Search (113 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  1. Zeng, Q.; Yu, M.; Yu, W.; Xiong, J.; Shi, Y.; Jiang, M.: Faceted hierarchy : a new graph type to organize scientific concepts and a construction method (2019) 0.15
    0.147153 = product of:
      0.294306 = sum of:
        0.0735765 = product of:
          0.2207295 = sum of:
            0.2207295 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.2207295 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.3927445 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = 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)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
        0.2207295 = weight(_text_:2f in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2207295 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3927445 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Content
    Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.
  2. Xiong, C.: Knowledge based text representations for information retrieval (2016) 0.13
    0.1285784 = product of:
      0.2571568 = sum of:
        0.049051 = product of:
          0.147153 = sum of:
            0.147153 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.147153 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.3927445 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = 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)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
        0.20810577 = weight(_text_:2f in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20810577 = score(doc=5820,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3927445 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.5298757 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    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.
  3. Stojanovic, N.: Ontology-based Information Retrieval : methods and tools for cooperative query answering (2005) 0.10
    0.098102 = product of:
      0.196204 = sum of:
        0.049051 = product of:
          0.147153 = sum of:
            0.147153 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.147153 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.3927445 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = 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)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
        0.147153 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.147153 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3927445 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    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.
  4. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.07
    0.06921949 = product of:
      0.13843898 = sum of:
        0.119609766 = weight(_text_:social in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.119609766 = score(doc=3387,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6475021 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
        0.018829225 = product of:
          0.03765845 = sum of:
            0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03765845 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Libraries are the tools we use to learn and to answer our questions. The quality of our work depends, among others, on the quality of the tools we use. Recent research in digital libraries is focused, on one hand on improving the infrastructure of the digital library management systems (DLMS), and on the other on improving the metadata models used to annotate collections of objects maintained by DLMS. The latter includes, among others, the semantic web and social networking technologies. Recently, the semantic web and social networking technologies are being introduced to the digital libraries domain. The expected outcome is that the overall quality of information discovery in digital libraries can be improved by employing social and semantic technologies. In this chapter we present the results of an evaluation of social and semantic end-user information discovery services for the digital libraries.
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
    Theme
    Social tagging
  5. Weller, K.: Knowledge representation in the Social Semantic Web (2010) 0.05
    0.054187015 = product of:
      0.10837403 = sum of:
        0.09007573 = weight(_text_:social in 4515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09007573 = score(doc=4515,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.48762095 = fieldWeight in 4515, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4515)
        0.018298302 = product of:
          0.036596604 = sum of:
            0.036596604 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.036596604 = score(doc=4515,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.17478286 = fieldWeight in 4515, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4515)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    The main purpose of this book is to sum up the vital and highly topical research issue of knowledge representation on the Web and to discuss novel solutions by combining benefits of folksonomies and Web 2.0 approaches with ontologies and semantic technologies. This book contains an overview of knowledge representation approaches in past, present and future, introduction to ontologies, Web indexing and in first case the novel approaches of developing ontologies. This title combines aspects of knowledge representation for both the Semantic Web (ontologies) and the Web 2.0 (folksonomies). Currently there is no monographic book which provides a combined overview over these topics. focus on the topic of using knowledge representation methods for document indexing purposes. For this purpose, considerations from classical librarian interests in knowledge representation (thesauri, classification schemes etc.) are included, which are not part of most other books which have a stronger background in computer science.
    Footnote
    Rez. in: iwp 62(2011) H.4, S.205-206 (C. Carstens): "Welche Arten der Wissensrepräsentation existieren im Web, wie ausgeprägt sind semantische Strukturen in diesem Kontext, und wie können soziale Aktivitäten im Sinne des Web 2.0 zur Strukturierung von Wissen im Web beitragen? Diesen Fragen widmet sich Wellers Buch mit dem Titel Knowledge Representation in the Social Semantic Web. Der Begriff Social Semantic Web spielt einerseits auf die semantische Strukturierung von Daten im Sinne des Semantic Web an und deutet andererseits auf die zunehmend kollaborative Inhaltserstellung im Social Web hin. Weller greift die Entwicklungen in diesen beiden Bereichen auf und beleuchtet die Möglichkeiten und Herausforderungen, die aus der Kombination der Aktivitäten im Semantic Web und im Social Web entstehen. Der Fokus des Buches liegt dabei primär auf den konzeptuellen Herausforderungen, die sich in diesem Kontext ergeben. So strebt die originäre Vision des Semantic Web die Annotation aller Webinhalte mit ausdrucksstarken, hochformalisierten Ontologien an. Im Social Web hingegen werden große Mengen an Daten von Nutzern erstellt, die häufig mithilfe von unkontrollierten Tags in Folksonomies annotiert werden. Weller sieht in derartigen kollaborativ erstellten Inhalten und Annotationen großes Potenzial für die semantische Indexierung, eine wichtige Voraussetzung für das Retrieval im Web. Das Hauptinteresse des Buches besteht daher darin, eine Brücke zwischen den Wissensrepräsentations-Methoden im Social Web und im Semantic Web zu schlagen. Um dieser Fragestellung nachzugehen, gliedert sich das Buch in drei Teile. . . .
    Insgesamt besticht das Buch insbesondere durch seine breite Sichtweise, die Aktualität und die Fülle an Referenzen. Es ist somit sowohl als Überblickswerk geeignet, das umfassend über aktuelle Entwicklungen und Trends der Wissensrepräsentation im Semantic und Social Web informiert, als auch als Lektüre für Experten, für die es vor allem als kontextualisierte und sehr aktuelle Sammlung von Referenzen eine wertvolle Ressource darstellt." Weitere Rez. in: Journal of Documentation. 67(2011), no.5, S.896-899 (P. Rafferty)
    RSWK
    Social Tagging
    Subject
    Social Tagging
  6. Semantic digital libraries (2009) 0.05
    0.046852265 = product of:
      0.09370453 = sum of:
        0.07279219 = weight(_text_:social in 3371) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07279219 = score(doc=3371,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.39405724 = fieldWeight in 3371, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3371)
        0.020912344 = product of:
          0.041824687 = sum of:
            0.041824687 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3371) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.041824687 = score(doc=3371,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.19975184 = fieldWeight in 3371, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3371)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Libraries have always been an inspiration for the standards and technologies developed by semantic web activities. However, except for the Dublin Core specification, semantic web and social networking technologies have not been widely adopted and further developed by major digital library initiatives and projects. Yet semantic technologies offer a new level of flexibility, interoperability, and relationships for digital repositories. Kruk and McDaniel present semantic web-related aspects of current digital library activities, and introduce their functionality; they show examples ranging from general architectural descriptions to detailed usages of specific ontologies, and thus stimulate the awareness of researchers, engineers, and potential users of those technologies. Their presentation is completed by chapters on existing prototype systems such as JeromeDL, BRICKS, and Greenstone, as well as a look into the possible future of semantic digital libraries. This book is aimed at researchers and graduate students in areas like digital libraries, the semantic web, social networks, and information retrieval. This audience will benefit from detailed descriptions of both today's possibilities and also the shortcomings of applying semantic web technologies to large digital repositories of often unstructured data.
    Content
    Inhalt: Introduction to Digital Libraries and Semantic Web: Introduction / Bill McDaniel and Sebastian Ryszard Kruk - Digital Libraries and Knowledge Organization / Dagobert Soergel - Semantic Web and Ontologies / Marcin Synak, Maciej Dabrowski and Sebastian Ryszard Kruk - Social Semantic Information Spaces / John G. Breslin A Vision of Semantic Digital Libraries: Goals of Semantic Digital Libraries / Sebastian Ryszard Kruk and Bill McDaniel - Architecture of Semantic Digital Libraries / Sebastian Ryszard Kruk, Adam Westerki and Ewelina Kruk - Long-time Preservation / Markus Reis Ontologies for Semantic Digital Libraries: Bibliographic Ontology / Maciej Dabrowski, Macin Synak and Sebastian Ryszard Kruk - Community-aware Ontologies / Slawomir Grzonkowski, Sebastian Ryszard Kruk, Adam Gzella, Jakub Demczuk and Bill McDaniel Prototypes of Semantic Digital Libraries: JeromeDL: The Social Semantic Digital Library / Sebastian Ryszard Kruk, Mariusz Cygan, Adam Gzella, Tomasz Woroniecki and Maciej Dabrowski - The BRICKS Digital Library Infrastructure / Bernhard Haslhofer and Predrag Knezevié - Semantics in Greenstone / Annika Hinze, George Buchanan, David Bainbridge and Ian Witten Building the Future - Semantic Digital Libraries in Use: Hyperbooks / Gilles Falquet, Luka Nerima and Jean-Claude Ziswiler - Semantic Digital Libraries for Archiving / Bill McDaniel - Evaluation of Semantic and Social Technologies for Digital Libraries / Sebastian Ryszard Kruk, Ewelina Kruk and Katarzyna Stankiewicz - Conclusions: The Future of Semantic Digital Libraries / Sebastian Ryszard Kruk and Bill McDaniel
  7. Held, C.; Cress, U.: Social Tagging aus kognitionspsychologischer Sicht (2008) 0.04
    0.04272667 = product of:
      0.17090668 = sum of:
        0.17090668 = weight(_text_:social in 2885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17090668 = score(doc=2885,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.9251957 = fieldWeight in 2885, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2885)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Der vorliegende Artikel beschreibt Social-Tagging-Systeme aus theoretisch-kognitionspsychologischer Perspektive und zeigt einige Parallelen und Analogien zwischen Social Tagging und der individuellen kognitiven bedeutungsbezogenen Wissensrepräsentation auf. Zuerst werden wesentliche Aspekte von Social Tagging vorgestellt, die für eine psychologische Betrachtungsweise von Bedeutung sind. Danach werden Modelle und empirische Befunde der Kognitionswissenschaften bezüglich der Speicherung und des Abrufs von Inhalten des Langzeitgedächtnisses beschrieben. Als Drittes werden Parallelen und Unterschiede zwischen Social Tagging und der internen Wissensrepräsentation erläutert und die Möglichkeit von individuellen Lernprozessen durch Social-Tagging-Systeme aufgezeigt.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  8. Voß, J.: Vom Social Tagging zum Semantic Tagging (2008) 0.03
    0.03488618 = product of:
      0.13954473 = sum of:
        0.13954473 = weight(_text_:social in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13954473 = score(doc=2884,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.75541914 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Social Tagging als freie Verschlagwortung durch Nutzer im Web wird immer häufiger mit der Idee des Semantic Web in Zusammenhang gebracht. Wie beide Konzepte in der Praxis konkret zusammenkommen sollen, bleibt jedoch meist unklar. Dieser Artikel soll hier Aufklärung leisten, indem die Kombination von Social Tagging und Semantic Web in Form von Semantic Tagging mit dem Simple Knowledge Organisation System dargestellt und auf die konkreten Möglichkeiten, Vorteile und offenen Fragen der Semantischen Indexierung eingegangen wird.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  9. Derntl, M.; Hampel, T.; Motschnig, R.; Pitner, T.: Social Tagging und Inclusive Universal Access (2008) 0.03
    0.034528363 = product of:
      0.13811345 = sum of:
        0.13811345 = weight(_text_:social in 2864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13811345 = score(doc=2864,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.747671 = fieldWeight in 2864, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2864)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Der vorliegende Artikel beleuchtet und bewertet Social Tagging als aktuelles Phänomen des Web 2.0 im Kontext bekannter Techniken der semantischen Datenorganisation. Tagging wird in einen Raum verwandter Ordnungs- und Strukturierungsansätze eingeordnet, um die fundamentalen Grundlagen des Social Tagging zu identifizieren und zuzuweisen. Dabei wird Tagging anhand des Inclusive Universal Access Paradigmas bewertet, das technische als auch menschlich-soziale Kriterien für die inklusive und barrierefreie Bereitstellung und Nutzung von Diensten definiert. Anhand dieser Bewertung werden fundamentale Prinzipien des "Inclusive Social Tagging" hergeleitet, die der Charakterisierung und Bewertung gängiger Tagging-Funktionalitäten in verbreiteten Web-2.0-Diensten dienen. Aus der Bewertung werden insbesondere Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten von Social Tagging und unterstützenden Diensten erkennbar.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  10. Renear, A.H.; Wickett, K.M.; Urban, R.J.; Dubin, D.; Shreeves, S.L.: Collection/item metadata relationships (2008) 0.03
    0.033829853 = product of:
      0.067659706 = sum of:
        0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04883048 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
        0.018829225 = product of:
          0.03765845 = sum of:
            0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03765845 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2623, 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=2623)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  11. ¬The Semantic Web - ISWC 2010 : 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, Shanghai, China, November 7-11, 2010, Revised Selected Papers, Part 2. (2010) 0.03
    0.03341625 = product of:
      0.0668325 = sum of:
        0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 4706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040692065 = score(doc=4706,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 4706, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4706)
        0.026140431 = product of:
          0.052280862 = sum of:
            0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.052280862 = score(doc=4706,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 4706, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4706)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    The two-volume set LNCS 6496 and 6497 constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, held in Shanghai, China, during November 7-11, 2010. Part I contains 51 papers out of 578 submissions to the research track. Part II contains 18 papers out of 66 submissions to the semantic Web in-use track, 6 papers out of 26 submissions to the doctoral consortium track, and also 4 invited talks. Each submitted paper were carefully reviewed. The International Semantic Web Conferences (ISWC) constitute the major international venue where the latest research results and technical innovations on all aspects of the Semantic Web are presented. ISWC brings together researchers, practitioners, and users from the areas of artificial intelligence, databases, social networks, distributed computing, Web engineering, information systems, natural language processing, soft computing, and human computer interaction to discuss the major challenges and proposed solutions, the success stories and failures, as well the visions that can advance research and drive innovation in the Semantic Web.
  12. Zeng, M.L.; Fan, W.; Lin, X.: SKOS for an integrated vocabulary structure (2008) 0.03
    0.03189509 = product of:
      0.06379018 = sum of:
        0.04603782 = weight(_text_:social in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04603782 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.24922368 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
        0.017752362 = product of:
          0.035504725 = sum of:
            0.035504725 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035504725 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.21886435 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    In order to transfer the Chinese Classified Thesaurus (CCT) into a machine-processable format and provide CCT-based Web services, a pilot study has been conducted in which a variety of selected CCT classes and mapped thesaurus entries are encoded with SKOS. OWL and RDFS are also used to encode the same contents for the purposes of feasibility and cost-benefit comparison. CCT is a collected effort led by the National Library of China. It is an integration of the national standards Chinese Library Classification (CLC) 4th edition and Chinese Thesaurus (CT). As a manually created mapping product, CCT provides for each of the classes the corresponding thesaurus terms, and vice versa. The coverage of CCT includes four major clusters: philosophy, social sciences and humanities, natural sciences and technologies, and general works. There are 22 main-classes, 52,992 sub-classes and divisions, 110,837 preferred thesaurus terms, 35,690 entry terms (non-preferred terms), and 59,738 pre-coordinated headings (Chinese Classified Thesaurus, 2005) Major challenges of encoding this large vocabulary comes from its integrated structure. CCT is a result of the combination of two structures (illustrated in Figure 1): a thesaurus that uses ISO-2788 standardized structure and a classification scheme that is basically enumerative, but provides some flexibility for several kinds of synthetic mechanisms Other challenges include the complex relationships caused by differences of granularities of two original schemes and their presentation with various levels of SKOS elements; as well as the diverse coordination of entries due to the use of auxiliary tables and pre-coordinated headings derived from combining classes, subdivisions, and thesaurus terms, which do not correspond to existing unique identifiers. The poster reports the progress, shares the sample SKOS entries, and summarizes problems identified during the SKOS encoding process. Although OWL Lite and OWL Full provide richer expressiveness, the cost-benefit issues and the final purposes of encoding CCT raise questions of using such approaches.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  13. Jansen, L.: Four rules for classifying social entities (2014) 0.03
    0.03051905 = product of:
      0.1220762 = sum of:
        0.1220762 = weight(_text_:social in 3409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1220762 = score(doc=3409,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.66085404 = fieldWeight in 3409, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3409)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    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.
  14. Priss, U.: Faceted information representation (2000) 0.03
    0.029282015 = product of:
      0.11712806 = sum of:
        0.11712806 = sum of:
          0.07319321 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.07319321 = score(doc=5095,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046325076 = queryNorm
              0.3495657 = fieldWeight in 5095, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5095)
          0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043934856 = score(doc=5095,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046325076 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5095, 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=5095)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This paper presents an abstract formalization of the notion of "facets". Facets are relational structures of units, relations and other facets selected for a certain purpose. Facets can be used to structure large knowledge representation systems into a hierarchical arrangement of consistent and independent subsystems (facets) that facilitate flexibility and combinations of different viewpoints or aspects. This paper describes the basic notions, facet characteristics and construction mechanisms. It then explicates the theory in an example of a faceted information retrieval system (FaIR)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 17:47:06
  15. Weller, K.: Anforderungen an die Wissensrepräsentation im Social Semantic Web (2010) 0.03
    0.028484445 = product of:
      0.11393778 = sum of:
        0.11393778 = weight(_text_:social in 4061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11393778 = score(doc=4061,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6167971 = fieldWeight in 4061, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4061)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Dieser Artikel gibt einen Einblick in die aktuelle Verschmelzung von Web 2.0-und Semantic Web-Ansätzen, die als Social Semantic Web beschrieben werden kann. Die Grundidee des Social Semantic Web wird beschrieben und einzelne erste Anwendungsbeispiele vorgestellt. Ein wesentlicher Schwerpunkt dieser Entwicklung besteht in der Umsetzung neuer Methoden und Herangehensweisen im Bereich der Wissensrepräsentation. Dieser Artikel stellt vier Schwerpunkte vor, in denen sich die Wissensrepräsentationsmethoden im Social Semantic Web weiterentwickeln müssen und geht dabei jeweils auf den aktuellen Stand ein.
  16. Grzonkowski, S.; Kruk, S.R.; Gzella, A.; Demczuk, J.; McDaniel, B.: Community-aware ontologies (2009) 0.03
    0.028192293 = product of:
      0.11276917 = sum of:
        0.11276917 = weight(_text_:social in 3382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11276917 = score(doc=3382,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6104709 = fieldWeight in 3382, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3382)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The term "social network" was first mentioned in 1954 by J.A. Barnes. The social network is a structure that consists of nodes; the nodes represent individual people or organizations. Such a structure depicts the ways in which people are connected through diverse social familiarities like acquaintance, friendship or close familiar bonds.
  17. ¬The Semantic Web - ISWC 2010 : 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, Shanghai, China, November 7-11, 2010, Revised Selected Papers, Part I. (2010) 0.03
    0.026733 = product of:
      0.053466 = sum of:
        0.032553654 = weight(_text_:social in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032553654 = score(doc=4707,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 4707, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4707)
        0.020912344 = product of:
          0.041824687 = sum of:
            0.041824687 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.041824687 = score(doc=4707,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.19975184 = fieldWeight in 4707, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4707)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    The two-volume set LNCS 6496 and 6497 constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, held in Shanghai, China, during November 7-11, 2010. Part I contains 51 papers out of 578 submissions to the research track. Part II contains 18 papers out of 66 submissions to the semantic Web in-use track, 6 papers out of 26 submissions to the doctoral consortium track, and also 4 invited talks. Each submitted paper were carefully reviewed. The International Semantic Web Conferences (ISWC) constitute the major international venue where the latest research results and technical innovations on all aspects of the Semantic Web are presented. ISWC brings together researchers, practitioners, and users from the areas of artificial intelligence, databases, social networks, distributed computing, Web engineering, information systems, natural language processing, soft computing, and human computer interaction to discuss the major challenges and proposed solutions, the success stories and failures, as well the visions that can advance research and drive innovation in the Semantic Web.
  18. Coladangelo, L.P.: Organizing controversy : toward cultural hospitality in controlled vocabularies through semantic annotation (2021) 0.03
    0.026733 = product of:
      0.053466 = sum of:
        0.032553654 = weight(_text_:social in 578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032553654 = score(doc=578,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 578, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=578)
        0.020912344 = product of:
          0.041824687 = sum of:
            0.041824687 = weight(_text_:aspects in 578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.041824687 = score(doc=578,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.19975184 = fieldWeight in 578, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=578)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    This research explores current controversies within country dance communities and the implications of cultural and ethical issues related to representation of gender and race in a KOS for an ICH, while investigating the importance of context and the applicability of semantic approaches in the implementation of synonym rings. During development of a controlled vocabulary to represent dance concepts for country dance choreography, this study encountered and considered the importance of history and culture regarding synonymous and near-synonymous terms used to describe dance roles and choreographic elements. A subset of names for the same choreographic concepts across four subdomains of country dance (English country dance, Scottish country dance, contra dance, and modern western square dance) were used as a case study. These concepts included traditionally gendered dance roles and choreographic terms with a racially pejorative history. Through the lens of existing research on ethical knowl­edge organization, this study focused on principles and methods of transparency, multivocality, cultural warrant, cultural hospitality, and intersectionality to conduct a domain analysis of country dance resources. The analysis revealed differing levels of engagement and distinction among dance practitioners and communities for their preferences to use different terms for the same concept. Various lexical, grammatical, affective, social, political, and cultural aspects also emerged as important contextual factors for the use and assignment of terms. As a result, this study proposes the use of semantic annotation to represent those contextual factors and to allow mechanisms of user choice in the design of a country dance knowl­edge organization system. Future research arising from this study would focus on expanding examination to other country dance genres and continued exploration of the use of semantic approaches to represent contextual factors in controlled vocabulary development.
  19. Almeida Campos, M.L. de; Machado Campos, M.L.; Dávila, A.M.R.; Espanha Gomes, H.; Campos, L.M.; Lira e Oliveira, L. de: Information sciences methodological aspects applied to ontology reuse tools : a study based on genomic annotations in the domain of trypanosomatides (2013) 0.03
    0.026329588 = product of:
      0.10531835 = sum of:
        0.10531835 = sum of:
          0.073936306 = weight(_text_:aspects in 635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.073936306 = score(doc=635,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046325076 = queryNorm
              0.35311472 = fieldWeight in 635, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=635)
          0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.031382043 = score(doc=635,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046325076 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 635, 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=635)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Despite the dissemination of modeling languages and tools for representation and construction of ontologies, their underlying methodologies can still be improved. As a consequence, ontology tools can be enhanced accordingly, in order to support users through the ontology construction process. This paper proposes suggestions for ontology tools' improvement based on a case study within the domain of bioinformatics, applying a reuse method ology. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were carried out on a subset of 28 terms of Gene Ontology on a semi-automatic alignment with other biomedical ontologies. As a result, a report is presented containing suggestions for enhancing ontology reuse tools, which is a product derived from difficulties that we had in reusing a set of OBO ontologies. For the reuse process, a set of steps closely related to those of Pinto and Martin's methodology was used. In each step, it was observed that the experiment would have been significantly improved if ontology manipulation tools had provided certain features. Accordingly, problematic aspects in ontology tools are presented and suggestions are made aiming at getting better results in ontology reuse.
    Date
    22. 2.2013 12:03:53
  20. Priss, U.: Description logic and faceted knowledge representation (1999) 0.03
    0.025098871 = product of:
      0.100395486 = sum of:
        0.100395486 = sum of:
          0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.06273703 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046325076 = queryNorm
              0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
          0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03765845 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046325076 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2655, 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=2655)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The term "facet" was introduced into the field of library classification systems by Ranganathan in the 1930's [Ranganathan, 1962]. A facet is a viewpoint or aspect. In contrast to traditional classification systems, faceted systems are modular in that a domain is analyzed in terms of baseline facets which are then synthesized. In this paper, the term "facet" is used in a broader meaning. Facets can describe different aspects on the same level of abstraction or the same aspect on different levels of abstraction. The notion of facets is related to database views, multicontexts and conceptual scaling in formal concept analysis [Ganter and Wille, 1999], polymorphism in object-oriented design, aspect-oriented programming, views and contexts in description logic and semantic networks. This paper presents a definition of facets in terms of faceted knowledge representation that incorporates the traditional narrower notion of facets and potentially facilitates translation between different knowledge representation formalisms. A goal of this approach is a modular, machine-aided knowledge base design mechanism. A possible application is faceted thesaurus construction for information retrieval and data mining. Reasoning complexity depends on the size of the modules (facets). A more general analysis of complexity will be left for future research.
    Date
    22. 1.2016 17:30:31

Years

Languages

  • e 93
  • d 18
  • f 1
  • pt 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 81
  • el 23
  • x 9
  • m 8
  • s 4
  • n 2
  • r 1
  • More… Less…