Search (135 results, page 1 of 7)

0.057277065 = product of:
  0.11455413 = sum of:
    0.11455413 = sum of:
      0.05794589 = weight(_text_:b in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05794589 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
      0.05660824 = weight(_text_:22 in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05660824 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3376, 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=3376)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

31. 7.2010 16:58:22

Source

Semantic digital libraries. Eds.: S.R. Kruk, B. McDaniel

0.05011743 = product of:
  0.10023486 = sum of:
    0.10023486 = sum of:
      0.05070265 = weight(_text_:b in 1852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05070265 = score(doc=1852,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 1852, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1852)
      0.04953221 = weight(_text_:22 in 1852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04953221 = score(doc=1852,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1852, 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=1852)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

11. 2.2011 18:22:58

0.05011743 = product of:
  0.10023486 = sum of:
    0.10023486 = sum of:
      0.05070265 = weight(_text_:b in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05070265 = score(doc=4324,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 4324, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4324)
      0.04953221 = weight(_text_:22 in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04953221 = score(doc=4324,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4324, 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=4324)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

11. 2.2011 18:22:25

0.042957798 = product of:
  0.085915595 = sum of:
    0.085915595 = sum of:
      0.043459415 = weight(_text_:b in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043459415 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
      0.04245618 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04245618 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, 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=3387)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 8.2010 12:35:22

Source

Semantic digital libraries. Eds.: S.R. Kruk, B. McDaniel

0.035798166 = product of:
  0.07159633 = sum of:
    0.07159633 = sum of:
      0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03621618 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 1670, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1670)
      0.03538015 = weight(_text_:22 in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03538015 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1670, 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=1670)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Es ist ein semantisches Netz für den Gegenstandsbereich Luftfahrt modelliert worden, welches Unternehmensinformationen, Organisationen, Fluglinien, Flughäfen, etc. enthält, Diese sind 10 Hauptkategorien zugeordnet worden, die untergliedert nach Facetten sind. Die Begriffe des Gegenstandsbereiches sind mit 23 unterschiedlichen Relationen verknüpft worden (Z. B.: 'hat Standort in', bietet an, 'ist Homebase von', etc). Der Schwerpunkt der Betrachtung liegt auf dem Unterschied zwischen den drei klassischen Standardrelationen und den zusätzlich eingerichteten Relationen, bezüglich ihrem Nutzen für ein effizientes Retrieval. Die angelegten Kategorien und Relationen sind sowohl für eine kognitive als auch für eine maschinelle Verarbeitung geeignet.

Date

26. 9.2006 21:00:22

0.035798166 = product of:
  0.07159633 = sum of:
    0.07159633 = sum of:
      0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03621618 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
      0.03538015 = weight(_text_:22 in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03538015 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = 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

0.03525779 = sum of:
  0.020771319 = product of:
    0.083085276 = sum of:
      0.083085276 = weight(_text_:authors in 3362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.083085276 = score(doc=3362,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.34896153 = fieldWeight in 3362, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3362)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.014486472 = product of:
    0.028972944 = sum of:
      0.028972944 = weight(_text_:b in 3362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028972944 = score(doc=3362,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 3362, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3362)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the construction of a core ontology for food. To construct the core ontology, the authors propose here an approach called, yet another methodology for ontology plus (YAMO+). The goal is to exhibit the construction of a core ontology for a domain, which can be further extended and converted into application ontologies. Design/methodology/approach To motivate the construction of the core ontology for food, the authors have first articulated a set of application scenarios. The idea is that the constructed core ontology can be used to build application-specific ontologies for those scenarios. As part of the developmental approach to core ontology, the authors have proposed a methodology called YAMO+. It is designed following the theory of analytico-synthetic classification. YAMO+ is generic in nature and can be applied to build core ontologies for any domain. Findings Construction of a core ontology needs a thorough understanding of the domain and domain requirements. There are various challenges involved in constructing a core ontology as discussed in this paper. The proposed approach has proven to be sturdy enough to face the challenges that the construction of a core ontology poses. It is observed that core ontology is amenable to conversion to an application ontology. Practical implications The constructed core ontology for domain food can be readily used for developing application ontologies related to food. The proposed methodology YAMO+ can be applied to build core ontologies for any domain. Originality/value As per the knowledge, the proposed approach is the first attempt based on the study of the state of the art literature, in terms of, a formal approach to the design of a core ontology. Also, the constructed core ontology for food is the first one as there is no such ontology available on the web for domain food.

0.03525779 = sum of:
  0.020771319 = product of:
    0.083085276 = sum of:
      0.083085276 = weight(_text_:authors in 1030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.083085276 = score(doc=1030,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.34896153 = fieldWeight in 1030, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1030)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.014486472 = product of:
    0.028972944 = sum of:
      0.028972944 = weight(_text_:b in 1030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028972944 = score(doc=1030,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 1030, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1030)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the last few years, the size of Linked Open Data (LOD) describing artworks, in general or domain-specific Knowledge Graphs (KGs), is gradually increasing. This provides (art-)historians and Cultural Heritage professionals with a wealth of information to explore. Specifically, structured data about iconographical and iconological (icon) aspects, i.e. information about the subjects, concepts and meanings of artworks, are extremely valuable for the state-of-the-art of computational tools, e.g. content recognition through computer vision. Nevertheless, a data quality evaluation for art domains, fundamental for data reuse, is still missing. The purpose of this study is filling this gap with an overview of art-historical data quality in current KGs with a focus on the icon aspects. Design/methodology/approach This study's analyses are based on established KG evaluation methodologies, adapted to the domain by addressing requirements from art historians' theories. The authors first select several KGs according to Semantic Web principles. Then, the authors evaluate (1) their structures' suitability to describe icon information through quantitative and qualitative assessment and (2) their content, qualitatively assessed in terms of correctness and completeness. Findings This study's results reveal several issues on the current expression of icon information in KGs. The content evaluation shows that these domain-specific statements are generally correct but often not complete. The incompleteness is confirmed by the structure evaluation, which highlights the unsuitability of the KG schemas to describe icon information with the required granularity. Originality/value The main contribution of this work is an overview of the actual landscape of the icon information expressed in LOD. Therefore, it is valuable to cultural institutions by providing them a first domain-specific data quality evaluation. Since this study's results suggest that the selected domain information is underrepresented in Semantic Web datasets, the authors highlight the need for the creation and fostering of such information to provide a more thorough art-historical dimension to LOD.

0.03492338 = sum of:
  0.020771319 = product of:
    0.083085276 = sum of:
      0.083085276 = weight(_text_:authors in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.083085276 = score(doc=1634,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.34896153 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01415206 = product of:
    0.02830412 = sum of:
      0.02830412 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02830412 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = 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

0.03492338 = sum of:
  0.020771319 = product of:
    0.083085276 = sum of:
      0.083085276 = weight(_text_:authors in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.083085276 = score(doc=179,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.34896153 = fieldWeight in 179, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=179)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01415206 = product of:
    0.02830412 = sum of:
      0.02830412 = weight(_text_:22 in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02830412 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 179, 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=179)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The open science movement calls for transparent and retraceable research processes. While infrastructures to support these practices in qualitative research are lacking, the design needs to consider different approaches and workflows. The paper bases on the definition of ontologies as shared conceptualizations of knowledge (Borst, 1999). The authors argue that participatory design is a good way to create these shared conceptualizations by giving domain experts and future users a voice in the design process via interviews, workshops and observations. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a novel approach for creating ontologies in the field of open science using participatory design. As a case study the creation of an ontology for qualitative coding schemas is presented. Coding schemas are an important result of qualitative research, and reuse can yield great potential for open science making qualitative research more transparent, enhance sharing of coding schemas and teaching of qualitative methods. The participatory design process consisted of three parts: a requirement analysis using interviews and an observation, a design phase accompanied by interviews and an evaluation phase based on user tests as well as interviews. Findings The research showed several positive outcomes due to participatory design: higher commitment of users, mutual learning, high quality feedback and better quality of the ontology. However, there are two obstacles in this approach: First, contradictive answers by the interviewees, which needs to be balanced; second, this approach takes more time due to interview planning and analysis. Practical implications The implication of the paper is in the long run to decentralize the design of open science infrastructures and to involve parties affected on several levels. Originality/value In ontology design, several methods exist by using user-centered design or participatory design doing workshops. In this paper, the authors outline the potentials for participatory design using mainly interviews in creating an ontology for open science. The authors focus on close contact to researchers in order to build the ontology upon the expert's knowledge.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.033098496 = sum of:
  0.014990407 = product of:
    0.05996163 = sum of:
      0.05996163 = weight(_text_:authors in 2257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05996163 = score(doc=2257,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2257, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2257)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01810809 = product of:
    0.03621618 = sum of:
      0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 2257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03621618 = score(doc=2257,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 2257, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2257)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Future of Information Architecture examines issues surrounding why information is processed, stored and applied in the way that it has, since time immemorial. Contrary to the conventional wisdom held by many scholars in human history, the recurrent debate on the explanation of the most basic categories of information (eg space, time causation, quality, quantity) has been misconstrued, to the effect that there exists some deeper categories and principles behind these categories of information - with enormous implications for our understanding of reality in general. To understand this, the book is organised in to four main parts: Part I begins with the vital question concerning the role of information within the context of the larger theoretical debate in the literature. Part II provides a critical examination of the nature of data taxonomy from the main perspectives of culture, society, nature and the mind. Part III constructively invesitgates the world of information network from the main perspectives of culture, society, nature and the mind. Part IV proposes six main theses in the authors synthetic theory of information architecture, namely, (a) the first thesis on the simpleness-complicatedness principle, (b) the second thesis on the exactness-vagueness principle (c) the third thesis on the slowness-quickness principle (d) the fourth thesis on the order-chaos principle, (e) the fifth thesis on the symmetry-asymmetry principle, and (f) the sixth thesis on the post-human stage.

0.031106336 = product of:
  0.062212672 = sum of:
    0.062212672 = product of:
      0.24885069 = sum of:
        0.24885069 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24885069 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4427806 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.022876337 = sum of:
  0.010493284 = product of:
    0.041973136 = sum of:
      0.041973136 = weight(_text_:authors in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041973136 = score(doc=1633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.17628889 = fieldWeight in 1633, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1633)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.012383052 = product of:
    0.024766104 = sum of:
      0.024766104 = weight(_text_:22 in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024766104 = score(doc=1633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = 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

0.020737559 = product of:
  0.041475117 = sum of:
    0.041475117 = product of:
      0.16590047 = sum of:
        0.16590047 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16590047 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4427806 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F1627&ei=tAtYUYrBNoHKtQb3l4GYBw&usg=AFQjCNHeaxKkKU3-u54LWxMNYGXaaDLCGw&sig2=8WykXWQoDKjDSdGtAakH2Q&bvm=bv.44442042,d.Yms.

0.020737559 = product of:
  0.041475117 = sum of:
    0.041475117 = product of:
      0.16590047 = sum of:
        0.16590047 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16590047 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4427806 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Information Technologies. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.cmu.edu%2F~cx%2Fpapers%2Fknowledge_based_text_representation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0SaTSvhWLTh__Uz_HtOtl3.

0.020486966 = product of:
  0.04097393 = sum of:
    0.04097393 = product of:
      0.08194786 = sum of:
        0.08194786 = weight(_text_:b in 3382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08194786 = score(doc=3382,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.44287026 = fieldWeight in 3382, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Semantic digital libraries. Eds.: S.R. Kruk, B. McDaniel

0.01810809 = product of:
  0.03621618 = sum of:
    0.03621618 = product of:
      0.07243236 = sum of:
        0.07243236 = weight(_text_:b in 3065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07243236 = score(doc=3065,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.3914457 = fieldWeight in 3065, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3065)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Editor

Hayes, P. u. B. McBride

0.017926097 = product of:
  0.035852194 = sum of:
    0.035852194 = product of:
      0.07170439 = sum of:
        0.07170439 = weight(_text_:b in 3372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07170439 = score(doc=3372,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.3875115 = fieldWeight in 3372, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3372)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Semantic digital libraries. Eds.: S.R. Kruk, B. McDaniel

0.017690076 = product of:
  0.03538015 = sum of:
    0.03538015 = product of:
      0.0707603 = sum of:
        0.0707603 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0707603 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.11-22

0.017690076 = product of:
  0.03538015 = sum of:
    0.03538015 = product of:
      0.0707603 = sum of:
        0.0707603 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0707603 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = 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