Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012480095 = product of:
  0.02496019 = sum of:
    0.02496019 = product of:
      0.04992038 = sum of:
        0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04992038 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 8.2011 13:33:22

0.011484617 = product of:
  0.022969235 = sum of:
    0.022969235 = sum of:
      0.001353075 = weight(_text_:a in 1704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.001353075 = score(doc=1704,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.025478978 = fieldWeight in 1704, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1704)
      0.021616159 = weight(_text_:22 in 1704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021616159 = score(doc=1704,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.1340265 = fieldWeight in 1704, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1704)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Am Anfang war das Wort. Sehr viel später erfand ein gewisser Herr Gutenberg ein Handgießinstrument zur Herstellung von Drucktypen. Und was sich daraus entwickelte, ist bekannt: Die moderne Informations- und Kommunikationsgesellschaft, deren Dynamik nicht zuletzt von der Effektivität der Daten-, Dokumenten- und Schriftgutverwaltung abhängt. Beim DIN-Taschenbuch 343 Bibliotheks- und Dokumentationswesen handelt es sich um ein Normenkompendium, das genau diese Verfahren aufgreift: Es stellt der interessierten Fachöffentlichkeit insgesamt 22 nationale und internationale Normen der Bereiche "Gestaltung und Erschließung von Dokumenten", "Bibliotheksmanagement", "Codierungs- und Nummerungssysteme" sowie "Bestandserhaltung in Archiven und Bibliotheken" vor. Die Auswahl der Normen verdeutlicht zweierlei: Zum einen den Einfluss der sich ständig weiterentwickelnden und dabei konvergierenden Technologien, der u.a. das Publizieren und die Datenrecherche beeinflusst. Zum zweiten die Notwendigkeit, neue Anforderungen zu berücksichtigen, die sich aus dem stetig zunehmenden internationalen Datenaustausch ergeben. Das DIN-Taschenbuch verschafft einen genauen Überblick über den Zusammenhang zwischen einschlägigen DIN- und ISO-Normen und klärt über Namencodes von Ländern und deren Untereinheiten auf (DIN ISO 3166-2:2001). Komplettiert wird das Werk durch den vollständigen Abdruck des DINFachberichts 13 "Bau- und Nutzungplanung von wissenschaftlichen Bibliotheken". Dort werden Bibliotheken als Servicezentren verstanden, die zunehmend digitalisierte Informationsquellen bereit stellen.

Content

Enthält 22 vollständig abgedruckte nationale und internationale Normen für die Bereiche Archiv-, Bibliotheks-, Dokumentations-, Museums- und Verlagswesen

Footnote

Rez. in: ABI-Technik 21(2002) H.3, S.294-295 (K. Weishaupt); "Im Deutschen Institut für Normung ist der Normenausschuss Bibliotheks- und Dokumentationswesen (NABD) verantwortlich für die nationale Normung für das Erstellen, Publizieren, Erschließen, Erhalten, Wiederauffinden, Vermitteln und die Nutzung von Dokumenten, Daten und Schriftgut für die Bereiche Archiv-, Bibliotheks, Dokumentations-, Museumsund Verlagswesen. Mit dem neuen DIN-Taschenbuch will er einen Überblick über die DIN-Normen geben, die in den letzten Jahren auf internationaler Ebene unter aktiver deutscher Mitarbeit veröffentlicht, dann als DIN-Normen übernommen worden sind und die den veränderten Anforderungen der Informations- und Kommunikationsgesellschaft Rechnung tragen - so die eigenen Angaben des Ausschusses im Vorwort (S. XI). Vor dem Hintergrund dieses recht offen formulierten Anspruches kommt es zu einer Zusammenstellung von 22 Normen, die auf den ersten Blick recht bunt gemischt wirkt: Abgedruckt sind Normen zur Erstellung und Weiterentwicklung von Thesauri, zu Titelangaben von Dokumenten, Kürzungs- und Transliterationsregeln, Sortierregeln, Abschnittsnummerierungen, Ländernamen, zur ISBN, ISSN sowie den Standardnummern ISMN und ISWC für Musikalien, zu Leistungsindikatoren für Bibliotheken und zu Lebensdauer-Klassen von Papier und Karton, Anforderungen an die Aufbewahrung von Archiv- und Bibliotheksgut und zur Alterungsbeständigkeit von Schriften. Der DIN-Fachbericht "Bau- und Nutzungsplanung von wissenschaftlichen Bibliotheken" rundet das Werk ab. Negativ ausgedrückt: Es wird niemanden geben, der für seinen beruflichen Alltag all diese Normen benötigt. Die positive Sicht: Das DIN-Taschenbuch deckt so viele Themen ab, dass der Kreis der Interessierten recht groß sein dürfte. Auf alle Fälle ist beeindruckend, zu wie vielen Themen aus den Bereich des Bibliotheks- und Dokumentationswesens es Normen gibt; vermutlich ist deren Existenz nicht einmal der Fachöffentlichkeit in vollem Umfang bekannt. Ein solches Beispiel ist DIN 1505, Teil 2: "Titelangaben von Dokumenten: Zitierregeln"; diese Norm wendet sich "an Autoren, Verleger und Redakteure und soll für Literaturzusammenstellungen, für Literaturverzeichnisse am Ende einer Schrift bzw. eines Beitrags, im Kontext oder in Fußnoten benutzt werden" (S. 38). Damit ist sie praktisch für alle relevant, die wissenschaftlich arbeiten und Texte schreiben - aber kaum jemand kennt diese Norm! Viele Zeitschriften und Fachgesellschaften haben ihre eigenen Regeln, nach denen zitiert werden soll. Im Institut Arbeit und Technik in Gelsenkirchen ist vor einigen Jahren mit Förderung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft die Software LibLink entwickelt worden, mit der aus MAB-Daten, die aus einem Bibliothekskatalog exportiert worden waren, automatisiert Literaturverzeichnisse für wissenschaftliche Texte erstellt werden sollten.
Das erwies sich als äußerst schwierig, da es erstens keinen allgemein anerkannten Standard fürs Zitieren gibt und zweitens zwischen Literaturverzeichnissen wissenschaftlicher Texte und Bibliotheksdaten Diskrepanzen bestehen, die nicht automatisiert bereinigt werden können. Wie sich im Laufe des Projektes gezeigt hat, gilt das auch für Literaturverzeichnisse, die nach DIN 1505 gestaltet werden, obwohl diese Norm im Zusammenarbeit mit der Deutschen Bibliothek und dokumentarischen Berufsverbänden entwickelt worden ist und eine eindeutige Nähe zu bibliothekarischen Katalogisierungsregeln aufweist Warum sich die Norm nicht durchgesetzt hat, darüber kann nur spekuliert werden. Möglich ist, dass der Text mit einem Umfang von 18 Seiten - allein für Teil 2 der Norm! - zu umfangreich ist, als dass sich jemand, der sich für Formalia des wissenschaftlichen Arbeitens nur am Rande interessiert, wirklich damit beschäftigen würde. Möglich ist ferner, dass das Zitierformat zu nah an bibliothekarische Regeln angelehnt ist und einige Gepflogenheiten wissenschaftlicher Literaturverzeichnisse, die sich bei aller Uneinheitlichkeit doch durchgesetzt haben - nicht ausreichend berücksichtigt: Die Tendenz geht zu einer recht knappen Zitierweise, außerdem steht das Erscheinungsjahr inzwischen fast immer direkt hinter der Verfasserangabe und nicht irgendwo am Ende einer langen Titelaufnahme. Wie dem auch sei: Es ist bedauerlich, dass die Regelungen der Norm so wenig bekannt sind und damit kaum als Hilfestellung bei der oft auch beklagten Unsicherheit, wie korrekt zu zitieren sei, angesehen werden können. Vielleicht wäre hier eine viel intensivere Öffentlichkeitsarbeit angesagt, der Abdruck in einem neuen DIN-Taschenbuch ist sicherlich ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung. Eine andere Maßnahme wäre eine Aktualisierung der Norm; immerhin ist sie seit Januar 1984 unverändert geblieben. Über Namensverfremdungen wie Ernst T. A. Hoffmann ist die Bibliothekswelt inzwischen hinaus; ob gerade solch eine Regelung der Abkürzung von Vornamen und die Aufführung dieses Beispiels die Akzeptanz der Norm fördern, erscheint mehr als fraglich. Es ist im Rahmen einer Rezension nicht möglich, auf jede einzelne abgedruckte Norm inhaltlich einzugehen, daher nur noch einige Bemerkungen zu besonderen Auffälligkeiten. Das Taschenbuch gibt die internationale Norm ISO 690-2 (in englischer Sprache) wieder: "Information and documentation - Bibliographic references - Part 2: Electronic documents or parts thereof". Bei solch einem Thema, bei dem noch allgemeine Unsicherheit herrscht, ist es sehr hilfreich, mit der Norm eine Richtschnur an die Hand zu bekommen, auch wenn der Text selbst realistischerweise nicht den Anspruch erhebt, das Problem abschließend zu behandeln. Auf ein ganz besonders schwieriges Gebiet haben sich die Normungsausschüsse vorgewagt, als sie die internationale Norm ISO 11620 "Leistungsindikatoren für Bibliotheken" entwickelt haben, die ins Deutsche übersetzt und unverändert als DIN-Norm übernommen worden ist. Der Zweck der Norm wird eher zurückhaltend formuliert: Es geht darum, "den Gebrauch von Leistungsindikatoren in Bibliotheken zu unterstützen und Kenntnisse über die Durchführung von Leistungsmessung zu verbreiten" (S. 171). Dabei wird ausdrücklich zugestanden, dass es auch Leistungsindikatoren geben kann, die in dieser Norm nicht aufgeführt sind. Eine sehr realistische und damit sympathische Sicht für eine Fragestellung, die eins der jüngsten Probleme der bibliothekarischen Berufspraxis berührt und vermutlich nie erschöpfend ausdiskutiert werden kann! Im Vergleich dazu wirken Abkürzungs-, Transliterations- und Ordnungsregeln geradezu trivial. Aber alle, die im Bibliotheks- und Dokumentationsbereich tätig sind, wissen, dass es ohne Sorgfalt im Kleinen nicht geht und exakte Regelungen die tägliche Arbeit eher erleichtern.

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 4683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=4683,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4683, 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=4683)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This description of OWL, the Web Ontology Language being designed by the W3C Web Ontology Working Group, contains a high-level abstract syntax for both OWL DL and OWL Lite, sublanguages of OWL. A model-theoretic semantics is given to provide a formal meaning for OWL ontologies written in this abstract syntax. A model-theoretic semantics in the form of an extension to the RDF semantics is also given to provide a formal meaning for OWL ontologies as RDF graphs (OWL Full). A mapping from the abstract syntax to RDF graphs is given and the two model theories are shown to have the same consequences on OWL ontologies that can be written in the abstract syntax.

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=4689,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4689, 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=4689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

SKOS Core provides a model for expressing the basic structure and content of concept schemes such as thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading lists, taxonomies, 'folksonomies', other types of controlled vocabulary, and also concept schemes embedded in glossaries and terminologies. The SKOS Core Vocabulary is an application of the Resource Description Framework (RDF), that can be used to express a concept scheme as an RDF graph. Using RDF allows data to be linked to and/or merged with other data, enabling data sources to be distributed across the web, but still be meaningfully composed and integrated. This document is a guide using the SKOS Core Vocabulary, for readers who already have a basic understanding of RDF concepts. This edition of the SKOS Core Guide [SKOS Core Guide] is a W3C Public Working Draft. It is the authoritative guide to recommended usage of the SKOS Core Vocabulary at the time of publication.

Editor

Miles, A. u. D. Brickley

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 4684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=4684,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4684, 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=4684)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Web Ontology Language OWL is a semantic markup language for publishing and sharing ontologies on the World Wide Web. OWL is developed as a vocabulary extension of RDF (the Resource Description Framework) and is derived from the DAML+OIL Web Ontology Language. This document contains a structured informal description of the full set of OWL language constructs and is meant to serve as a reference for OWL users who want to construct OWL ontologies.

0.0023435948 = product of:
  0.0046871896 = sum of:
    0.0046871896 = product of:
      0.009374379 = sum of:
        0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 4680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009374379 = score(doc=4680,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 4680, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This document specifies XML presentation syntax for OWL, which is defined as a dialect similar to OWL Abstract Syntax [OWL Semantics]. It is not intended to be a normative specification. Instead, it represents a suggestion of one possible XML presentation syntax for OWL.

0.0023435948 = product of:
  0.0046871896 = sum of:
    0.0046871896 = product of:
      0.009374379 = sum of:
        0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009374379 = score(doc=4686,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This document specifies usage scenarios, goals and requirements for a web ontology language. An ontology formally defines a common set of terms that are used to describe and represent a domain. Ontologies can be used by automated tools to power advanced services such as more accurate web search, intelligent software agents and knowledge management.

0.001965164 = product of:
  0.003930328 = sum of:
    0.003930328 = product of:
      0.007860656 = sum of:
        0.007860656 = weight(_text_:a in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007860656 = score(doc=1169,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1480195 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

T.1: Today's thesauri are mostly electronic tools, having moved on from the paper-based era when thesaurus standards were first developed. They are built and maintained with the support of software and need to integrate with other software, such as search engines and content management systems. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals trained in indexing and searching, today there is a demand for vocabularies that untrained users will find to be intuitive. ISO 25964 makes the transition needed for the world of electronic information management. However, part 1 retains the assumption that human intellect is usually involved in the selection of indexing terms and in the selection of search terms. If both the indexer and the searcher are guided to choose the same term for the same concept, then relevant documents will be retrieved. This is the main principle underlying thesaurus design, even though a thesaurus built for human users may also be applied in situations where computers make the choices. Efficient exchange of data is a vital component of thesaurus management and exploitation. Hence the inclusion in this standard of recommendations for exchange formats and protocols. Adoption of these will facilitate interoperability between thesaurus management systems and the other computer applications, such as indexing and retrieval systems, that will utilize the data. Thesauri are typically used in post-coordinate retrieval systems, but may also be applied to hierarchical directories, pre-coordinate indexes and classification systems. Increasingly, thesaurus applications need to mesh with others, such as automatic categorization schemes, free-text search systems, etc. Part 2 of ISO 25964 describes additional types of structured vocabulary and gives recommendations to enable interoperation of the vocabularies at all stages of the information storage and retrieval process.
T.2: The ability to identify and locate relevant information among vast collections and other resources is a major and pressing challenge today. Several different types of vocabulary are in use for this purpose. Some of the most widely used vocabularies were designed a hundred years ago and have been evolving steadily. A different generation of vocabularies is now emerging, designed to exploit the electronic media more effectively. A good understanding of the previous generation is still essential for effective access to collections indexed with them. An important object of ISO 25964 as a whole is to support data exchange and other forms of interoperability in circumstances in which more than one structured vocabulary is applied within one retrieval system or network. Sometimes one vocabulary has to be mapped to another, and it is important to understand both the potential and the limitations of such mappings. In other systems, a thesaurus is mapped to a classification scheme, or an ontology to a thesaurus. Comprehensive interoperability needs to cover the whole range of vocabulary types, whether young or old. Concepts in different vocabularies are related only in that they have the same or similar meaning. However, the meaning can be found in a number of different aspects within each particular type of structured vocabulary: - within terms or captions selected in different languages; - in the notation assigned indicating a place within a larger hierarchy; - in the definition, scope notes, history notes and other notes that explain the significance of that concept; and - in explicit relationships to other concepts or entities within the same vocabulary. In order to create mappings from one structured vocabulary to another it is first necessary to understand, within the context of each different type of structured vocabulary, the significance and relative importance of each of the different elements in defining the meaning of that particular concept. ISO 25964-1 describes the key characteristics of thesauri along with additional advice on best practice. ISO 25964-2 focuses on other types of vocabulary and does not attempt to cover all aspects of good practice. It concentrates on those aspects which need to be understood if one of the vocabularies is to work effectively alongside one or more of the others. Recognizing that a new standard cannot be applied to some existing vocabularies, this part of ISO 25964 provides informative description alongside the recommendations, the aim of which is to enable users and system developers to interpret and implement the existing vocabularies effectively. The remainder of ISO 25964-2 deals with the principles and practicalities of establishing mappings between vocabularies.

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 2079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=2079,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2079, 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=2079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Dublin Core metadata standard provides a core set of 15 metadata elements for cross-domain information resource sharing. Since the original workshop, held in March 1995 in Dublin, Ohio - thus the name Dublin Core - this core set of metadata elements has gained worldwide recognition and use, with translations in over 20 languages. The issuance of the ISO standard provides the official international endorsement for use of theDublin Core metadata. Under NISO's leadership this standard was fast-tracked in ISO Technical Committee 45 (Information and documentation) Subcommittee 4 (Technical Interoperability) through the ISO approval process using a version identical to ANSI/NISO Z39.85-2001

Footnote

ISO 15836 is available for purchase in electronic or paper formats, in English and French, from ISO <http://www.iso.ch/>. A free downloadable pdf file of the ANSI/NISO version is available from the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) website: <http:www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39-85.pdf>

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=3395,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3395, 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=3395)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Defines fifteen metadata elements for resource description in a cross-disciplinary information environment

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 4687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=4687,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4687, 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=4687)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The World Wide Web as it is currently constituted resembles a poorly mapped geography. Our insight into the documents and capabilities available are based on keyword searches, abetted by clever use of document connectivity and usage patterns. The sheer mass of this data is unmanageable without powerful tool support. In order to map this terrain more precisely, computational agents require machine-readable descriptions of the content and capabilities of Web accessible resources. These descriptions must be in addition to the human-readable versions of that information. The OWL Web Ontology Language is intended to provide a language that can be used to describe the classes and relations between them that are inherent in Web documents and applications. This document demonstrates the use of the OWL language to - formalize a domain by defining classes and properties of those classes, - define individuals and assert properties about them, and - reason about these classes and individuals to the degree permitted by the formal semantics of the OWL language. The sections are organized to present an incremental definition of a set of classes, properties and individuals, beginning with the fundamentals and proceeding to more complex language components.

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=708,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 708, 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=708)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This Standard presents guidelines and conventions for the contents, display, construction, testing, maintenance, and management of monolingual controlled vocabularies. This Standard focuses on controlled vocabularies that are used for the representation of content objects in knowledge organization systems including lists, synonym rings, taxonomies, and thesauri. This Standard should be regarded as a set of recommendations based on preferred techniques and procedures. Optional procedures are, however, sometimes described, e.g., for the display of terms in a controlled vocabulary. The primary purpose of vocabulary control is to achieve consistency in the description of content objects and to facilitate retrieval. Vocabulary control is accomplished by three principal methods: defining the scope, or meaning, of terms; using the equivalence relationship to link synonymous and nearly synonymous terms; and distinguishing among homographs.

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 1623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=1623,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1623, 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=1623)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This specification provides a model and grammar for representing the structure of information resources used to define topics, and the associations (relationships) between topics. Names, resources, and relationships are said to be characteristics of abstract subjects, which are called topics. Topics have their characteristics within scopes: i.e. the limited contexts within which the names and resources are regarded as their name, resource, and relationship characteristics. One or more interrelated documents employing this grammar is called a topic map.TopicMaps.Org is an independent consortium of parties developing the applicability of the topic map paradigm [ISO13250] to the World Wide Web by leveraging the XML family of specifications. This specification describes version 1.0 of XML Topic Maps (XTM) 1.0 [XTM], an abstract model and XML grammar for interchanging Web-based topic maps, written by the members of the TopicMaps.Org Authoring Group. More information on XTM and TopicMaps.Org is available at http://www.topicmaps.org/about.html. All versions of the XTM Specification are permanently licensed to the public, as provided by the Charter of TopicMaps.Org.

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 4682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=4682,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4682, 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=4682)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The OWL Web Ontology Language is designed for use by applications that need to process the content of information instead of just presenting information to humans. OWL facilitates greater machine interpretability of Web content than that supported by XML, RDF, and RDF Schema (RDF-S) by providing additional vocabulary along with a formal semantics. OWL has three increasingly-expressive sublanguages: OWL Lite, OWL DL, and OWL Full. This document is written for readers who want a first impression of the capabilities of OWL. It provides an introduction to OWL by informally describing the features of each of the sublanguages of OWL. Some knowledge of RDF Schema is useful for understanding this document, but not essential. After this document, interested readers may turn to the OWL Guide for more detailed descriptions and extensive examples on the features of OWL. The normative formal definition of OWL can be found in the OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax.

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 4795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=4795,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4795, 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=4795)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organisation System) provides a model for expressing the basic structure and content of concept schemes such as thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading lists, taxonomies, folksonomies, and other types of controlled vocabulary. As an application of the Resource Description Framework (RDF) SKOS allows concepts to be documented, linked and merged with other data, while still being composed, integrated and published on the World Wide Web. This document is an implementors guide for those who would like to represent their concept scheme using SKOS. In basic SKOS, conceptual resources (concepts) can be identified using URIs, labelled with strings in one or more natural languages, documented with various types of notes, semantically related to each other in informal hierarchies and association networks, and aggregated into distinct concept schemes. In advanced SKOS, conceptual resources can be mapped to conceptual resources in other schemes and grouped into labelled or ordered collections. Concept labels can also be related to each other. Finally, the SKOS vocabulary itself can be extended to suit the needs of particular communities of practice.

Editor

Isaac, A. u. E. Summers

0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)