Search (158 results, page 1 of 8)

0.06714136 = product of:
  0.13428272 = sum of:
    0.13428272 = sum of:
      0.063368015 = weight(_text_:r in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.063368015 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.36573532 = fieldWeight in 5576, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5576)
      0.07091471 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07091471 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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)

Date

13.12.2017 14:17:22

Type

r

0.05315247 = product of:
  0.10630494 = sum of:
    0.10630494 = sum of:
      0.07084759 = weight(_text_:r in 3403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07084759 = score(doc=3403,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.40890455 = fieldWeight in 3403, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3403)
      0.035457354 = weight(_text_:22 in 3403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035457354 = score(doc=3403,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3403, 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=3403)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

What is knowledge representation and reasoning (KR&R)? Alas, a thorough account would require a book, or at least a dedicated, full-length paper, but here we shall have to make do with something simpler. Since most readers are likely to have an intuitive grasp of the essence of KR&R, our simple account should suffice. The interesting thing is that this simple account itself makes reference to some of the foundational distinctions in the field of philosophy. These distinctions also play a central role in artificial intelligence (AI) and computer science. To begin with, the first distinction in KR&R is that we identify knowledge with knowledge that such-and-such holds (possibly to a degree), rather than knowing how. If you ask an expert tennis player how he manages to serve a ball at 130 miles per hour on his first serve, and then serve a safer, topspin serve on his second should the first be out, you may well receive a confession that, if truth be told, this athlete can't really tell you. He just does it; he does something he has been doing since his youth. Yet, there is no denying that he knows how to serve. In contrast, the knowledge in KR&R must be expressible in declarative statements. For example, our tennis player knows that if his first serve lands outside the service box, it's not in play. He thus knows a proposition, conditional in form.

Date

9. 2.2017 19:22:14

Source

Philosophy, computing and information science. Eds.: R. Hagengruber u. U.V. Riss

0.034999583 = sum of:
  0.020816643 = product of:
    0.08326657 = sum of:
      0.08326657 = weight(_text_:authors in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08326657 = score(doc=1634,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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)
  0.014182941 = product of:
    0.028365882 = sum of:
      0.028365882 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028365882 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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

0.034999583 = sum of:
  0.020816643 = product of:
    0.08326657 = sum of:
      0.08326657 = weight(_text_:authors in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08326657 = score(doc=179,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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)
  0.014182941 = product of:
    0.028365882 = sum of:
      0.028365882 = weight(_text_:22 in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028365882 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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

0.031174213 = product of:
  0.062348425 = sum of:
    0.062348425 = product of:
      0.2493937 = sum of:
        0.2493937 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2493937 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4437468 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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.

0.026856543 = product of:
  0.053713087 = sum of:
    0.053713087 = sum of:
      0.025347205 = weight(_text_:r in 1436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025347205 = score(doc=1436,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.14629413 = fieldWeight in 1436, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1436)
      0.028365882 = weight(_text_:22 in 1436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028365882 = score(doc=1436,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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)

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

0.022926256 = sum of:
  0.010516182 = product of:
    0.042064726 = sum of:
      0.042064726 = weight(_text_:authors in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042064726 = score(doc=1633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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)
  0.012410074 = product of:
    0.024820147 = sum of:
      0.024820147 = weight(_text_:22 in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024820147 = score(doc=1633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = 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

0.022403978 = product of:
  0.044807956 = sum of:
    0.044807956 = product of:
      0.08961591 = sum of:
        0.08961591 = weight(_text_:r in 4637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08961591 = score(doc=4637,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.5172279 = fieldWeight in 4637, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4637)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.02078281 = product of:
  0.04156562 = sum of:
    0.04156562 = product of:
      0.16626248 = sum of:
        0.16626248 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16626248 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4437468 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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.

0.02078281 = product of:
  0.04156562 = sum of:
    0.04156562 = product of:
      0.16626248 = sum of:
        0.16626248 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16626248 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4437468 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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.

0.019010404 = product of:
  0.03802081 = sum of:
    0.03802081 = product of:
      0.07604162 = sum of:
        0.07604162 = weight(_text_:r in 3741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07604162 = score(doc=3741,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.4388824 = fieldWeight in 3741, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3741)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

r

0.017728677 = product of:
  0.035457354 = sum of:
    0.035457354 = product of:
      0.07091471 = sum of:
        0.07091471 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07091471 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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

0.017728677 = product of:
  0.035457354 = sum of:
    0.035457354 = product of:
      0.07091471 = sum of:
        0.07091471 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07091471 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, 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=539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:07

0.017728677 = product of:
  0.035457354 = sum of:
    0.035457354 = product of:
      0.07091471 = sum of:
        0.07091471 = weight(_text_:22 in 3406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07091471 = score(doc=3406,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3406, 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=3406)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 5.2010 16:22:35

0.017728677 = product of:
  0.035457354 = sum of:
    0.035457354 = product of:
      0.07091471 = sum of:
        0.07091471 = weight(_text_:22 in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07091471 = score(doc=4523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4523, 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=4523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2018, H.1, S.22-27

0.015842004 = product of:
  0.031684007 = sum of:
    0.031684007 = product of:
      0.063368015 = sum of:
        0.063368015 = weight(_text_:r in 715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063368015 = score(doc=715,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.36573532 = fieldWeight in 715, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=715)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis. 6., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, W. Semar u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried

0.015043282 = product of:
  0.030086564 = sum of:
    0.030086564 = product of:
      0.060173128 = sum of:
        0.060173128 = weight(_text_:22 in 3355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060173128 = score(doc=3355,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 3355, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3355)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2017 16:54:03
22. 1.2017 17:10:56

0.014669902 = product of:
  0.029339803 = sum of:
    0.029339803 = product of:
      0.058679607 = sum of:
        0.058679607 = weight(_text_:r in 5152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058679607 = score(doc=5152,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.33867568 = fieldWeight in 5152, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

C H A P T E R 1 What is an ontology?; Introduction; The data deluge and information overload; Defining terms; Knowledge organization systems and ontologies; Ontologies, metadata and linked data; What can an ontology do?; Ontologies and information professionals; Alternatives to ontologies; The aims of this book; The structure of this book; C H A P T E R 2 Ontologies and the semantic web; Introduction; The semantic web and linked data; Resource Description Framework (RDF); Classes, subclasses and properties; The semantic web stack; Embedded RDF; Alternative semantic visionsLibraries and the semantic web; Other cultural heritage institutions and the semantic web; Other organizations and the semantic web; Conclusion; C H A P T E R 3 Existing ontologies; Introduction; Ontology documentation; Ontologies for representing ontologies; Ontologies for libraries; Upper ontologies; Cultural heritage data models; Ontologies for the web; Conclusion; C H A P T E R 4 Adopting ontologies; Introduction; Reusing ontologies: application profiles and data models; Identifying ontologies; The ideal ontology discovery tool; Selection criteria; Conclusion C H A P T E R 5 Building ontologiesIntroduction; Approaches to building an ontology; The twelve steps; Ontology development example: Bibliometric Metrics Ontology element set; Conclusion; C H A P T E R 6 Interrogating ontologies; Introduction; Interrogating ontologies for reuse; Interrogating a knowledge base; Understanding ontology use; Conclusion; C H A P T E R 7 The future of ontologies and the information professional; Introduction; The future of ontologies for knowledge discovery; The future role of library and information professionals; The practical development of ontologies

0.014182941 = product of:
  0.028365882 = sum of:
    0.028365882 = product of:
      0.056731764 = sum of:
        0.056731764 = weight(_text_:22 in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056731764 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

31. 7.2010 16:58:22

0.014182941 = product of:
  0.028365882 = sum of:
    0.028365882 = product of:
      0.056731764 = sum of:
        0.056731764 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056731764 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4685, 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=4685)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 8.2011 13:33:22