cannot result in full integration of ontologies' semantics without matching their inter-relations with all other-related classes (and instances). However, semantic matching of ontological relations still constitutes a major research challenge. Therefore, in this paper the authors propose a new paradigm for assessment of maximal possible matching and unification of ontological relations. To this end, several unification rules for ontological relations were devised based on ontological reference rules, and lexical and textual entailment. These rules were semi-automatically implemented to extend a given ontology with semantically matching relations from another ontology for a similar domain. Then, the ontologies were unified through these similar pairs of relations. The authors observe that these rules can be also facilitated to reveal the contradictory relations in different ontologies. Findings - To assess the feasibility of the approach two experiments were conducted with different sets of multiple personal ontologies on controversial domains constructed by trained subjects. The results for about 50 distinct ontology pairs demonstrate a good potential of the methodology for increasing inter-ontology agreement. Furthermore, the authors show that the presented methodology can lead to a complete unification of multiple semantically heterogeneous ontologies. Research limitations/implications - This is a conceptual study that presents a new approach for semantic unification of ontologies by a devised set of rules along with the initial experimental evidence of its feasibility and effectiveness. However, this methodology has to be fully automatically implemented and tested on a larger dataset in future research. Practical implications - This result has implication for semantic search, since a richer ontology, comprised of multiple aspects and viewpoints of the domain of knowledge, enhances discoverability and improves search results. Originality/value - To the best of the knowledge, this is the first study to examine and assess the maximal level of semantic relation-based ontology unification.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Type
    a
  4. Kless, D.: Erstellung eines allgemeinen Standards zur Wissensorganisation : Nutzen, Möglichkeiten, Herausforderungen, Wege (2010) 0.02
    0.017291464 = product of:
      0.034582928 = sum of:
        0.034582928 = sum of:
          0.0033826875 = weight(_text_:a in 4422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0033826875 = score(doc=4422,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 4422, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4422)
          0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 4422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03120024 = score(doc=4422,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4422, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4422)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
    Type
    a
  5. Eito-Brun, R.: Ontologies and the exchange of technical information : building a knowledge repository based on ECSS standards (2014) 0.02
    0.01630717 = product of:
      0.03261434 = sum of:
        0.03261434 = sum of:
          0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 1436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.007654148 = score(doc=1436,freq=16.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1436, product of:
                4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                  16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1436)
          0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 1436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.02496019 = score(doc=1436,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1436, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1436)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The development of complex projects in the aerospace industry is based on the collaboration of geographically distributed teams and companies. In this context, the need of sharing different types of data and information is a key factor to assure the successful execution of the projects. In the case of European projects, the ECSS standards provide a normative framework that specifies, among other requirements, the different document types, information items and artifacts that need to be generated. The specification of the characteristics of these information items are usually incorporated as annex to the different ECSS standards, and they provide the intended purpose, scope, and structure of the documents and information items. In these standards, documents or deliverables should not be considered as independent items, but as the results of packaging different information artifacts for their delivery between the involved parties. Successful information integration and knowledge exchange cannot be based exclusively on the conceptual definition of information types. It also requires the definition of methods and techniques for serializing and exchanging these documents and artifacts. This area is not covered by ECSS standards, and the definition of these data schemas would improve the opportunity for improving collaboration processes among companies. This paper describes the development of an OWL-based ontology to manage the different artifacts and information items requested in the European Space Agency (ESA) ECSS standards for SW development. The ECSS set of standards is the main reference in aerospace projects in Europe, and in addition to engineering and managerial requirements they provide a set of DRD (Document Requirements Documents) with the structure of the different documents and records necessary to manage projects and describe intermediate information products and final deliverables. Information integration is a must-have in aerospace projects, where different players need to collaborate and share data during the life cycle of the products about requirements, design elements, problems, etc. The proposed ontology provides the basis for building advanced information systems where the information coming from different companies and institutions can be integrated into a coherent set of related data. It also provides a conceptual framework to enable the development of interfaces and gateways between the different tools and information systems used by the different players in aerospace projects.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
    Type
    a
  6. Kiren, T.: ¬A clustering based indexing technique of modularized ontologies for information retrieval (2017) 0.02
    0.015794437 = product of:
      0.031588875 = sum of:
        0.031588875 = sum of:
          0.0066286866 = weight(_text_:a in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0066286866 = score(doc=4399,freq=12.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.12482099 = fieldWeight in 4399, product of:
                3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                  12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4399)
          0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.02496019 = score(doc=4399,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4399, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4399)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Indexing plays a vital role in Information Retrieval. With the availability of huge volume of information, it has become necessary to index the information in such a way to make easier for the end users to find the information they want efficiently and accurately. Keyword-based indexing uses words as indexing terms. It is not capable of capturing the implicit relation among terms or the semantics of the words in the document. To eliminate this limitation, ontology-based indexing came into existence, which allows semantic based indexing to solve complex and indirect user queries. Ontologies are used for document indexing which allows semantic based information retrieval. Existing ontologies or the ones constructed from scratch are used presently for indexing. Constructing ontologies from scratch is a labor-intensive task and requires extensive domain knowledge whereas use of an existing ontology may leave some important concepts in documents un-annotated. Using multiple ontologies can overcome the problem of missing out concepts to a great extent, but it is difficult to manage (changes in ontologies over time by their developers) multiple ontologies and ontology heterogeneity also arises due to ontologies constructed by different ontology developers. One possible solution to managing multiple ontologies and build from scratch is to use modular ontologies for indexing.
    Modular ontologies are built in modular manner by combining modules from multiple relevant ontologies. Ontology heterogeneity also arises during modular ontology construction because multiple ontologies are being dealt with, during this process. Ontologies need to be aligned before using them for modular ontology construction. The existing approaches for ontology alignment compare all the concepts of each ontology to be aligned, hence not optimized in terms of time and search space utilization. A new indexing technique is proposed based on modular ontology. An efficient ontology alignment technique is proposed to solve the heterogeneity problem during the construction of modular ontology. Results are satisfactory as Precision and Recall are improved by (8%) and (10%) respectively. The value of Pearsons Correlation Coefficient for degree of similarity, time, search space requirement, precision and recall are close to 1 which shows that the results are significant. Further research can be carried out for using modular ontology based indexing technique for Multimedia Information Retrieval and Bio-Medical information retrieval.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  7. Drewer, P.; Massion, F; Pulitano, D: Was haben Wissensmodellierung, Wissensstrukturierung, künstliche Intelligenz und Terminologie miteinander zu tun? (2017) 0.02
    0.01560012 = product of:
      0.03120024 = sum of:
        0.03120024 = product of:
          0.06240048 = sum of:
            0.06240048 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06240048 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    13.12.2017 14:17:22
  8. Thenmalar, S.; Geetha, T.V.: Enhanced ontology-based indexing and searching (2014) 0.01
    0.012970729 = product of:
      0.025941458 = sum of:
        0.025941458 = sum of:
          0.004101291 = weight(_text_:a in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.004101291 = score(doc=1633,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.07722905 = fieldWeight in 1633, product of:
                2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                  6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1633)
          0.021840166 = weight(_text_:22 in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.021840166 = score(doc=1633,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1633, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to improve the conceptual-based search by incorporating structural ontological information such as concepts and relations. Generally, Semantic-based information retrieval aims to identify relevant information based on the meanings of the query terms or on the context of the terms and the performance of semantic information retrieval is carried out through standard measures-precision and recall. Higher precision leads to the (meaningful) relevant documents obtained and lower recall leads to the less coverage of the concepts. Design/methodology/approach - In this paper, the authors enhance the existing ontology-based indexing proposed by Kohler et al., by incorporating sibling information to the index. The index designed by Kohler et al., contains only super and sub-concepts from the ontology. In addition, in our approach, we focus on two tasks; query expansion and ranking of the expanded queries, to improve the efficiency of the ontology-based search. The aforementioned tasks make use of ontological concepts, and relations existing between those concepts so as to obtain semantically more relevant search results for a given query. Findings - The proposed ontology-based indexing technique is investigated by analysing the coverage of concepts that are being populated in the index. Here, we introduce a new measure called index enhancement measure, to estimate the coverage of ontological concepts being indexed. We have evaluated the ontology-based search for the tourism domain with the tourism documents and tourism-specific ontology. The comparison of search results based on the use of ontology "with and without query expansion" is examined to estimate the efficiency of the proposed query expansion task. The ranking is compared with the ORank system to evaluate the performance of our ontology-based search. From these analyses, the ontology-based search results shows better recall when compared to the other concept-based search systems. The mean average precision of the ontology-based search is found to be 0.79 and the recall is found to be 0.65, the ORank system has the mean average precision of 0.62 and the recall is found to be 0.51, while the concept-based search has the mean average precision of 0.56 and the recall is found to be 0.42. Practical implications - When the concept is not present in the domain-specific ontology, the concept cannot be indexed. When the given query term is not available in the ontology then the term-based results are retrieved. Originality/value - In addition to super and sub-concepts, we incorporate the concepts present in same level (siblings) to the ontological index. The structural information from the ontology is determined for the query expansion. The ranking of the documents depends on the type of the query (single concept query, multiple concept queries and concept with relation queries) and the ontological relations that exists in the query and the documents. With this ontological structural information, the search results showed us better coverage of concepts with respect to the query.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Type
    a
  9. Mestrovic, A.; Cali, A.: ¬An ontology-based approach to information retrieval (2017) 0.00
    0.0031642143 = product of:
      0.0063284286 = sum of:
        0.0063284286 = product of:
          0.012656857 = sum of:
            0.012656857 = weight(_text_:a in 3489) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.012656857 = score(doc=3489,freq=28.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.23833402 = fieldWeight in 3489, product of:
                  5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                    28.0 = termFreq=28.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3489)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    We define a general framework for ontology-based information retrieval (IR). In our approach, document and query expansion rely on a base taxonomy that is extracted from a lexical database or a Linked Data set (e.g. WordNet, Wiktionary etc.). Each term from a document or query is modelled as a vector of base concepts from the base taxonomy. We define a set of mapping functions which map multiple ontological layers (dimensions) onto the base taxonomy. This way, each concept from the included ontologies can also be represented as a vector of base concepts from the base taxonomy. We propose a general weighting schema which is used for the vector space model. Our framework can therefore take into account various lexical and semantic relations between terms and concepts (e.g. synonymy, hierarchy, meronymy, antonymy, geo-proximity, etc.). This allows us to avoid certain vocabulary problems (e.g. synonymy, polysemy) as well as to reduce the vector size in the IR tasks.
    Source
    Semantic keyword-based search on structured data sources: COST Action IC1302. Second International KEYSTONE Conference, IKC 2016, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, September 8-9, 2016, Revised Selected Papers. Eds.: A. Calì, A. et al
    Type
    a
  10. Crystal, D.: Semantic targeting : past, present, and future (2010) 0.00
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = product of:
          0.011717974 = sum of:
            0.011717974 = weight(_text_:a in 3938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011717974 = score(doc=3938,freq=24.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 3938, product of:
                  4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                    24.0 = termFreq=24.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3938)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper seeks to explicate the notion of "semantics", especially as it is being used in the context of the internet in general and advertising in particular. Design/methodology/approach - The conception of semantics as it evolved within linguistics is placed in its historical context. In the field of online advertising, it shows the limitations of keyword-based approaches and those where a limited amount of context is taken into account (contextual advertising). A more sophisticated notion of semantic targeting is explained, in which the whole page is taken into account in arriving at a semantic categorization. This is achieved through a combination of lexicological analysis and a purpose-built semantic taxonomy. Findings - The combination of a lexical analysis (derived from a dictionary) and a taxonomy (derived from a general encyclopedia, and subsequently refined) resulted in the construction of a "sense engine", which was then applied to online advertising, Examples of the application illustrate how relevance and sensitivity (brand protection) of ad placement can be improved. Several areas of potential further application are outlined. Originality/value - This is the first systematic application of linguistics to provide a solution to the problem of inappropriate ad placement online.
    Type
    a
  11. Buxton, A.: Ontologies and classification of chemicals : can they help each other? (2011) 0.00
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = product of:
          0.011717974 = sum of:
            0.011717974 = weight(_text_:a in 4817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011717974 = score(doc=4817,freq=24.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 4817, product of:
                  4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                    24.0 = termFreq=24.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4817)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The chemistry schedule in the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) is badly in need of revision. In many places it is enumerative rather than synthetic (giving rules for constructing numbers for any compound required). In principle, chemistry should be the ideal subject for a synthetic classification but many common compounds have complex formulae and a synthetic system becomes unwieldy. Also, all compounds belong to several hierarchies, e.g. chloroquin is a heterocycle, an aromatic compound, amine, antimalarial drug, etc. and rules need to be drawn up as to which ones take precedence and which ones should be taken into account in classifying a compound. There are obvious similarities between a classification and an ontology. This paper looks at existing ontologies for chemistry, especially ChEBI which is one of the largest, to examine how a classification and an ontology might draw on each other and what the problem areas are. An ontology might help in creating an index to a classification (for chemicals not listed or to provide access by facets not used in the classification) and a classification could provide a hierarchy to use in an ontology.
    Source
    Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero
    Type
    a
  12. Mahesh, K.; Karanth, P.: ¬A novel knowledge organization scheme for the Web : superlinks with semantic roles (2012) 0.00
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = product of:
          0.011717974 = sum of:
            0.011717974 = weight(_text_:a in 822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011717974 = score(doc=822,freq=24.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 822, product of:
                  4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                    24.0 = termFreq=24.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=822)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    We discuss the needs of a knowledge organization scheme for supporting Web-based software applications. We show how it differs from traditional knowledge organization schemes due to the virtual, dynamic, ad-hoc, userspecific and application-specific nature of Web-based knowledge. The sheer size of Web resources also adds to the complexity of organizing knowledge on the Web. As such, a standard, global scheme such as a single ontology for classifying and organizing all Web-based content is unrealistic. There is nevertheless a strong and immediate need for effective knowledge organization schemes to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Web-based applications. In this context, we propose a novel knowledge organization scheme wherein concepts in the ontology of a domain are semantically interlinked with specific pieces of Web-based content using a rich hyper-linking structure known as Superlinks with well-defined semantic roles. We illustrate how such a knowledge organization scheme improves the efficiency and effectiveness of a Web-based e-commerce retail store.
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
    Type
    a
  13. Calegari, S.; Pasi, G.: Personal ontologies : generation of user profiles based on the YAGO ontology (2013) 0.00
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = product of:
          0.011717974 = sum of:
            0.011717974 = weight(_text_:a in 2719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011717974 = score(doc=2719,freq=24.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 2719, product of:
                  4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                    24.0 = termFreq=24.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2719)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Personalized search is aimed at tailoring the search outcome to users; to this aim user profiles play an important role: the more faithfully a user profile represents the user interests and preferences, the higher is the probability to improve the search process. In the approaches proposed in the literature, user profiles are formally represented as bags of words, as vectors, or as conceptual taxonomies, generally defined based on external knowledge resources (such as the WordNet and the ODP - Open Directory Project). Ontologies have been more recently considered as a powerful expressive means for knowledge representation. The advantage offered by ontological languages is that they allow a more structured and expressive knowledge representation with respect to the above mentioned approaches. A challenging research activity consists in defining user profiles by a knowledge extraction process from an existing ontology, with the main aim of producing a semantically rich representation of the user interests. In this paper a method to automatically define a personal ontology via a knowledge extraction process from the general purpose ontology YAGO is presented; starting from a set of keywords, which are representatives of the user interests, the process is aimed to define a structured and semantically coherent representation of the user topical interests. In the paper the proposed method is described, as well as some evaluations that show its effectiveness.
    Type
    a
  14. Jansen, L.: Four rules for classifying social entities (2014) 0.00
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = product of:
          0.011717974 = sum of:
            0.011717974 = weight(_text_:a in 3409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011717974 = score(doc=3409,freq=24.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 3409, product of:
                  4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                    24.0 = termFreq=24.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3409)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Many top-level ontologies like Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) have been developed as a framework for ontologies in the natural sciences. The aim of the present essay is to extend the account of BFO to a very special layer of reality, the world of social entities. While natural entities like bacteria, thunderstorms or temperatures exist independently from human action and thought, social entities like countries, hospitals or money come into being only through human collective intentions and collective actions. Recently, the regional ontology of the social world has attracted considerable research interest in philosophy - witness, e.g., the pioneering work by Gilbert, Tuomela and Searle. There is a considerable class of phenomena that require the participation of more than one human agent: nobody can tango alone, play tennis against oneself, or set up a parliamentary democracy for oneself. Through cooperation and coordination of their wills and actions, agents can act together - they can perform social actions and group actions. An important kind of social action is the establishment of an institution (e.g. a hospital, a research agency or a marriage) through mutual promise or (social) contract. Another important kind of social action is the imposition of a social status on certain entities. For example, a society can impose the status of being a 20 Euro note on certain pieces of paper or the status of being an approved medication to a certain chemical substance.
    Type
    a
  15. Pattuelli, M.C.; Rubinow, S.: Charting DBpedia : towards a cartography of a major linked dataset (2012) 0.00
    0.0029000505 = product of:
      0.005800101 = sum of:
        0.005800101 = product of:
          0.011600202 = sum of:
            0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011600202 = score(doc=829,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper provides an analysis of the knowledge structure underlying DBpedia, one of the largest and most heavily used datasets in the current Linked Data landscape. The study reveals an evolving knowledge representation environment where different descriptive and classification approaches are employed concurrently. This analysis opens up a new area of research to which the knowledge organization community can make a significant contribution.
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
    Type
    a
  16. Corcho, O.; Poveda-Villalón, M.; Gómez-Pérez, A.: Ontology engineering in the era of linked data (2015) 0.00
    0.0029000505 = product of:
      0.005800101 = sum of:
        0.005800101 = product of:
          0.011600202 = sum of:
            0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011600202 = score(doc=3293,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 3293, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3293)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Ontology engineering encompasses the method, tools and techniques used to develop ontologies. Without requiring ontologies, linked data is driving a paradigm shift, bringing benefits and drawbacks to the publishing world. Ontologies may be heavyweight, supporting deep understanding of a domain, or lightweight, suited to simple classification of concepts and more adaptable for linked data. They also vary in domain specificity, usability and reusabilty. Hybrid vocabularies drawing elements from diverse sources often suffer from internally incompatible semantics. To serve linked data purposes, ontology engineering teams require a range of skills in philosophy, computer science, web development, librarianship and domain expertise.
    Footnote
    Contribution to a special section "Linked data and the charm of weak semantics".
    Type
    a
  17. Girju, R.; Beamer, B.; Rozovskaya, A.; Fister, A.; Bhat, S.: ¬A knowledge-rich approach to identifying semantic relations between nominals (2010) 0.00
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = product of:
          0.011481222 = sum of:
            0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 4242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011481222 = score(doc=4242,freq=16.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 4242, product of:
                  4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                    16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4242)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper describes a state-of-the-art supervised, knowledge-intensive approach to the automatic identification of semantic relations between nominals in English sentences. The system employs a combination of rich and varied sets of new and previously used lexical, syntactic, and semantic features extracted from various knowledge sources such as WordNet and additional annotated corpora. The system ranked first at the third most popular SemEval 2007 Task - Classification of Semantic Relations between Nominals and achieved an F-measure of 72.4% and an accuracy of 76.3%. We also show that some semantic relations are better suited for WordNet-based models than other relations. Additionally, we make a distinction between out-of-context (regular) examples and those that require sentence context for relation identification and show that contextual data are important for the performance of a noun-noun semantic parser. Finally, learning curves show that the task difficulty varies across relations and that our learned WordNet-based representation is highly accurate so the performance results suggest the upper bound on what this representation can do.
    Type
    a
  18. Zhang, L.: Linking information through function (2014) 0.00
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = product of:
          0.011481222 = sum of:
            0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 1526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011481222 = score(doc=1526,freq=16.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1526, product of:
                  4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                    16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1526)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    How information resources can be meaningfully related has been addressed in contexts from bibliographic entries to hyperlinks and, more recently, linked data. The genre structure and relationships among genre structure constituents shed new light on organizing information by purpose or function. This study examines the relationships among a set of functional units previously constructed in a taxonomy, each of which is a chunk of information embedded in a document and is distinct in terms of its communicative function. Through a card-sort study, relationships among functional units were identified with regard to their occurrence and function. The findings suggest that a group of functional units can be identified, collocated, and navigated by particular relationships. Understanding how functional units are related to each other is significant in linking information pieces in documents to support finding, aggregating, and navigating information in a distributed information environment.
    Type
    a
  19. Sartori, F.; Grazioli, L.: Metadata guiding kowledge engineering : a practical approach (2014) 0.00
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = product of:
          0.011481222 = sum of:
            0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 1572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011481222 = score(doc=1572,freq=16.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1572, product of:
                  4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                    16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1572)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper presents an approach to the analysis, design and development of Knowledge Based Systems based on the Knowledge Artifact concept. Knowledge Artifacts can be meant as means to acquire, represent and maintain knowledge involved in complex problem solving activities. A complex problem is typically made of a huge number of parts that are put together according to a first set of constraints (i.e. the procedural knowledge), dependable on the functional properties it must satisfy, and a second set of rules, dependable on what the expert thinks about the problem and how he/she would represent it. The paper illustrates a way to unify both types of knowledge into a Knowledge Artifact, exploiting Ontologies, Influence Nets and Task Structures formalisms and metadata paradigm.
    Type
    a
  20. Khiat, A.; Benaissa, M.: Approach for instance-based ontology alignment : using argument and event structures of generative lexicon (2014) 0.00
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = product of:
          0.011481222 = sum of:
            0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 1577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011481222 = score(doc=1577,freq=16.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1577, product of:
                  4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                    16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1577)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Ontology alignment became a very important problem to ensure semantic interoperability for different sources of information heterogeneous and distributed. Instance-based ontology alignment represents a very promising technique to find semantic correspondences between entities of different ontologies when they contain a lot of instances. In this paper, we describe a new approach to manage ontologies that do not share common instances.This approach extracts the argument and event structures from a set of instances of the concept of the source ontology and compared them with other semantic features extracted from a set of instances of the concept of the target ontology using Generative Lexicon Theory. We show that it is theoretically powerful because it is based on linguistic semantics and useful in practice. We present the experimental results obtained by running our approach on Biblio test of Benchmark series of OAEI 2011. The results show the good performance of our approach.
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 193
  • d 30
  • f 1
  • pt 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 191
  • el 46
  • m 13
  • x 12
  • s 4
  • r 2
  • n 1
  • More… Less…

Subjects