Search (804 results, page 1 of 41)

0.1104939 = sum of:
  0.08335629 = product of:
    0.25006887 = sum of:
      0.25006887 = weight(_text_:objects in 5455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.25006887 = score(doc=5455,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.30417082 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.82213306 = fieldWeight in 5455, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5455)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.027137605 = product of:
    0.05427521 = sum of:
      0.05427521 = weight(_text_:22 in 5455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05427521 = score(doc=5455,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20040265 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5455, 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=5455)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although classification has been an important aspect of astronomy since stellar spectroscopy in the late nineteenth century, to date no comprehensive classification system has existed for all classes of objects in the universe. Here we present such a system, and lay out its foundational definitions and principles. The system consists of the "Three Kingdoms" of planets, stars and galaxies, eighteen families, and eighty-two classes of objects. Gravitation is the defining organizing principle for the families and classes, and the physical nature of the objects is the defining characteristic of the classes. The system should prove useful for both scientific and pedagogical purposes.

Date

21.11.2019 18:46:22

0.09830823 = sum of:
  0.05954022 = product of:
    0.17862065 = sum of:
      0.17862065 = weight(_text_:objects in 3277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17862065 = score(doc=3277,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.30417082 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.58723795 = fieldWeight in 3277, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3277)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.03876801 = product of:
    0.07753602 = sum of:
      0.07753602 = weight(_text_:22 in 3277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07753602 = score(doc=3277,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20040265 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3277, 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=3277)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.09820549 = sum of:
  0.03609434 = product of:
    0.10828302 = sum of:
      0.10828302 = weight(_text_:objects in 1874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10828302 = score(doc=1874,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.30417082 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.3559941 = fieldWeight in 1874, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1874)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.062111154 = product of:
    0.12422231 = sum of:
      0.12422231 = weight(_text_:translating in 1874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12422231 = score(doc=1874,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.4287632 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.4921947 = idf(docFreq=66, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.2897224 = fieldWeight in 1874, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.4921947 = idf(docFreq=66, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1874)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"People can summarize a complex scene in a few words without thinking twice. It's much more difficult for computers. But we've just gotten a bit closer -- we've developed a machine-learning system that can automatically produce captions (like the three above) to accurately describe images the first time it sees them. This kind of system could eventually help visually impaired people understand pictures, provide alternate text for images in parts of the world where mobile connections are slow, and make it easier for everyone to search on Google for images. Recent research has greatly improved object detection, classification, and labeling. But accurately describing a complex scene requires a deeper representation of what's going on in the scene, capturing how the various objects relate to one another and translating it all into natural-sounding language. Many efforts to construct computer-generated natural descriptions of images propose combining current state-of-the-art techniques in both computer vision and natural language processing to form a complete image description approach. But what if we instead merged recent computer vision and language models into a single jointly trained system, taking an image and directly producing a human readable sequence of words to describe it? This idea comes from recent advances in machine translation between languages, where a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) transforms, say, a French sentence into a vector representation, and a second RNN uses that vector representation to generate a target sentence in German. Now, what if we replaced that first RNN and its input words with a deep Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) trained to classify objects in images? Normally, the CNN's last layer is used in a final Softmax among known classes of objects, assigning a probability that each object might be in the image. But if we remove that final layer, we can instead feed the CNN's rich encoding of the image into a RNN designed to produce phrases. We can then train the whole system directly on images and their captions, so it maximizes the likelihood that descriptions it produces best match the training descriptions for each image.

0.09089321 = product of:
  0.18178642 = sum of:
    0.18178642 = product of:
      0.54535925 = sum of:
        0.54535925 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.54535925 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.48517948 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057227984 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.08783844 = product of:
  0.17567688 = sum of:
    0.17567688 = product of:
      0.35135376 = sum of:
        0.35135376 = weight(_text_:translating in 1990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.35135376 = score(doc=1990,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.4287632 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.4921947 = idf(docFreq=66, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057227984 = queryNorm
            0.8194588 = fieldWeight in 1990, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              7.4921947 = idf(docFreq=66, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1990)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports on a joint translation project (France and Canada) of the Resource Description and Access (RDA) standard into French. We describe how the translation committee worked, explain the methodology, and present the measures taken to ensure that all contributing parties be satisfied with the end result. The article discusses problems that arose when dealing with translating specific instructions and examples that needed to be adapted (or changed) to the French context. Other sections report on technical and managerial challenges encountered. We conclude with "lessons learned" that will hopefully help others embarking on such a project.

0.08607941 = sum of:
  0.058941808 = product of:
    0.17682542 = sum of:
      0.17682542 = weight(_text_:objects in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17682542 = score(doc=4198,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.30417082 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.5813359 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.027137605 = product of:
    0.05427521 = sum of:
      0.05427521 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05427521 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20040265 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4198, 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=4198)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Large, data-rich organizations have tremendously large collections of digital objects to be "repurposed," to respond quickly and economically to publishing, marketing, and information needs. Some management typically assume that a content management system, or some other technique such as OWL and RDF, will automatically address the workflow and technical issues associated with this reuse. Four case studies show that the sources of some roadblocks to agile repurposing are as much managerial and organizational as they are technical in nature. The review concludes with suggestions on how digital object repurposing can be integrated given these organizations' structures.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:23:07

0.075744346 = product of:
  0.15148869 = sum of:
    0.15148869 = product of:
      0.45446604 = sum of:
        0.45446604 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.45446604 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.48517948 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057227984 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.073782355 = sum of:
  0.05052155 = product of:
    0.15156464 = sum of:
      0.15156464 = weight(_text_:objects in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15156464 = score(doc=2835,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.30417082 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.49828792 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.023260804 = product of:
    0.046521608 = sum of:
      0.046521608 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046521608 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20040265 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to develop methodology to determine conceptual overlap between research areas. It investigates patterns of terminology usage in scientific abstracts as boundary objects between research specialties. Research specialties were determined by high-level classifications assigned by Thomson Reuters in their Essential Science Indicators file, which provided a strictly hierarchical classification of journals into 22 categories. Results from the query "network theory" were downloaded from the Web of Science. From this file, two top-level groups, economics and social sciences, were selected and topically analyzed to provide a baseline of similarity on which to run an informetric analysis. The Places & Spaces Map of Science (Klavans and Boyack 2007) was used to determine the proximity of disciplines to one another in order to select the two disciplines use in the analysis. Groups analyzed share common theories and goals; however, groups used different language to describe their research. It was found that 61% of term words were shared between the two groups.

0.07094734 = sum of:
  0.051563337 = product of:
    0.15469001 = sum of:
      0.15469001 = weight(_text_:objects in 143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15469001 = score(doc=143,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.30417082 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.508563 = fieldWeight in 143, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=143)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.019384004 = product of:
    0.03876801 = sum of:
      0.03876801 = weight(_text_:22 in 143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03876801 = score(doc=143,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20040265 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 143, 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=143)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Documentary activities are informational operations of selection and representation of objects made from their features and predictable use. In order to make them more dynamic, these activities are carried out systemically, according to institutionally limited (in the sense of social institution) information projects. This organic approach leads to the constitution of information systems, or, more specifically, systems of documentary information, inasmuch as they refer to actions about documents as objects from which information is produced. Thus, systems of documentary information are called documentary systems. This article aims to list and systematize elements with the potential to a generalizing and categorical approach of documentary systems. We approach the systems according to: elements of reference (the documents and their information, the users, and the institutional context); constitutive elements (collection and references); structural elements (constituent units and the relation among them); modes of production (pre or post representation of the document); management aspects (flow of documents and of their information); and, finally, typology (management systems and information retrieval systems). Thus, documentary systems can be considered products due to operations involving objects institutionally limited for the production of collections (virtual or not) and their references, whose objective is the appropriation of information by the user.

Content

Beitrag einer Section "Selected Papers from the 1ST Brazilian Conference on Knowledge Organization And Representation, Faculdade de Ciência da Informação, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro Brasília, DF Brasil, October 20-22, 2011" Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_3_h.pdf.

0.06881575 = sum of:
  0.041678146 = product of:
    0.12503444 = sum of:
      0.12503444 = weight(_text_:objects in 4227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12503444 = score(doc=4227,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.30417082 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 4227, 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=4227)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.027137605 = product of:
    0.05427521 = sum of:
      0.05427521 = weight(_text_:22 in 4227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05427521 = score(doc=4227,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20040265 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4227, 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=4227)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information processing and management. 46(2010) no.1, S.22-43

0.06881575 = sum of:
  0.041678146 = product of:
    0.12503444 = sum of:
      0.12503444 = weight(_text_:objects in 1437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12503444 = score(doc=1437,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.30417082 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = 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)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.027137605 = product of:
    0.05427521 = sum of:
      0.05427521 = weight(_text_:22 in 1437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05427521 = score(doc=1437,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20040265 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.061485294 = sum of:
  0.04210129 = product of:
    0.12630387 = sum of:
      0.12630387 = weight(_text_:objects in 4195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12630387 = score(doc=4195,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.30417082 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.41523993 = fieldWeight in 4195, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4195)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.019384004 = product of:
    0.03876801 = sum of:
      0.03876801 = weight(_text_:22 in 4195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03876801 = score(doc=4195,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20040265 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4195, 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=4195)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Webcasting systems were developed to provide remote access in real-time to live events. Today, these systems have an additional requirement: to accommodate the "second life" of webcasts as archival information objects. Research to date has focused on facilitating the production and storage of webcasts as well as the development of more interactive and collaborative multimedia tools to support the event, but research has not examined how people interact with a webcasting system to access and use the contents of those archived events. Using an experimental design, this study examined how 16 typical users interact with a webcasting system to respond to a set of information tasks: selecting a webcast, searching for specific information, and making a gist of a webcast. Using several data sources that included user actions, user perceptions, and user explanations of their actions and decisions, the study also examined the strategies employed to complete the tasks. The results revealed distinctive system-use patterns for each task and provided insights into the types of tools needed to make webcasting systems better suited for also using the webcasts as information objects.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:16:14

0.058984935 = sum of:
  0.03572413 = product of:
    0.107172385 = sum of:
      0.107172385 = weight(_text_:objects in 5583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.107172385 = score(doc=5583,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.30417082 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 5583, 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=5583)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.023260804 = product of:
    0.046521608 = sum of:
      0.046521608 = weight(_text_:22 in 5583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046521608 = score(doc=5583,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20040265 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5583, 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=5583)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As a cultural institution, the public library is charged with providing resources and services that fit the needs of a particular community and, if space and budgets allow, of serving as a resource and repository of the community's past. To fulfill its mission to the public, the library must attract that public by offering materials and providing opportunities for them to pursue their unique and varied interests and discover new things. By engaging individuals in the identification and preservation of their own personal, digital objects, it may be possible to increase awareness in, and commitment to, community repositories that reflect a community's diversity and that will serve all. A user education program that focuses on the importance of identifying and preserving the information and artifacts that are important, that addresses the technical aspects of preservation, and that creates awareness of the benefits and challenges associated with sharing personal information can result in a community repository that ultimately has more value for both the individual and the community.

Date

11.12.2019 17:47:22

0.05718323 = sum of:
  0.02977011 = product of:
    0.089310326 = sum of:
      0.089310326 = weight(_text_:objects in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.089310326 = score(doc=1451,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.30417082 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 1451, 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=1451)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.02741312 = product of:
    0.05482624 = sum of:
      0.05482624 = weight(_text_:22 in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05482624 = score(doc=1451,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20040265 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1451, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1451)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Previous studies of user-generated vocabularies (e.g., Golder & Huberman, 2006; Munk & Mork, 2007b; Yoon, 2009) have proposed that a primary source of tag agreement across users is due to wide-spread use of tags at the basic level of abstraction. However, an investigation of levels of abstraction in user-generated tagging vocabularies did not support this notion. This study analyzed approximately 8000 tags generated by 40 subjects. Analysis of 7617 tags assigned to 36 online resources representing four content categories (TOOL, FRUIT, CLOTHING, VEHICLE) and three resource genres (news article, blog, ecommerce) did not find statistically significant preferences in the assignment of tags at the superordinate, subordinate or basic levels of abstraction. Within the framework of Heidegger's (1953/1996) notion of handiness , observed variations in the preferred level of abstraction are both natural and phenomenological in that perception and understanding -- and thus the meaning of "things" -- arise out of the individual's contextualized experiences of engaging with objects. Operationalization of superordinate, subordinate and basic levels of abstraction using Heidegger's notion of handiness may be able to account for differences in the everyday experiences and activities of taggers, thereby leading to a better understanding of user-generated tagging vocabularies.

Date

5. 9.2014 16:22:27

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

0.05323814 = product of:
  0.10647628 = sum of:
    0.10647628 = product of:
      0.21295255 = sum of:
        0.21295255 = weight(_text_:translating in 6033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21295255 = score(doc=6033,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4287632 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.4921947 = idf(docFreq=66, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057227984 = queryNorm
            0.49666703 = fieldWeight in 6033, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.4921947 = idf(docFreq=66, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6033)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Programm mit Links auf die Präsentationen: Armando Stellato, Ahsan Morshed, Gudrun Johannsen, Yves Jacques, Caterina Caracciolo, Sachit Rajbhandari, Imma Subirats, Johannes Keizer: A Collaborative Framework for Managing and Publishing KOS - Christian Mader, Bernhard Haslhofer: Quality Criteria for Controlled Web Vocabularies - Ahsan Morshed, Benjamin Zapilko, Gudrun Johannsen, Philipp Mayr, Johannes Keizer: Evaluating approaches to automatically match thesauri from different domains for Linked Open Data - Johan De Smedt: SKOS extensions to cover mapping requirements - Mark Tomko: Translating biological data sets Into Linked Data - Daniel Kless: Ontologies and thesauri - similarities and differences - Antoine Isaac, Jacco van Ossenbruggen: Europeana and semantic alignment of vocabularies - Douglas Tudhope: Complementary use of ontologies and (other) KOS - Wilko van Hoek, Brigitte Mathiak, Philipp Mayr, Sascha Schüller: Comparing the accuracy of the semantic similarity provided by the Normalized Google Distance (NGD) and the Search Term Recommender (STR) - Denise Bedford: Selecting and Weighting Semantically Discovered Concepts as Social Tags - Stella Dextre Clarke, Johan De Smedt. ISO 25964-1: a new standard for development of thesauri and exchange of thesaurus data

0.05323814 = product of:
  0.10647628 = sum of:
    0.10647628 = product of:
      0.21295255 = sum of:
        0.21295255 = weight(_text_:translating in 412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21295255 = score(doc=412,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4287632 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.4921947 = idf(docFreq=66, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057227984 = queryNorm
            0.49666703 = fieldWeight in 412, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.4921947 = idf(docFreq=66, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=412)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

From small research groups to large organizations, there has been tremendous effort in the last few years in publishing data online so that it is widely accessible to a large community. These efforts have been successful across a number of domains and have resulted in a proliferation of online sources. In the field of biology, there were 1.330 major online molecular databases at the beginning of 2011, which is 96 more than a year earlier. In the Linking Open Data (LOD) community project at the W3C, the number of published RDF triples has grown from 500 million in May 2007 to over 28 billion triples in March 2011. Fueling this data publishing explosion are tools for translating relational and semistructured data into RDF. In this chapter, we present LinQuer, a generic and extensible framework for integrating link discovery methods over relational data.

0.05323814 = product of:
  0.10647628 = sum of:
    0.10647628 = product of:
      0.21295255 = sum of:
        0.21295255 = weight(_text_:translating in 2025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21295255 = score(doc=2025,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4287632 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.4921947 = idf(docFreq=66, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057227984 = queryNorm
            0.49666703 = fieldWeight in 2025, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.4921947 = idf(docFreq=66, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2025)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Evolving from database models using punch cards, strict linear relational databases and predefined object-oriented data structures, the triple statements underlying Semantic Web technologies bypass many design constraints to offer endless flexibility. Overcoming structure is challenging, especially the relatively recent structure formalized in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). Though geared to easier access and interoperability and recognizing a multilevel bibliographic model, FRBR remains tied to translating entity-relation diagrams to data structures. Resource Description Framework (RDF) provides a more flexible way to express concepts, in which bibliographic models may be thought of as graphs of properties and relationships. But even RDF-based models can undermine that flexibility by mixing concept classes and data structures. The advantage of RDF classes is to provide semantics that enable a user to focus on similarities, not bound by contextual constraints.and success metrics.

0.05302104 = product of:
  0.10604208 = sum of:
    0.10604208 = product of:
      0.31812623 = sum of:
        0.31812623 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.31812623 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.48517948 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057227984 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

0.0501934 = product of:
  0.1003868 = sum of:
    0.1003868 = product of:
      0.2007736 = sum of:
        0.2007736 = weight(_text_:translating in 5970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2007736 = score(doc=5970,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.4287632 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.4921947 = idf(docFreq=66, maxDocs=44218)
              0.057227984 = queryNorm
            0.46826217 = fieldWeight in 5970, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              7.4921947 = idf(docFreq=66, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5970)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

LCSH

Machine translating

Subject

Machine translating

0.049188238 = sum of:
  0.033681035 = product of:
    0.1010431 = sum of:
      0.1010431 = weight(_text_:objects in 1444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1010431 = score(doc=1444,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.30417082 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.33219194 = fieldWeight in 1444, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1444)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.0155072035 = product of:
    0.031014407 = sum of:
      0.031014407 = weight(_text_:22 in 1444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031014407 = score(doc=1444,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20040265 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.057227984 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1444, 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=1444)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Acquiring knowledge in any field involves information retrieval, i.e. searching the available documents to identify answers to the queries concerning the selected objects. Knowing the keywords which are names of the objects will enable situating the user's query in the information space organized as a thesaurus or faceted classification. Objectives: Identification the areas in the information space which correspond to gaps in the user's personal knowledge or in the domain knowledge might become useful in theory or practice. The aim of this paper is to present a realistic information-space model of a self-authored full-text document on information culture, indexed by the author of this article. Methodology: Having established the relations between the terms, particular modules (sets of terms connected by relations used in facet classification) are situated on a plain, similarly to a communication map. Conclusions drawn from the "journey" on the map, which is a visualization of the knowledge contained in the analysed document, are the crucial part of this paper. Results: The direct result of the research is the created model of information space visualization of a given document (book, article, website). The proposed procedure can practically be used as a new form of representation in order to map the contents of academic books and articles, beside the traditional index form, especially as an e-book auxiliary tool. In teaching, visualization of the information space of a document can be used to help students understand the issues of: classification, categorization and representation of new knowledge emerging in human mind.

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