Search (4720 results, page 2 of 236)

0.07046181 = product of:
  0.21138543 = sum of:
    0.21138543 = sum of:
      0.13443834 = weight(_text_:group in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13443834 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.6136867 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
      0.0769471 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0769471 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2007 17:02:22

0.07032649 = product of:
  0.21097946 = sum of:
    0.21097946 = weight(_text_:analogies in 3733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21097946 = score(doc=3733,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38810563 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047327764 = queryNorm
        0.5436135 = fieldWeight in 3733, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3733)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Presents a selective literature review covering the process of browsing as a means of searching for information. References are selected in order to illustrate the major themes and to bring out points which have not been emphasised before. The main points covered in the review include: consideration of browsing as an important, but under rated and little understood, form of information access; the ability in browsing to find analogies, connections, and new lines of thought; the potential of browsings as an ideal technique for accasional or non expert users; the ability to apply browsing to both paper based and computerized information retrieval; and the ability to search for information in a semi-random fashion leading to serendipitous linkage. Concludes that, despite the acknowledges importance of browsing, the increased effort being expended in making computerized systems browsable and the many references to the concept in the computer literature, there is still a lack of real understanding of the basic concepts of the process

0.07032649 = product of:
  0.21097946 = sum of:
    0.21097946 = weight(_text_:analogies in 3263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21097946 = score(doc=3263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38810563 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047327764 = queryNorm
        0.5436135 = fieldWeight in 3263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3263)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The WWW includes on various levels systems of signs, not all of which are standardized as necessary for a real Semantic Web and not all of which can be standardized. Linguistic theories can contribute not only to the thus needed translation between sign systems, be they natural language systems or otherwise structured systems of knowledge representation, but also, of course, to standardization efforts. Within the current EC3 research framework for x-commerce, linguistic theories will play their part as they provide modeling analogies and patterns for the construction of a central knowledge base.

0.07032649 = product of:
  0.21097946 = sum of:
    0.21097946 = weight(_text_:analogies in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21097946 = score(doc=826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38810563 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047327764 = queryNorm
        0.5436135 = fieldWeight in 826, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=826)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A philosophy of information is grounded in a philosophy of documentation. Nunberg's conception of the phenomenon of information heralds a shift of attention away from the question "What is information?" toward a critical investigation of the sources and legitimation of the question itself. Analogies between Wittgenstein's deconstruction of philosophical accounts of meaning and a corresponding deconstruction of philosophical accounts of information suggest that because the informativeness of a document depends on certain kinds of practices with it, and because information emerges as an effect of such practices, documentary practices are ontologically primary to information. The informativeness of documents therefore refers us to the properties of documentary practices. These fall into four broad categories: their materiality; their institutional sites; the ways in which they are socially disciplined; and their historical contingency. Two examples from early modern science, which contrast the scholastic documentary practices of continental natural philosophers to those of their peers in Restoration England, illustrate the richness of the factors that must be taken into account to understand how documents become informing.

0.07032649 = product of:
  0.21097946 = sum of:
    0.21097946 = weight(_text_:analogies in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21097946 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38810563 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047327764 = queryNorm
        0.5436135 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The analytic advantages of central concepts from linguistics and information theory, and the analogies demonstrated between them, for understanding patterns of retrieval from full-text indexes to documents are developed. The interaction between the syntagm and the paradigm in computational operations on written language in indexing, searching, and retrieval is used to account for transformations of the signified or meaning between documents and their representation and between queries and documents retrieved. Characteristics of the message, and messages for selection for written language, are brought to explain the relative frequency of occurrence of words and multiple word sequences in documents. The examples given in the companion article are revisited and a fuller example introduced. The signified of the sequence stood for, the term classically used in the definitions of the sign, as something standing for something else, can itself change rapidly according to its syntagm. A greater than ordinary discourse understanding of patterns in retrieval is obtained.

0.07032649 = product of:
  0.21097946 = sum of:
    0.21097946 = weight(_text_:analogies in 141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21097946 = score(doc=141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38810563 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047327764 = queryNorm
        0.5436135 = fieldWeight in 141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=141)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A user's understanding of the libraries they work in, and hence of what they can do in those libraries, is encapsulated in their "mental models" of those libraries. In this article, we present a focused case study of users' mental models of traditional and digital libraries based on observations and interviews with eight participants. It was found that a poor understanding of access restrictions led to risk-averse behavior, whereas a poor understanding of search algorithms and relevance ranking resulted in trial-and-error behavior. This highlights the importance of rich feedback in helping users to construct useful mental models. Although the use of concrete analogies for digital libraries was not widespread, participants used their knowledge of Internet search engines to infer how searching might work in digital libraries. Indeed, most participants did not clearly distinguish between different kinds of digital resource, viewing the electronic library catalogue, abstracting services, digital libraries, and Internet search engines as variants on a theme.

0.07032649 = product of:
  0.21097946 = sum of:
    0.21097946 = weight(_text_:analogies in 1659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21097946 = score(doc=1659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38810563 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047327764 = queryNorm
        0.5436135 = fieldWeight in 1659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1659)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The use of quantum concepts and formalisms in the information sciences is assessed through an analysis of published literature. Five categories are identified: use of loose analogies and metaphors between concepts in quantum physics and library/information science; use of quantum concepts and formalisms in information retrieval; use of quantum concepts and formalisms in studying meaning and concepts; quantum social science, in areas adjacent to information science; and the qualitative application of quantum concepts in the information disciplines. Quantum issues have led to demonstrable progress in information retrieval and semantic modelling, with less clear-cut progress elsewhere. Whether there may be a future "quantum turn" in the information sciences is debated, the implications of such a turn are considered, and a research agenda outlined.

0.067708746 = product of:
  0.20312622 = sum of:
    0.20312622 = sum of:
      0.16465268 = weight(_text_:group in 1652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16465268 = score(doc=1652,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.7516097 = fieldWeight in 1652, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1652)
      0.03847355 = weight(_text_:22 in 1652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03847355 = score(doc=1652,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1652, 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=1652)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This document is the formal definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model ("CRM"), a formal ontology intended to facilitate the integration, mediation and interchange of heterogeneous cultural heritage information. The CRM is the culmination of more than a decade of standards development work by the International Committee for Documentation (CIDOC) of the International Council of Museums (ICOM). Work on the CRM itself began in 1996 under the auspices of the ICOM-CIDOC Documentation Standards Working Group. Since 2000, development of the CRM has been officially delegated by ICOM-CIDOC to the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group, which collaborates with the ISO working group ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 to bring the CRM to the form and status of an International Standard.

Date

6. 8.2010 14:22:28

Editor

ICOM/CIDOC Documentation Standards Group

Issue

Version 3.4.9 - 30.11.2003. Produced by the ICOM/CIDOC Documentation Standards Group, continued by the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group.

0.067708746 = product of:
  0.20312622 = sum of:
    0.20312622 = sum of:
      0.16465268 = weight(_text_:group in 665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16465268 = score(doc=665,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.7516097 = fieldWeight in 665, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=665)
      0.03847355 = weight(_text_:22 in 665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03847355 = score(doc=665,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 665, 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=665)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We present a methodological approach, called Group Informatics, for understanding the social connections that are created between members of technologically mediated groups. Our methodological approach supports focused thinking about how online groups differ from each other, and diverge from their face-to-face counterparts. Group Informatics is grounded in 5 years of empirical studies of technologically mediated groups in online learning, software engineering, online political discourse, crisis informatics, and other domains. We describe the Group Informatics model and the related, 2-phase methodological approach in detail. Phase one of the methodological approach centers on a set of guiding research questions aimed at directing the application of Group Informatics to new corpora of integrated electronic trace data and qualitative research data. Phase 2 of the methodological approach is a systematic set of steps for transforming electronic trace data into weighted social networks.

Date

22. 3.2013 19:36:45

0.066304445 = product of:
  0.19891334 = sum of:
    0.19891334 = weight(_text_:analogies in 6681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19891334 = score(doc=6681,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.38810563 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047327764 = queryNorm
        0.5125237 = fieldWeight in 6681, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6681)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

"The flowering part, it looks like someone is sticking their tongue out" (a subject's description of Arethusa bulbosa, see Figure 1). The mechanisms that people use in natural settings to describe objects to one another can be used to inform the design of image retrieval and museum systems. The image retrieval problem may be recast as an object description problem where the images are of objects. This study examines the vocabulary and communication constructs that are used by novices and domain experts to describe objects in an object identification task. These human-centered devices may prove to be more understandable and easier to use than some purely computational approaches. The experimental conditions mimic a scenario where a person queries an agent (active botanical information resource) in natural language in order to identify plant images. The analysis identified the objects of discourse (objects, parts and relations) including analogies, exemplars, prototypical shapes and shape modification predicates such as "longer," and "wider." In spoken language novices and horticulturists use descriptive mechanisms similar to that in botanical text but at different frequencies. For example, participants rely heavily on visual analogies to objects both within and outside of the domain. "This looks like a X" where X is a plant (i.e. "daisy") or a non-plant (i.e. "butterfly" or "child's drawing of the sun"). The results suggest that indexing and retrieval systems should provide semantic level similarity mechanisms to allow for whole-object as well as part-wise visual analogy. The systems should also provide a visual vocabulary, a set of images that represent prototypes of the verbal terms collected in this study

0.062937215 = product of:
  0.094405815 = sum of:
    0.07516904 = product of:
      0.22550711 = sum of:
        0.22550711 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22550711 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40124533 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.019236775 = product of:
      0.03847355 = sum of:
        0.03847355 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03847355 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.

Date

8. 1.2013 10:22:32

0.060432576 = product of:
  0.09064886 = sum of:
    0.06264087 = product of:
      0.1879226 = sum of:
        0.1879226 = weight(_text_:3a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1879226 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40124533 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.028007988 = product of:
      0.056015976 = sum of:
        0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056015976 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

While classifications are heavily used to categorize web content, the evolution of the web foresees a more formal structure - ontology - which can serve this purpose. Ontologies are core artifacts of the Semantic Web which enable machines to use inference rules to conduct automated reasoning on data. Lightweight ontologies bridge the gap between classifications and ontologies. A lightweight ontology (LO) is an ontology representing a backbone taxonomy where the concept of the child node is more specific than the concept of the parent node. Formal lightweight ontologies can be generated from their informal ones. The key applications of formal lightweight ontologies are document classification, semantic search, and data integration. However, these applications suffer from the following problems: the disambiguation accuracy of the state of the art NLP tools used in generating formal lightweight ontologies from their informal ones; the lack of background knowledge needed for the formal lightweight ontologies; and the limitation of ontology reuse. In this dissertation, we propose a novel solution to these problems in formal lightweight ontologies; namely, faceted lightweight ontology (FLO). FLO is a lightweight ontology in which terms, present in each node label, and their concepts, are available in the background knowledge (BK), which is organized as a set of facets. A facet can be defined as a distinctive property of the groups of concepts that can help in differentiating one group from another. Background knowledge can be defined as a subset of a knowledge base, such as WordNet, and often represents a specific domain.

Content

PhD Dissertation at International Doctorate School in Information and Communication Technology. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fcore.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F150083013.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2n-qisNagpyT0lli_6QbAQ.

0.060432576 = product of:
  0.09064886 = sum of:
    0.06264087 = product of:
      0.1879226 = sum of:
        0.1879226 = weight(_text_:3a in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1879226 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.40124533 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.028007988 = product of:
      0.056015976 = sum of:
        0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056015976 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

Vgl.: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Piaget-%E2%80%99-s-Constructivism-%2C-Papert-%E2%80%99-s-%3A-What-%E2%80%99-s-Ackermann/89cbcc1e740a4591443ff4765a6ae8df0fdf5554. Darunter weitere Hinweise auf verwandte Beiträge. Auch unter: Learning Group Publication 5(2001) no.3, S.438.

0.059349254 = product of:
  0.17804776 = sum of:
    0.17804776 = sum of:
      0.1267497 = weight(_text_:group in 7887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1267497 = score(doc=7887,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.5785894 = fieldWeight in 7887, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7887)
      0.05129807 = weight(_text_:22 in 7887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05129807 = score(doc=7887,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7887, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7887)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses the importance and utility of a thesaurus of concepts to provide logical support for multilingualism. Deals in particular with the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) Thesaurus,a nd the work of the IEC Thesaurus Working Group, consisting of specialists of the Research Institute in Electrical Engineering (ICPE) and the University Politehnica of Bucharest. Describes how this group contributed to the thesaurus and implemented the multilingual database required by the editing and updating of multilingual database required by the editing and updating of multilingual dictionaries in electrical engineering

Source

Probleme de Informare si Documentare. 28(1994) no.1, S.13-22

0.059349254 = product of:
  0.17804776 = sum of:
    0.17804776 = sum of:
      0.1267497 = weight(_text_:group in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1267497 = score(doc=4685,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.5785894 = fieldWeight in 4685, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4685)
      0.05129807 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05129807 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4685, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4685)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This document contains and presents test cases for the Web Ontology Language (OWL) approved by the Web Ontology Working Group. Many of the test cases illustrate the correct usage of the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and the formal meaning of its constructs. Other test cases illustrate the resolution of issues considered by the Working Group. Conformance for OWL documents and OWL document checkers is specified.

Date

14. 8.2011 13:33:22

0.058718182 = product of:
  0.17615454 = sum of:
    0.17615454 = sum of:
      0.11203195 = weight(_text_:group in 6498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11203195 = score(doc=6498,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.5114056 = fieldWeight in 6498, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6498)
      0.06412259 = weight(_text_:22 in 6498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06412259 = score(doc=6498,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6498, 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=6498)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Paper presented at the UK Serials Group 16th Annual Conference, Southampton, 22-25 Mar 93: electronic information: access, control and availability. Discusses nationally and internationally networked electronic information covering access control and availability. Describes JANET and navigation around networks

0.058718182 = product of:
  0.17615454 = sum of:
    0.17615454 = sum of:
      0.11203195 = weight(_text_:group in 7306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11203195 = score(doc=7306,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.5114056 = fieldWeight in 7306, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7306)
      0.06412259 = weight(_text_:22 in 7306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06412259 = score(doc=7306,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 7306, 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=7306)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 7.1996 19:53:48

0.058718182 = product of:
  0.17615454 = sum of:
    0.17615454 = sum of:
      0.11203195 = weight(_text_:group in 4591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11203195 = score(doc=4591,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.5114056 = fieldWeight in 4591, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4591)
      0.06412259 = weight(_text_:22 in 4591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06412259 = score(doc=4591,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4591, 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=4591)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

25.11.2005 18:22:29

0.058605403 = product of:
  0.17581621 = sum of:
    0.17581621 = weight(_text_:analogies in 1092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17581621 = score(doc=1092,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38810563 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047327764 = queryNorm
        0.45301124 = fieldWeight in 1092, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1092)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Darin: "However, John Sowa (Vivomind, USA) argued in his speech that the formalized approach, already undertaken by the pioneering project Cyc now having run for 23 years, is not the best way to analyze complex systems. People don't really use axioms in their cognitive processes (even mathematicians first get an idea intuitively, then work on axioms and proofs only at the moment of writing papers). To map between different ontologies, the Vivomind Analogy Engine throws axioms out, and searches instead for analogies in their structures. Analogy is a pragmatic human faculty using a combination of the three logical procedures of deduction, induction, and abduction. Guarino comments that people can communicate without need of axioms as they share a common context, but in order to teach computers how to operate, the requirements are different: he would not trust an airport control system working by analogy."

0.058605403 = product of:
  0.17581621 = sum of:
    0.17581621 = weight(_text_:analogies in 981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17581621 = score(doc=981,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38810563 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047327764 = queryNorm
        0.45301124 = fieldWeight in 981, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=981)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this second paper in the series on PRECIS we set out to establish a theoretical model of the indexing operation to account for the growing empirical evidence that PRECIS can be applied successfully to the terms and phrases of more than one natural language (NL). For this purpose, the system is examined from two different but related viewpoints, the first linguistic and the second logical. In linguistic terms, the schema of role operators is related to certain features of NL which are regarded by linguists as language-independent, particular attention being paid to Chomsky's 1965 theory, the notion of deep cases, and the idea that roles, as used in an indexing language (IL) are related to deep cases in NL. It is realised that we should not rely too heavily on analogies between NL and IL, on the grounds that these two kinds of language have different structures and to some extent different functions, Consequently, the structure of a PRECIS string is also considered in terms of an alternative logic, and it is suggested that the order of terms in strings and entries, explained in the earlier paper through reference to the dual properties of context-dependency and one-toone relationships, is also amenable to a different but reinforcing explanation in terms of time-dependency. These two types of explanation, the linguistic and the logical, form the basis for a proposed theoretical model of the 'stages of indexing'. Finally, the authors consider the implications of this model for multilingual indexing.