Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × type_ss:"n"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases (2004) 0.01
    0.012482047 = product of:
      0.024964094 = sum of:
        0.024964094 = product of:
          0.04992819 = sum of:
            0.04992819 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04992819 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16130796 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046063907 = 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
  2. ¬The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (2007) 0.00
    0.0015040238 = product of:
      0.0030080476 = sum of:
        0.0030080476 = product of:
          0.006016095 = sum of:
            0.006016095 = weight(_text_:s in 3395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.006016095 = score(doc=3395,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.05008241 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046063907 = queryNorm
                0.120123915 = fieldWeight in 3395, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3395)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Pages
    15 S
  3. ¬The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (2012) 0.00
    0.0015040238 = product of:
      0.0030080476 = sum of:
        0.0030080476 = product of:
          0.006016095 = sum of:
            0.006016095 = weight(_text_:s in 4790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.006016095 = score(doc=4790,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.05008241 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046063907 = queryNorm
                0.120123915 = fieldWeight in 4790, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4790)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Pages
    13 S
  4. Le Boeuf, P.; Riva, P.; Zumer, M.: FRBR - Library Reference Model : draft for World-Wide Review (2016) 0.00
    0.0012762066 = product of:
      0.0025524131 = sum of:
        0.0025524131 = product of:
          0.0051048263 = sum of:
            0.0051048263 = weight(_text_:s in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0051048263 = score(doc=2881,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.05008241 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046063907 = queryNorm
                0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The FRBR Review Group worked actively towards a consolidated model starting in 2010, in a series of working meetings held in conjunction with IFLA conferences and at an additional mid-year meeting in April 2012 during which the user task consolidation was first drafted. In 2013 in Singapore, the FRBR Review Group constituted a Consolidation Editorial Group (CEG) to focus on the detailed reassessment of attribute s and relationships, and the drafting of this model document. The CEG (at times with other FRBR Review Group members or invited experts) held five multi-day meetings, as well as discussing progress in detail with the FRBR Review Group as a whole during a working meeting in 2014 in Lyon and another in 2015 in Cape Town.
    Pages
    71 S
  5. Bechhofer, S.; Harmelen, F. van; Hendler, J.; Horrocks, I.; McGuinness, D.L.; Patel-Schneider, P.F.; Stein, L.A.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference (2004) 0.00
    0.0010528166 = product of:
      0.0021056333 = sum of:
        0.0021056333 = product of:
          0.0042112665 = sum of:
            0.0042112665 = weight(_text_:s in 4684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0042112665 = score(doc=4684,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.05008241 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046063907 = queryNorm
                0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 4684, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4684)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  6. Pepper, S.; Moore, G.; TopicMaps.Org Authoring Group: XML Topic Maps (XTM) 1.0 : TopicMaps.Org Specification (2001) 0.00
    9.0241426E-4 = product of:
      0.0018048285 = sum of:
        0.0018048285 = product of:
          0.003609657 = sum of:
            0.003609657 = weight(_text_:s in 1623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.003609657 = score(doc=1623,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.05008241 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046063907 = queryNorm
                0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1623, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1623)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  7. Frodl, C. (Bearb.); Fischer, T. (Bearb.); Baker, T. (Bearb.); Rühle, S. (Bearb.): Deutsche Übersetzung des Dublin-Core-Metadaten-Elemente-Sets (2007) 0.00
    9.0241426E-4 = product of:
      0.0018048285 = sum of:
        0.0018048285 = product of:
          0.003609657 = sum of:
            0.003609657 = weight(_text_:s in 516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.003609657 = score(doc=516,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.05008241 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046063907 = queryNorm
                0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 516, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=516)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  8. OWL Web Ontology Language Overview (2004) 0.00
    9.0241426E-4 = product of:
      0.0018048285 = sum of:
        0.0018048285 = product of:
          0.003609657 = sum of:
            0.003609657 = weight(_text_:s in 4682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.003609657 = score(doc=4682,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.05008241 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046063907 = queryNorm
                0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4682, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, 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.