Search (152 results, page 1 of 8)

0.08038785 = product of:
  0.20096964 = sum of:
    0.14013816 = weight(_text_:objects in 1437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14013816 = score(doc=1437,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3409136 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 1437, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1437)
    0.060831472 = weight(_text_:22 in 1437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060831472 = score(doc=1437,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22461061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1437, 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=1437)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper describes to construct faceted ontologies for domain modeling. Building upon the faceted theory of S.R. Ranganathan (1967), the paper intends to address the faceted classification approach applied to build domain ontologies. As classificatory ontologies are employed to represent the relationships of entities and objects on the web, the faceted approach helps to analyze domain representation in an effective way for modeling. Based on this perspective, an ontology of the music domain has been analyzed that would serve as a case study.

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

0.08038785 = product of:
  0.20096964 = sum of:
    0.14013816 = weight(_text_:objects in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14013816 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3409136 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
    0.060831472 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060831472 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22461061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2654, 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=2654)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Faceted Knowledge Representation provides a formalism for implementing knowledge systems. The basic notions of faceted knowledge representation are "unit", "relation", "facet" and "interpretation". Units are atomic elements and can be abstract elements or refer to external objects in an application. Relations are sequences or matrices of 0 and 1's (binary matrices). Facets are relational structures that combine units and relations. Each facet represents an aspect or viewpoint of a knowledge system. Interpretations are mappings that can be used to translate between different representations. This paper introduces the basic notions of faceted knowledge representation. The formalism is applied here to an abstract modeling of a faceted thesaurus as used in information retrieval.

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31

0.06890388 = product of:
  0.17225969 = sum of:
    0.12011843 = weight(_text_:objects in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12011843 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3409136 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 2418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2418)
    0.052141264 = weight(_text_:22 in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052141264 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22461061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2418, 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=2418)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Integrated digital access to multiple collections is a prominent issue for many Cultural Heritage institutions. The metadata describing diverse collections must be interoperable, which requires aligning the controlled vocabularies that are used to annotate objects from these collections. In this paper, we present an experiment where we match the vocabularies of two collections by applying the Knowledge Representation techniques established in recent Semantic Web research. We discuss the steps that are required for such matching, namely formalising the initial resources using Semantic Web languages, and running ontology mapping tools on the resulting representations. In addition, we present a prototype that enables the user to browse the two collections using the obtained alignment while still providing her with the original vocabulary structures.

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006

0.06890388 = product of:
  0.17225969 = sum of:
    0.12011843 = weight(_text_:objects in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12011843 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3409136 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
    0.052141264 = weight(_text_:22 in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052141264 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22461061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Contemporary retrieval systems, which search across collections, usually ignore collection-level metadata. Alternative approaches, exploiting collection-level information, will require an understanding of the various kinds of relationships that can obtain between collection-level and item-level metadata. This paper outlines the problem and describes a project that is developing a logic-based framework for classifying collection/item metadata relationships. This framework will support (i) metadata specification developers defining metadata elements, (ii) metadata creators describing objects, and (iii) system designers implementing systems that take advantage of collection-level metadata. We present three examples of collection/item metadata relationship categories, attribute/value-propagation, value-propagation, and value-constraint and show that even in these simple cases a precise formulation requires modal notions in addition to first-order logic. These formulations are related to recent work in information retrieval and ontology evaluation.

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

0.06890388 = product of:
  0.17225969 = sum of:
    0.12011843 = weight(_text_:objects in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12011843 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3409136 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
    0.052141264 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052141264 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22461061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.061965514 = product of:
  0.15491378 = sum of:
    0.068011664 = weight(_text_:21 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068011664 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1987041 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.3422761 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
    0.08690211 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08690211 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22461061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

21. 3.2008 17:34:14

Pages

S.11-22

0.06112368 = product of:
  0.3056184 = sum of:
    0.3056184 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3056184 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.54378754 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

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

0.05662438 = product of:
  0.28312188 = sum of:
    0.28312188 = weight(_text_:objects in 680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28312188 = score(doc=680,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.3409136 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.83047986 = fieldWeight in 680, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=680)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In this article, we investigate what sorts of information humans request about geographical objects of the same type. For example, Edinburgh Castle and Bodiam Castle are two objects of the same type: "castle." The question is whether specific information is requested for the object type "castle" and how this information differs for objects of other types (e.g., church, museum, or lake). We aim to answer this question using an online survey. In the survey, we showed 184 participants 200 images pertaining to urban and rural objects and asked them to write questions for which they would like to know the answers when seeing those objects. Our analysis of the 6,169 questions collected in the survey shows that humans have shared ideas of what to ask about geographical objects. When the object types resemble each other (e.g., church and temple), the requested information is similar for the objects of these types. Otherwise, the information is specific to an object type. Our results may be very useful in guiding Natural Language Processing tasks involving automatic generation of templates for image descriptions and their assessment, as well as image indexing and organization.

0.053641815 = product of:
  0.13410453 = sum of:
    0.1000987 = weight(_text_:objects in 3402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1000987 = score(doc=3402,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3409136 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 3402, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3402)
    0.034005832 = weight(_text_:21 in 3402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034005832 = score(doc=3402,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1987041 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.17113805 = fieldWeight in 3402, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3402)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

There are quite a few success stories illustrating philosophy's relevance to information science. One can cite, for example, Leibniz's work on a characteristica universalis and a corresponding calculus ratiocinator through which he aspired to reduce reasoning to calculating. It goes without saying that formal logic initiated research on decidability and computational complexity. But even beyond the realm of formal logic, philosophy has served as a source of inspiration for developments in information and computer science. At the end of the twentieth century, formal ontology emerged from a quest for a semantic foundation of information systems having a higher reusability than systems being available at the time. A success story that is less well documented is the advent of frame systems in computer science. Minsky is credited with having laid out the foundational ideas of such systems. There, the logic programming approach to knowledge representation is criticized by arguing that one should be more careful about the way human beings recognize objects and situations. Notably, the paper draws heavily on the writings of Kuhn and the Gestalt-theorists. It is not our intent, however, to document the traces of the frame idea in the works of philosophers. What follows is, rather, an exposition of a methodology for representing scientific knowledge that is essentially frame-like. This methodology is labelled as structuralist theory of science or, in short, as structuralism. The frame-like character of its basic meta-theoretical concepts makes structuralism likely to be useful in knowledge representation.

Date

9. 2.2017 19:21:39

0.043375857 = product of:
  0.10843964 = sum of:
    0.047608163 = weight(_text_:21 in 1852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047608163 = score(doc=1852,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1987041 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.23959327 = fieldWeight in 1852, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1852)
    0.060831472 = weight(_text_:22 in 1852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060831472 = score(doc=1852,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22461061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

21. 2.1997 19:37:24
11. 2.2011 18:22:58

0.042913448 = product of:
  0.10728362 = sum of:
    0.08007896 = weight(_text_:objects in 2281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08007896 = score(doc=2281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3409136 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.23489517 = fieldWeight in 2281, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2281)
    0.027204664 = weight(_text_:21 in 2281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027204664 = score(doc=2281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1987041 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.13691044 = fieldWeight in 2281, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2281)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

An information system like the Web is a continuously evolving system consisting of multiple heterogeneous information sources, covering a wide domain of discourse, and a huge number of users (human or software) with diverse characteristics and needs, that produce and consume information. The challenge nowadays is to build a scalable information infrastructure enabling the effective, accurate, content based retrieval of information, in a way that adapts to the characteristics and interests of the users. The aim of this work is to propose formally sound methods for building such an information network based on ontologies which are widely used and are easy to grasp by ordinary Web users. The main results of this work are: - A novel scheme for indexing and retrieving objects according to multiple aspects or facets. The proposed scheme is a faceted scheme enriched with a method for specifying the combinations of terms that are valid. We give a model-theoretic interpretation to this model and we provide mechanisms for inferring the valid combinations of terms. This inference service can be exploited for preventing errors during the indexing process, which is very important especially in the case where the indexing is done collaboratively by many users, and for deriving "complete" navigation trees suitable for browsing through the Web. The proposed scheme has several advantages over the hierarchical classification schemes currently employed by Web catalogs, namely, conceptual clarity (it is easier to understand), compactness (it takes less space), and scalability (the update operations can be formulated more easily and be performed more effciently). - A exible and effecient model for building mediators over ontology based information sources. The proposed mediators support several modes of query translation and evaluation which can accommodate various application needs and levels of answer quality. The proposed model can be used for providing users with customized views of Web catalogs. It can also complement the techniques for building mediators over relational sources so as to support approximate translation of partially ordered domain values.

Date

30.10.2015 18:18:21

0.04074912 = product of:
  0.2037456 = sum of:
    0.2037456 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2037456 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.54378754 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.04074912 = product of:
  0.2037456 = sum of:
    0.2037456 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2037456 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.54378754 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.04003948 = product of:
  0.2001974 = sum of:
    0.2001974 = weight(_text_:objects in 5732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2001974 = score(doc=5732,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.3409136 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.58723795 = fieldWeight in 5732, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5732)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Recent technological developments have increased the use of machine learning to solve many problems, including many in information retrieval. Multimedia information retrieval as a problem represents a significant challenge to machine learning as a technological solution, but some problems can still be addressed by using appropriate AI techniques. We review the technological developments and provide a perspective on the use of machine learning in conjunction with knowledge organization to address multimedia IR needs. The semantic gap in multimedia IR remains a significant problem in the field, and solutions to them are many years off. However, new technological developments allow the use of knowledge organization and machine learning in multimedia search systems and services. Specifically, we argue that, the improvement of detection of some classes of lowlevel features in images music and video can be used in conjunction with knowledge organization to tag or label multimedia content for better retrieval performance. We provide an overview of the use of knowledge organization schemes in machine learning and make recommendations to information professionals on the use of this technology with knowledge organization techniques to solve multimedia IR problems. We introduce a five-step process model that extracts features from multimedia objects (Step 1) from both knowledge organization (Step 1a) and machine learning (Step 1b), merging them together (Step 2) to create an index of those multimedia objects (Step 3). We also overview further steps in creating an application to utilize the multimedia objects (Step 4) and maintaining and updating the database of features on those objects (Step 5).

0.037179302 = product of:
  0.09294826 = sum of:
    0.040806998 = weight(_text_:21 in 4095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040806998 = score(doc=4095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1987041 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.20536566 = fieldWeight in 4095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4095)
    0.052141264 = weight(_text_:22 in 4095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052141264 = score(doc=4095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22461061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4095, 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=4095)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

6. 8.2010 14:26:21

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.035812404 = product of:
  0.17906201 = sum of:
    0.17906201 = weight(_text_:objects in 117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17906201 = score(doc=117,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.3409136 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.5252416 = fieldWeight in 117, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=117)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Information management in corporate environments is a growing problem as companies' information assets grow and their need to use them in their operations. Several management models have been practiced with application on the most diverse fronts, practices that integrate the so-called Enterprise Content Management. This study proposes a conceptual model of semantic corporate information ecosystem, based on the Universal Document Model proposed by Dagobert Soergel. It focuses on unstructured information objects, especially multimedia, increasingly used in corporate environments, adding semantics and expanding their recovery potential in the composition and reuse of dynamic documents on demand. The proposed model considers stable elements in the organizational environment, such as actors, processes, business metadata and information objects, as well as some basic infrastructures of the corporate information environment. The main objective is to establish a conceptual model that adds semantic intelligence to information assets, leveraging pre-existing infrastructure in organizations, integrating and relating objects to other objects, actors and business processes. The approach methodology considered the state of the art of Information Organization, Representation and Retrieval, Organizational Content Management and Semantic Web technologies, in the scientific literature, as bases for the establishment of an integrative conceptual model. Therefore, the research will be qualitative and exploratory. The predicted steps of the model are: Environment, Data Type and Source Definition, Data Distillation, Metadata Enrichment, and Storage. As a result, in theoretical terms the extended model allows to process heterogeneous and unstructured data according to the established cut-outs and through the processes listed above, allowing value creation in the composition of dynamic information objects, with semantic aggregations to metadata.

0.033974625 = product of:
  0.16987312 = sum of:
    0.16987312 = weight(_text_:objects in 4318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16987312 = score(doc=4318,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.3409136 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.49828792 = fieldWeight in 4318, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4318)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper presents a novel hybrid approach for visual information retrieval (VIR) that combines shape analysis of objects in image with their indexing by textual descriptions. The principal goal of presented technique is applying Two Segments Turning Function (2STF) proposed by authors for efficient invariant to spatial variations shape processing and implementation of semantic Web approaches for ontology-based user-oriented annotations of multimedia information. In the proposed approach the user's textual queries are converted to image features, which are used for images searching, indexing, interpretation, and retrieval. A decision about similarity between retrieved image and user's query is taken computing the shape convergence to 2STF combining it with matching the ontological annotations of objects in image and providing in this way automatic definition of the machine-understandable semantics. In order to evaluate the proposed approach the Image Retrieval by Ontological Description of Shapes system has been designed and tested using some standard image domains.

0.030982757 = product of:
  0.07745689 = sum of:
    0.034005832 = weight(_text_:21 in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034005832 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1987041 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.17113805 = fieldWeight in 1670, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1670)
    0.043451056 = weight(_text_:22 in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043451056 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22461061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

26. 9.2006 21:00:22

0.030982757 = product of:
  0.07745689 = sum of:
    0.034005832 = weight(_text_:21 in 2831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034005832 = score(doc=2831,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1987041 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.17113805 = fieldWeight in 2831, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0979297 = idf(docFreq=5425, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2831)
    0.043451056 = weight(_text_:22 in 2831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043451056 = score(doc=2831,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22461061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2831, 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=2831)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

12. 3.2016 13:21:22

0.028027633 = product of:
  0.14013816 = sum of:
    0.14013816 = weight(_text_:objects in 5496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14013816 = score(doc=5496,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3409136 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06414093 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 5496, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5496)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)