Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

0.034582928 = product of:
  0.069165856 = sum of:
    0.069165856 = sum of:
      0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006765375 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
      0.06240048 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06240048 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)

Abstract

A discussion on current initiatives regarding terminology registries.

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:07

0.024208048 = product of:
  0.048416097 = sum of:
    0.048416097 = sum of:
      0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0047357627 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
      0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043680333 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)

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

Type

a

0.00780006 = product of:
  0.01560012 = sum of:
    0.01560012 = product of:
      0.03120024 = sum of:
        0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03120024 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26. 9.2006 21:00:22

0.0030491136 = product of:
  0.006098227 = sum of:
    0.006098227 = product of:
      0.012196454 = sum of:
        0.012196454 = weight(_text_:a in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012196454 = score(doc=592,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22966442 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify the most important factors and features in the evolution of thesauri and ontologies through a dialectic model. This model relies on a dialectic process or idea which could be discovered via a dialectic method. This method has focused on identifying the logical relationship between a beginning proposition, or an idea called a thesis, a negation of that idea called the antithesis, and the result of the conflict between the two ideas, called a synthesis. During the creation of knowl­edge organization systems (KOSs), the identification of logical relations between different ideas has been made possible through the consideration and use of the most influential methods and tools such as dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, thesaurus, micro-, macro- and metathesauri, ontology, lower, middle and upper level ontologies. The analysis process has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a dialectic method and documentary method as the reasoning process. This supports our arguments and synthesizes a method for the analysis of research results. Confirmed by the research results, the principle of unity has shown to be the most important factor in the development and evolution of the structure of knowl­edge organization systems and their types. There are various types of unity when considering the analysis of logical relations. These include the principle of unity of alphabetical order, unity of science, semantic unity, structural unity and conceptual unity. The results have clearly demonstrated a movement from plurality to unity in the assembling of the complex structure of knowl­edge organization systems to increase information and knowl­edge storage and retrieval performance.

Type

a

0.0028047764 = product of:
  0.005609553 = sum of:
    0.005609553 = product of:
      0.011219106 = sum of:
        0.011219106 = weight(_text_:a in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011219106 = score(doc=2036,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 2036, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, 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.

Type

a

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=4695,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4695, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4695)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei

Type

a

0.0026849252 = product of:
  0.0053698504 = sum of:
    0.0053698504 = product of:
      0.010739701 = sum of:
        0.010739701 = weight(_text_:a in 4642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010739701 = score(doc=4642,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 4642, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4642)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Thesauri can be useful resources for indexing and retrieval on the Semantic Web, but often they are not published in RDF/OWL. To convert thesauri to RDF for use in Semantic Web applications and to ensure the quality and utility of the conversion a structured method is required. Moreover, if different thesauri are to be interoperable without complicated mappings, a standard schema for thesauri is required. This paper presents a method for conversion of thesauri to the SKOS RDF/OWL schema, which is a proposal for such a standard under development by W3Cs Semantic Web Best Practices Working Group. We apply the method to three thesauri: IPSV, GTAA and MeSH. With these case studies we evaluate our method and the applicability of SKOS for representing thesauri.

0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=2362,freq=40.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
              6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
                40.0 = termFreq=40.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper analysed here is a kind of position paper. In order to get a better under-standing of the reported work I used the retrieval interface of the thesaurus, the so-called NCI DTS Browser accessible via the Web3, and I perused the cited OWL file4 with numerous "Find" and "Find next" string searches. In addition the file was im-ported into Protégé 2000, Release 2.0, with OWL Plugin 1.0 and Racer Plugin 1.7.14. At the end of the paper's introduction the authors say: "In the following sections, this paper will describe the terminology development process at NCI, and the issues associated with converting a description logic based nomenclature to a semantically rich OWL ontology." While I will not deal with the first part, i.e. the terminology development process at NCI, I do not see the thesaurus as a description logic based nomenclature, or its cur-rent state and conversion already result in a "rich" OWL ontology. What does "rich" mean here? According to my view there is a great quantity of concepts and links but a very poor description logic structure which enables inferences. And what does the fol-lowing really mean, which is said a few lines previously: "Although editors have defined a number of named ontologic relations to support the description-logic based structure of the Thesaurus, additional relation-ships are considered for inclusion as required to support dependent applications."
According to my findings several relations available in the thesaurus query interface as "roles", are not used, i.e. there are not yet any assertions with them. And those which are used do not contribute to complete concept definitions of concepts which represent thesaurus main entries. In other words: The authors claim to already have a "description logic based nomenclature", where there is not yet one which deserves that title by being much more than a thesaurus with strict subsumption and additional inheritable semantic links. In the last section of the paper the authors say: "The most time consuming process in this conversion was making a careful analysis of the Thesaurus to understand the best way to translate it into OWL." "For other conversions, these same types of distinctions and decisions must be made. The expressive power of a proprietary encoding can vary widely from that in OWL or RDF. Understanding the original semantics and engineering a solution that most closely duplicates it is critical for creating a useful and accu-rate ontology." My question is: What decisions were made and are they exemplary, can they be rec-ommended as "the best way"? I raise strong doubts with respect to that, and I miss more profound discussions of the issues at stake. The following notes are dedicated to a critical description and assessment of the results of that conversion activity. They are written in a tutorial style more or less addressing students, but myself being a learner especially in the field of medical knowledge representation I do not speak "ex cathedra".

0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 4656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=4656,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 4656, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4656)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This document describes in brief how to express the content and structure of a thesaurus, and metadata about a thesaurus, in RDF. Using RDF allows data to be linked to and/or merged with other RDF data by semantic web applications. The Semantic Web, which is based on the Resource Description Framework (RDF), provides a common framework that allows data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries.

Editor

Miles, A.

0.0025313715 = product of:
  0.005062743 = sum of:
    0.005062743 = product of:
      0.010125486 = sum of:
        0.010125486 = weight(_text_:a in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010125486 = score(doc=549,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19066721 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

LCSH is known as such since 1975. It always has created headings to serve the LC collections instead of a theoretical basis. It started to replace cross reference codes by thesaural codes in 1986, in a mechanical fashion. It was in no way transformed into a thesaurus. Its encyclopedic coverage, its pre-coordinate concepts make it substantially distinct, considering that thesauri usually map a restricted field of knowledge and use uniterms. The questions raised are whether the new symbols comply with thesaurus standards and if they are true to one or to several models. Explanations and definitions from other lists of subject headings and thesauri, literature in the field of classification and subject indexing will provide some answers. For instance, see refers from a subject heading not used to another or others used. Exceptionally it will lead from a specific term to a more general one. Some equate a see reference with the equivalence relationship. Such relationships are pointed by USE in LCSH. See also references are made from the broader subject to narrower parts of it and also between associated subjects. They suggest lateral or vertical connexions as well as reciprocal relationships. They serve a coordination purpose for some, lay down a methodical search itinerary for others. Since their inception in the 1950's thesauri have been devised for indexing and retrieving information in the fields of science and technology. Eventually they attended to a number of social sciences and humanities. Research derived from thesauri was voluminous. Numerous guidelines are designed. They did not discriminate between the "hard" sciences and the social sciences. RT relationships are widely but diversely used in numerous controlled vocabularies. LCSH's aim is to achieve a list almost free of RT and SA references. It thus restricts relationships to BT/NT, USE and UF. This raises the question as to whether all fields of knowledge can "fit" in the Procrustean bed of RT/NT, i.e., genus/species relationships. Standard codes were devised. It was soon realized that BT/NT, well suited to the genus/species couple could not signal a whole-part relationship. In LCSH, BT and NT function as reciprocals, the whole-part relationship is taken into account by ISO. It is amply elaborated upon by authors. The part-whole connexion is sometimes studied apart. The decision to replace cross reference codes was an improvement. Relations can now be distinguished through the distinct needs of numerous fields of knowledge are not attended to. Topic inclusion, and topic-subtopic, could provide the missing link where genus/species or whole/part are inadequate. Distinct codes, BT/NT and whole/part, should be provided. Sorting relationships with mechanical means can only lead to confusion.

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 2176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=2176,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2176, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The ISO 2788 guidelines for monolingual thesauri contain a differentiation of "the hierarchical relationship" into "generic", "partitive", and "instance", which, for purposes of document retrieval, was deemed adequate. However, ontologies, designed as language inventories for a wider scope of knowledge representation, are based on all these and some more logical differentiations. Rereading the ISO 2788 standard and inspecting the published Cyc Upper Ontology, it is argued that the adoption of the document-retrieval definition of subsumption generally prevents the conception or use of a thesaurus as a substructure of an ontology of the new kind as constructed for AI applications. When a thesaurus is used for fact description and inference on fact descriptions, the instance-of relationship too should be reconsidered: It may also link concepts and metaconcepts, and then its distinction from subsumption is needed. The treatment of the instance-of relationship in thesauri, the Cyc Upper Ontology, and WordNet is described from this perspective

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 4641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=4641,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4641, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4641)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents an overview of the work in progress at the W3C to produce a standard conversion of WordNet to the RDF/OWL representation language in use in the SemanticWeb community. Such a standard representation is useful to provide application developers a high-quality resource and to promote interoperability. Important requirements in this conversion process are that it should be complete and should stay close to WordNet's conceptual model. The paper explains the steps taken to produce the conversion and details design decisions such as the composition of the class hierarchy and properties, the addition of suitable OWL semantics and the chosen format of the URIs. Additional topics include a strategy to incorporate OWL and RDFS semantics in one schema such that both RDF(S) infrastructure and OWL infrastructure can interpret the information correctly, problems encountered in understanding the Prolog source files and the description of the two versions that are provided (Basic and Full) to accommodate different usages of WordNet.

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 7636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=7636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 7636, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 6051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=6051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6051, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=4644,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper describes a method for converting existing thesauri and related resources from their native format to RDF(S) and OWL. The method identifies four steps in the conversion process. In each step, decisions have to be taken with respect to the syntax or semantics of the resulting representation. Each step is supported through a number of guidelines. The method is illustrated through conversions of two large thesauri: MeSH and WordNet.

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 2311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=2311,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2311, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2311)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 5854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=5854,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 5854, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5854)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The quantitative evaluation of thesauri has been carried out much further since 1976. This type of evaluation is based on counting of special factors in thesaurus structure, some of which are counting preferred terms, non preferred terms, cross reference terms and so on. Therefore, various statistical tests have been proposed and applied for evaluation of thesauri. In this article, we try to explain some ratios in the field of unity quantitative evaluation in a thesaurus term network. Theoretical base of the ratios' indicators and indices construction, and epistemological thought in this type of quantitative evaluation, are discussed in this article. The theoretical base of quantitative evaluation is the epistemological thought of Immanuel Kant's Critique of pure reason. The cognition states of transcendental understanding are divided into three steps, the first is perception, the second combination and the third, relation making. Terms relation domains and conceptual relation domains can be analyzed with ratios. The use of quantitative evaluations in current research in the field of thesaurus construction prepares a basis for a restoration period. In modern thesaurus construction, traditional term relations are analyzed in detail in the form of new conceptual relations. Hence, the new domains of hierarchical and associative relations are constructed in the form of relations between concepts. The newly formed conceptual domains can be a suitable basis for quantitative evaluation analysis in conceptual relations.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=604,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

iQvoc is a new open source SKOS-XL vocabulary management tool developed by the Federal Environment Agency, Germany, and innoQ Deutschland GmbH. Its immediate purpose is maintaining and publishing reference vocabularies in the upcoming Linked Data cloud of environmental information, but it may be easily adapted to host any SKOS- XL compliant vocabulary. iQvoc is implemented as a Ruby on Rails application running on top of JRuby - the Java implementation of the Ruby Programming Language. To increase the user experience when editing content, iQvoc uses heavily the JavaScript library jQuery.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=572,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 5448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=5448,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5448, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5448)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper the possibility to develop a richer relational structure for thesauri is explored and described. The development of a new environmental thesaurus - EARTh (Environmental Applications Reference Thesaurus) - is serving as a case study for exploring the refinement of thesaurus relational structure by specialising standard relationships into different subtypes. Together with benefits and opportunities, implications and possible challenges that an expanded set of thesaurus relations may cause are evaluated.

Type

a