Search (228 results, page 1 of 12)

  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Zeng, Q.; Yu, M.; Yu, W.; Xiong, J.; Shi, Y.; Jiang, M.: Faceted hierarchy : a new graph type to organize scientific concepts and a construction method (2019) 0.06 
    0.062180568 = sum of:
  0.054862697 = product of:
    0.21945079 = sum of:
      0.21945079 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.21945079 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.39046928 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.007317872 = product of:
    0.014635744 = sum of:
      0.014635744 = weight(_text_:a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014635744 = score(doc=400,freq=26.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.27559727 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
            5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
              26.0 = termFreq=26.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    On a scientific concept hierarchy, a parent concept may have a few attributes, each of which has multiple values being a group of child concepts. We call these attributes facets: classification has a few facets such as application (e.g., face recognition), model (e.g., svm, knn), and metric (e.g., precision). In this work, we aim at building faceted concept hierarchies from scientific literature. Hierarchy construction methods heavily rely on hypernym detection, however, the faceted relations are parent-to-child links but the hypernym relation is a multi-hop, i.e., ancestor-to-descendent link with a specific facet "type-of". We use information extraction techniques to find synonyms, sibling concepts, and ancestor-descendent relations from a data science corpus. And we propose a hierarchy growth algorithm to infer the parent-child links from the three types of relationships. It resolves conflicts by maintaining the acyclic structure of a hierarchy.
    Content
    Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.
    Type
    a
  2. Xiong, C.: Knowledge based text representations for information retrieval (2016) 0.04 
    0.04085393 = sum of:
  0.03657513 = product of:
    0.14630052 = sum of:
      0.14630052 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14630052 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.39046928 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.004278799 = product of:
    0.008557598 = sum of:
      0.008557598 = weight(_text_:a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008557598 = score(doc=5820,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The successes of information retrieval (IR) in recent decades were built upon bag-of-words representations. Effective as it is, bag-of-words is only a shallow text understanding; there is a limited amount of information for document ranking in the word space. This dissertation goes beyond words and builds knowledge based text representations, which embed the external and carefully curated information from knowledge bases, and provide richer and structured evidence for more advanced information retrieval systems. This thesis research first builds query representations with entities associated with the query. Entities' descriptions are used by query expansion techniques that enrich the query with explanation terms. Then we present a general framework that represents a query with entities that appear in the query, are retrieved by the query, or frequently show up in the top retrieved documents. A latent space model is developed to jointly learn the connections from query to entities and the ranking of documents, modeling the external evidence from knowledge bases and internal ranking features cooperatively. To further improve the quality of relevant entities, a defining factor of our query representations, we introduce learning to rank to entity search and retrieve better entities from knowledge bases. In the document representation part, this thesis research also moves one step forward with a bag-of-entities model, in which documents are represented by their automatic entity annotations, and the ranking is performed in the entity space.
    This proposal includes plans to improve the quality of relevant entities with a co-learning framework that learns from both entity labels and document labels. We also plan to develop a hybrid ranking system that combines word based and entity based representations together with their uncertainties considered. At last, we plan to enrich the text representations with connections between entities. We propose several ways to infer entity graph representations for texts, and to rank documents using their structure representations. This dissertation overcomes the limitation of word based representations with external and carefully curated information from knowledge bases. We believe this thesis research is a solid start towards the new generation of intelligent, semantic, and structured information retrieval.
    Content
    Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Information Technologies. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.cmu.edu%2F~cx%2Fpapers%2Fknowledge_based_text_representation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0SaTSvhWLTh__Uz_HtOtl3.
  3. Nielsen, M.: Neuronale Netze : Alpha Go - Computer lernen Intuition (2018) 0.03 
    0.034582928 = product of:
  0.069165856 = sum of:
    0.069165856 = sum of:
      0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006765375 = score(doc=4523,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4523, 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=4523)
      0.06240048 = weight(_text_:22 in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06240048 = score(doc=4523,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4523, 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=4523)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2018, H.1, S.22-27
    Type
    a
  4. Deokattey, S.; Neelameghan, A.; Kumar, V.: ¬A method for developing a domain ontology : a case study for a multidisciplinary subject (2010) 0.03 
    0.029328065 = product of:
  0.05865613 = sum of:
    0.05865613 = sum of:
      0.014975797 = weight(_text_:a in 3694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014975797 = score(doc=3694,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.28200063 = fieldWeight in 3694, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3694)
      0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 3694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043680333 = score(doc=3694,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3694, 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=3694)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A method to develop a prototype domain ontology has been described. The domain selected for the study is Accelerator Driven Systems. This is a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary subject comprising Nuclear Physics, Nuclear and Reactor Engineering, Reactor Fuels and Radioactive Waste Management. Since Accelerator Driven Systems is a vast topic, select areas in it were singled out for the study. Both qualitative and quantitative methods such as Content analysis, Facet analysis and Clustering were used, to develop the web-based model.
    Date
    22. 7.2010 19:41:16
    Type
    a
  5. Börner, K.: Atlas of knowledge : anyone can map (2015) 0.03 
    0.028503895 = product of:
  0.05700779 = sum of:
    0.05700779 = sum of:
      0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 3355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0040592253 = score(doc=3355,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3355, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3355)
      0.052948564 = weight(_text_:22 in 3355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052948564 = score(doc=3355,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 3355, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3355)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    One of a series of three publications influenced by the travelling exhibit Places & Spaces: Mapping Science, curated by the Cyberinfrastructure for Network Science Center at Indiana University. - Additional materials can be found at http://http://scimaps.org/atlas2. Erweitert durch: Börner, Katy. Atlas of Science: Visualizing What We Know.
    Date
    22. 1.2017 16:54:03
    22. 1.2017 17:10:56
  6. Madalli, D.P.; Balaji, B.P.; Sarangi, A.K.: Music domain analysis for building faceted ontological representation (2014) 0.03 
    0.025188856 = product of:
  0.05037771 = sum of:
    0.05037771 = sum of:
      0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 1437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00669738 = score(doc=1437,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 1437, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1437)
      0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 1437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043680333 = score(doc=1437,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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
    Type
    a
  7. Boteram, F.: Semantische Relationen in Dokumentationssprachen : vom Thesaurus zum semantischen Netz (2010) 0.02 
    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
  8. Prud'hommeaux, E.; Gayo, E.: RDF ventures to boldly meet your most pedestrian needs (2015) 0.02 
    0.022235535 = product of:
  0.04447107 = sum of:
    0.04447107 = sum of:
      0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007030784 = score(doc=2024,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2024, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2024)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2024, 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=2024)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Defined in 1999 and paired with XML, the Resource Description Framework (RDF) has been cast as an RDF Schema, producing data that is well-structured but not validated, permitting certain illogical relationships. When stakeholders convened in 2014 to consider solutions to the data validation challenge, a W3C working group proposed Resource Shapes and Shape Expressions to describe the properties expected for an RDF node. Resistance rose from concerns about data and schema reuse, key principles in RDF. Ideally data types and properties are designed for broad use, but they are increasingly adopted with local restrictions for specific purposes. Resource Shapes are commonly treated as record classes, standing in for data structures but losing flexibility for later reuse. Of various solutions to the resulting tensions, the concept of record classes may be the most reasonable basis for agreement, satisfying stakeholders' objectives while allowing for variations with constraints.
    Footnote
    Contribution to a special section "Linked data and the charm of weak semantics".
    Source
    Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 41(2015) no.4, S.18-22
    Type
    a
  9. Mahesh, K.: Highly expressive tagging for knowledge organization in the 21st century (2014) 0.02 
    0.021698346 = product of:
  0.043396693 = sum of:
    0.043396693 = sum of:
      0.012196454 = weight(_text_:a in 1434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.012196454 = score(doc=1434,freq=26.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.22966442 = fieldWeight in 1434, 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=1434)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 1434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=1434,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1434, 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=1434)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Knowledge organization of large-scale content on the Web requires substantial amounts of semantic metadata that is expensive to generate manually. Recent developments in Web technologies have enabled any user to tag documents and other forms of content thereby generating metadata that could help organize knowledge. However, merely adding one or more tags to a document is highly inadequate to capture the aboutness of the document and thereby to support powerful semantic functions such as automatic classification, question answering or true semantic search and retrieval. This is true even when the tags used are labels from a well-designed classification system such as a thesaurus or taxonomy. There is a strong need to develop a semantic tagging mechanism with sufficient expressive power to capture the aboutness of each part of a document or dataset or multimedia content in order to enable applications that can benefit from knowledge organization on the Web. This article proposes a highly expressive mechanism of using ontology snippets as semantic tags that map portions of a document or a part of a dataset or a segment of a multimedia content to concepts and relations in an ontology of the domain(s) of interest.
    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
    Type
    a
  10. Hollink, L.; Assem, M. van: Estimating the relevance of search results in the Culture-Web : a study of semantic distance measures (2010) 0.02 
    0.021590449 = product of:
  0.043180898 = sum of:
    0.043180898 = sum of:
      0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005740611 = score(doc=4649,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4649, 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=4649)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    More and more cultural heritage institutions publish their collections, vocabularies and metadata on the Web. The resulting Web of linked cultural data opens up exciting new possibilities for searching and browsing through these cultural heritage collections. We report on ongoing work in which we investigate the estimation of relevance in this Web of Culture. We study existing measures of semantic distance and how they apply to two use cases. The use cases relate to the structured, multilingual and multimodal nature of the Culture Web. We distinguish between measures using the Web, such as Google distance and PMI, and measures using the Linked Data Web, i.e. the semantic structure of metadata vocabularies. We perform a small study in which we compare these semantic distance measures to human judgements of relevance. Although it is too early to draw any definitive conclusions, the study provides new insights into the applicability of semantic distance measures to the Web of Culture, and clear starting points for further research.
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:40:22
  11. Gödert, W.; Hubrich, J.; Nagelschmidt, M.: Semantic knowledge representation for information retrieval (2014) 0.02 
    0.021590449 = product of:
  0.043180898 = sum of:
    0.043180898 = sum of:
      0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005740611 = score(doc=987,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 987, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=987)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=987,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 987, 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=987)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This book covers the basics of semantic web technologies and indexing languages, and describes their contribution to improve languages as a tool for subject queries and knowledge exploration. The book is relevant to information scientists, knowledge workers and indexers. It provides a suitable combination of theoretical foundations and practical applications.
    Date
    23. 7.2017 13:49:22
  12. Almeida Campos, M.L. de; Machado Campos, M.L.; Dávila, A.M.R.; Espanha Gomes, H.; Campos, L.M.; Lira e Oliveira, L. de: Information sciences methodological aspects applied to ontology reuse tools : a study based on genomic annotations in the domain of trypanosomatides (2013) 0.02 
    0.021459106 = product of:
  0.042918213 = sum of:
    0.042918213 = sum of:
      0.011717974 = weight(_text_:a in 635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011717974 = score(doc=635,freq=24.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 635, product of:
            4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
              24.0 = termFreq=24.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=635)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 635, 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=635)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Despite the dissemination of modeling languages and tools for representation and construction of ontologies, their underlying methodologies can still be improved. As a consequence, ontology tools can be enhanced accordingly, in order to support users through the ontology construction process. This paper proposes suggestions for ontology tools' improvement based on a case study within the domain of bioinformatics, applying a reuse method ology. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were carried out on a subset of 28 terms of Gene Ontology on a semi-automatic alignment with other biomedical ontologies. As a result, a report is presented containing suggestions for enhancing ontology reuse tools, which is a product derived from difficulties that we had in reusing a set of OBO ontologies. For the reuse process, a set of steps closely related to those of Pinto and Martin's methodology was used. In each step, it was observed that the experiment would have been significantly improved if ontology manipulation tools had provided certain features. Accordingly, problematic aspects in ontology tools are presented and suggestions are made aiming at getting better results in ontology reuse.
    Date
    22. 2.2013 12:03:53
    Type
    a
  13. Bringsjord, S.; Clark, M.; Taylor, J.: Sophisticated knowledge representation and reasoning requires philosophy (2014) 0.02 
    0.020948619 = product of:
  0.041897237 = sum of:
    0.041897237 = sum of:
      0.010696997 = weight(_text_:a in 3403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010696997 = score(doc=3403,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 3403, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3403)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 3403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=3403,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3403, 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=3403)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    What is knowledge representation and reasoning (KR&R)? Alas, a thorough account would require a book, or at least a dedicated, full-length paper, but here we shall have to make do with something simpler. Since most readers are likely to have an intuitive grasp of the essence of KR&R, our simple account should suffice. The interesting thing is that this simple account itself makes reference to some of the foundational distinctions in the field of philosophy. These distinctions also play a central role in artificial intelligence (AI) and computer science. To begin with, the first distinction in KR&R is that we identify knowledge with knowledge that such-and-such holds (possibly to a degree), rather than knowing how. If you ask an expert tennis player how he manages to serve a ball at 130 miles per hour on his first serve, and then serve a safer, topspin serve on his second should the first be out, you may well receive a confession that, if truth be told, this athlete can't really tell you. He just does it; he does something he has been doing since his youth. Yet, there is no denying that he knows how to serve. In contrast, the knowledge in KR&R must be expressible in declarative statements. For example, our tennis player knows that if his first serve lands outside the service box, it's not in play. He thus knows a proposition, conditional in form.
    Date
    9. 2.2017 19:22:14
    Type
    a
  14. Hohmann, G.: ¬Die Anwendung des CIDOC-CRM für die semantische Wissensrepräsentation in den Kulturwissenschaften (2010) 0.02 
    0.020749755 = product of:
  0.04149951 = sum of:
    0.04149951 = sum of:
      0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0040592253 = score(doc=4011,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=4011,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4011, 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=4011)
  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
  15. Semenova, E.: Ontologie als Begriffssystem : Theoretische Überlegungen und ihre praktische Umsetzung bei der Entwicklung einer Ontologie der Wissenschaftsdisziplinen (2010) 0.02 
    0.020749755 = product of:
  0.04149951 = sum of:
    0.04149951 = sum of:
      0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 4095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0040592253 = score(doc=4095,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 4095, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4095)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 4095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=4095,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4095, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4095)
  0.5 = 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
  16. Das, S.; Roy, S.: Faceted ontological model for brain tumour study (2016) 0.02 
    0.02067415 = product of:
  0.0413483 = sum of:
    0.0413483 = sum of:
      0.010148063 = weight(_text_:a in 2831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010148063 = score(doc=2831,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 2831, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2831)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=2831,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2831, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2831)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this work is to develop an ontology-based framework for developing an information retrieval system to cater to specific queries of users. For creating such an ontology, information was obtained from a wide range of information sources involved with brain tumour study and research. The information thus obtained was compiled and analysed to provide a standard, reliable and relevant information base to aid our proposed system. Facet-based methodology has been used for ontology formalization for quite some time. Ontology formalization involves different steps such as identification of the terminology, analysis, synthesis, standardization and ordering. A vast majority of the ontologies being developed nowadays lack flexibility. This becomes a formidable constraint when it comes to interoperability. We found that a facet-based method provides a distinct guideline for the development of a robust and flexible model concerning the domain of brain tumours. Our attempt has been to bridge library and information science and computer science, which itself involved an experimental approach. It was discovered that a faceted approach is really enduring, as it helps in the achievement of properties like navigation, exploration and faceted browsing. Computer-based brain tumour ontology supports the work of researchers towards gathering information on brain tumour research and allows users across the world to intelligently access new scientific information quickly and efficiently.
    Date
    12. 3.2016 13:21:22
    Type
    a
  17. Kiren, T.; Shoaib, M.: ¬A novel ontology matching approach using key concepts (2016) 0.02 
    0.020074995 = product of:
  0.04014999 = sum of:
    0.04014999 = sum of:
      0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 2589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00894975 = score(doc=2589,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 2589, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2589)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=2589,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2589, 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=2589)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose Ontologies are used to formally describe the concepts within a domain in a machine-understandable way. Matching of heterogeneous ontologies is often essential for many applications like semantic annotation, query answering or ontology integration. Some ontologies may include a large number of entities which make the ontology matching process very complex in terms of the search space and execution time requirements. The purpose of this paper is to present a technique for finding degree of similarity between ontologies that trims down the search space by eliminating the ontology concepts that have less likelihood of being matched. Design/methodology/approach Algorithms are written for finding key concepts, concept matching and relationship matching. WordNet is used for solving synonym problems during the matching process. The technique is evaluated using the reference alignments between ontologies from ontology alignment evaluation initiative benchmark in terms of degree of similarity, Pearson's correlation coefficient and IR measures precision, recall and F-measure. Findings Positive correlation between the degree of similarity and degree of similarity (reference alignment) and computed values of precision, recall and F-measure showed that if only key concepts of ontologies are compared, a time and search space efficient ontology matching system can be developed. Originality/value On the basis of the present novel approach for ontology matching, it is concluded that using key concepts for ontology matching gives comparable results in reduced time and space.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Type
    a
  18. Conde, A.; Larrañaga, M.; Arruarte, A.; Elorriaga, J.A.; Roth, D.: litewi: a combined term extraction and entity linking method for eliciting educational ontologies from textbooks (2016) 0.02 
    0.020074995 = product of:
  0.04014999 = sum of:
    0.04014999 = sum of:
      0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 2645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00894975 = score(doc=2645,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 2645, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2645)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=2645,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2645, 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=2645)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Major efforts have been conducted on ontology learning, that is, semiautomatic processes for the construction of domain ontologies from diverse sources of information. In the past few years, a research trend has focused on the construction of educational ontologies, that is, ontologies to be used for educational purposes. The identification of the terminology is crucial to build ontologies. Term extraction techniques allow the identification of the domain-related terms from electronic resources. This paper presents LiTeWi, a novel method that combines current unsupervised term extraction approaches for creating educational ontologies for technology supported learning systems from electronic textbooks. LiTeWi uses Wikipedia as an additional information source. Wikipedia contains more than 30 million articles covering the terminology of nearly every domain in 288 languages, which makes it an appropriate generic corpus for term extraction. Furthermore, given that its content is available in several languages, it promotes both domain and language independence. LiTeWi is aimed at being used by teachers, who usually develop their didactic material from textbooks. To evaluate its performance, LiTeWi was tuned up using a textbook on object oriented programming and then tested with two textbooks of different domains-astronomy and molecular biology.
    Date
    22. 1.2016 12:38:14
    Type
    a
  19. Cui, H.: Competency evaluation of plant character ontologies against domain literature (2010) 0.02 
    0.01974305 = product of:
  0.0394861 = sum of:
    0.0394861 = sum of:
      0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 3466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008285859 = score(doc=3466,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 3466, 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=3466)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 3466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=3466,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3466, 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=3466)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Specimen identification keys are still the most commonly created tools used by systematic biologists to access biodiversity information. Creating identification keys requires analyzing and synthesizing large amounts of information from specimens and their descriptions and is a very labor-intensive and time-consuming activity. Automating the generation of identification keys from text descriptions becomes a highly attractive text mining application in the biodiversity domain. Fine-grained semantic annotation of morphological descriptions of organisms is a necessary first step in generating keys from text. Machine-readable ontologies are needed in this process because most biological characters are only implied (i.e., not stated) in descriptions. The immediate question to ask is How well do existing ontologies support semantic annotation and automated key generation? With the intention to either select an existing ontology or develop a unified ontology based on existing ones, this paper evaluates the coverage, semantic consistency, and inter-ontology agreement of a biodiversity character ontology and three plant glossaries that may be turned into ontologies. The coverage and semantic consistency of the ontology/glossaries are checked against the authoritative domain literature, namely, Flora of North America and Flora of China. The evaluation results suggest that more work is needed to improve the coverage and interoperability of the ontology/glossaries. More concepts need to be added to the ontology/glossaries and careful work is needed to improve the semantic consistency. The method used in this paper to evaluate the ontology/glossaries can be used to propose new candidate concepts from the domain literature and suggest appropriate definitions.
    Date
    1. 6.2010 9:55:22
    Type
    a
  20. Marcondes, C.H.; Costa, L.C da.: ¬A model to represent and process scientific knowledge in biomedical articles with semantic Web technologies (2016) 0.02 
    0.018982807 = product of:
  0.037965614 = sum of:
    0.037965614 = sum of:
      0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 2829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006765375 = score(doc=2829,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2829, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2829)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=2829,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2829, 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=2829)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Knowledge organization faces the challenge of managing the amount of knowledge available on the Web. Published literature in biomedical sciences is a huge source of knowledge, which can only efficiently be managed through automatic methods. The conventional channel for reporting scientific results is Web electronic publishing. Despite its advances, scientific articles are still published in print formats such as portable document format (PDF). Semantic Web and Linked Data technologies provides new opportunities for communicating, sharing, and integrating scientific knowledge that can overcome the limitations of the current print format. Here is proposed a semantic model of scholarly electronic articles in biomedical sciences that can overcome the limitations of traditional flat records formats. Scientific knowledge consists of claims made throughout article texts, especially when semantic elements such as questions, hypotheses and conclusions are stated. These elements, although having different roles, express relationships between phenomena. Once such knowledge units are extracted and represented with technologies such as RDF (Resource Description Framework) and linked data, they may be integrated in reasoning chains. Thereby, the results of scientific research can be published and shared in structured formats, enabling crawling by software agents, semantic retrieval, knowledge reuse, validation of scientific results, and identification of traces of scientific discoveries.
    Date
    12. 3.2016 13:17:22
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 193
  • d 30
  • f 1
  • pt 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 191
  • el 46
  • m 13
  • x 12
  • s 4
  • r 2
  • n 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications