-
Müller, T.: Wissensrepräsentation mit semantischen Netzen im Bereich Luftfahrt (2006)
0.03
0.031199675 = product of:
0.06239935 = sum of:
0.06239935 = sum of:
0.031563994 = weight(_text_:b in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031563994 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 1670, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1670)
0.030835358 = weight(_text_:22 in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030835358 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1670, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1670)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Es ist ein semantisches Netz für den Gegenstandsbereich Luftfahrt modelliert worden, welches Unternehmensinformationen, Organisationen, Fluglinien, Flughäfen, etc. enthält, Diese sind 10 Hauptkategorien zugeordnet worden, die untergliedert nach Facetten sind. Die Begriffe des Gegenstandsbereiches sind mit 23 unterschiedlichen Relationen verknüpft worden (Z. B.: 'hat Standort in', bietet an, 'ist Homebase von', etc). Der Schwerpunkt der Betrachtung liegt auf dem Unterschied zwischen den drei klassischen Standardrelationen und den zusätzlich eingerichteten Relationen, bezüglich ihrem Nutzen für ein effizientes Retrieval. Die angelegten Kategorien und Relationen sind sowohl für eine kognitive als auch für eine maschinelle Verarbeitung geeignet.
- Date
- 26. 9.2006 21:00:22
-
Tudhope, D.; Hodge, G.: Terminology registries (2007)
0.02
0.015417679 = product of:
0.030835358 = sum of:
0.030835358 = product of:
0.061670717 = sum of:
0.061670717 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061670717 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 26.12.2011 13:22:07
-
Assem, M. van; Menken, M.R.; Schreiber, G.; Wielemaker, J.; Wielinga, B.: ¬A method for converting thesauri to RDF/OWL (2004)
0.01
0.011047398 = product of:
0.022094795 = sum of:
0.022094795 = product of:
0.04418959 = sum of:
0.04418959 = weight(_text_:b in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04418959 = score(doc=4644,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Boteram, F.: Semantische Relationen in Dokumentationssprachen : vom Thesaurus zum semantischen Netz (2010)
0.01
0.010792375 = product of:
0.02158475 = sum of:
0.02158475 = product of:
0.0431695 = sum of:
0.0431695 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0431695 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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
-
Fenske, M.: Modell eines automatisierbaren syntaktischen Metathesaurus und seine Eignung für parlamentarische Thesauri im Internet (2006)
0.01
0.009469198 = product of:
0.018938396 = sum of:
0.018938396 = product of:
0.037876792 = sum of:
0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 32) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037876792 = score(doc=32,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 32, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=32)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Es werden Konzepte eines syntaktischen Metathesaurus, der identische Benennungen und deren Relationen aufeinander abbildet, vorgestellt und von semantischen Metathesauri abgegrenzt. Dieses aus mehreren Konzepten bestehende Modell bietet sich für die automatische Zusammenführung weit gehend übereinstimmender Thesauri zu einem virtuellen Metathesaurus an, den man in Internetportale und Suchmaschinen integrieren kann. Besondere Vorteile sind hierbei das günstige Kosten-Nutzen- Verhältnis und die geringen technischen Anforderungen eines syntaktischen Metathesaurus. Es werden die Inkonsistenzen bei der Zusammenführung inhomogener Thesauri ausführlich beschrieben und Möglichkeiten zur Konsistenzverbesserung angeboten. Ein syntaktisches Thesauruskonzept eignet sich für den Einsatz bei der Websuche in Parlamentsinformationssystemen, wie z. B. dem Parlamentsspiegel, einer Datenbank zum Nachweis der deutschen Parlamentsmaterialien.
-
Kless, D.; Milton, S.; Kazmierczak, E.; Lindenthal, J.: Thesaurus and ontology structure : formal and pragmatic differences and similarities (2015)
0.01
0.007890998 = product of:
0.015781997 = sum of:
0.015781997 = product of:
0.031563994 = sum of:
0.031563994 = weight(_text_:b in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031563994 = score(doc=2036,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.045518078 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 2036, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2036)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Thesauri and other types of controlled vocabularies are increasingly re-engineered into ontologies described using the Web Ontology Language (OWL), particularly in the life sciences. This has led to the perception by some that thesauri are ontologies once they are described by using the syntax of OWL while others have emphasized the need to re-engineer a vocabulary to use it as ontology. This confusion is rooted in different perceptions of what ontologies are and how they differ from other types of vocabularies. In this article, we rigorously examine the structural differences and similarities between thesauri and meaning-defining ontologies described in OWL. Specifically, we conduct (a) a conceptual comparison of thesauri and ontologies, and (b) a comparison of a specific thesaurus and a specific ontology in the same subject field. Our results show that thesauri and ontologies need to be treated as 2 orthogonal kinds of models with superficially similar structures. An ontology is not a good thesaurus, nor is a thesaurus a good ontology. A thesaurus requires significant structural and other content changes to become an ontology, and vice versa.
