Search (42 results, page 1 of 3)

0.078307316 = product of:
  0.15661463 = sum of:
    0.039153658 = product of:
      0.11746097 = sum of:
        0.11746097 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11746097 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31349787 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, 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=701)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.11746097 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11746097 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31349787 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, 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=701)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F1627&ei=tAtYUYrBNoHKtQb3l4GYBw&usg=AFQjCNHeaxKkKU3-u54LWxMNYGXaaDLCGw&sig2=8WykXWQoDKjDSdGtAakH2Q&bvm=bv.44442042,d.Yms.

0.024313705 = product of:
  0.09725482 = sum of:
    0.09725482 = weight(_text_:evolution in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09725482 = score(doc=761,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.49655905 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this paper, I have traced a series of evolutionary adaptations of FOL motivated entirely by its use by knowledge engineers to represent and share information on the Web culminating in the development of Common Logic. While the primary goal in this paper has been to document this evolution, it is arguable, I think that CL's syntactic and semantic egalitarianism better realizes the goal "topic neutrality" that a logic should ideally exemplify - understood, at least in part, as the idea that logic should as far as possible not itself embody any metaphysical presuppositions. Instead of retaining the traditional metaphysical divisions of FOL that reflect its Fregean origins, CL begins as it were with a single, metaphysically homogeneous domain in which, potentially, anything can play the traditional roles of object, property, relation, and function. Note that the effect of this is not to destroy traditional metaphysical divisions. Rather, it simply to refrain from building those divisions explicitly into one's logic; instead, such divisions are left to the user to introduce and enforce axiomatically in an explicit metaphysical theory.

0.020261422 = product of:
  0.08104569 = sum of:
    0.08104569 = weight(_text_:evolution in 5997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08104569 = score(doc=5997,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.41379923 = fieldWeight in 5997, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5997)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Thesauri are Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS), that arise from the consensus of wide communities. They have been in use for many years and are regularly updated. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals for indexing and searching, today there is a demand for conceptual vocabularies that enable inferencing by machines. The development of the Semantic Web has brought a new opportunity for thesauri, but thesauri also face the challenge of proving that they add value to it. The evolution of thesauri toward their integration with the Semantic Web is examined. Elements and structures in the thesaurus standard, ISO 25964, and SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System), the Semantic Web standard for representing KOS, are reviewed and compared. Moreover, the integrity rules of thesauri are contrasted with the axioms of SKOS. How SKOS has been applied to represent some real thesauri is taken into account. Three thesauri are chosen for this aim: AGROVOC, EuroVoc and the UNESCO Thesaurus. Based on the results of this comparison and analysis, the benefits that Semantic Web technologies offer to thesauri, how thesauri can contribute to the Semantic Web, and the challenges that would help to improve their integration with the Semantic Web are discussed.

0.020057783 = product of:
  0.08023113 = sum of:
    0.08023113 = weight(_text_:evolution in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08023113 = score(doc=4695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.4096403 = fieldWeight in 4695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4695)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is the standard knowledge representation language for the Semantic Web, an evolution of the World Wide Web that aims to provide a well-founded infrastructure for publishing, sharing and querying structured data. This entry provides an introduction to RDF and its related vocabulary definition language RDF Schema, and explains its relationship with the OWL Web Ontology Language. Finally, it provides an overview of the historical development of RDF and related languages for Web metadata.

0.017192384 = product of:
  0.06876954 = sum of:
    0.06876954 = weight(_text_:evolution in 1337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06876954 = score(doc=1337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 1337, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1337)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this article, we describe the development of an extension to the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) to accommodate the needs of vocabulary development applications (VDA) managing metadata schemes and requiring close tracking of change to both those schemes and their member concepts. We take a neopragmatic epistemic stance in asserting the need for an entity in SKOS modeling to mediate between the abstract concept and the concrete scheme. While the SKOS model sufficiently describes entities for modeling the current state of a scheme in support of indexing and search on the Semantic Web, it lacks the expressive power to serve the needs of VDA needing to maintain scheme historical continuity. We demonstrate preliminarily that conceptualizations drawn from empirical work in modeling entities in the bibliographic universe, such as works, texts, and exemplars, can provide the basis for SKOS extension in ways that support more rigorous demands of capturing concept evolution in VDA.

0.017192384 = product of:
  0.06876954 = sum of:
    0.06876954 = weight(_text_:evolution in 3274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06876954 = score(doc=3274,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 3274, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3274)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

The papers are organized in several sessions and tracks: general track on ontology evolution, engineering, and frameworks, semantic Web and metadata extraction, modelling, interoperability and exploratory search, data analysis, reuse and visualization; track on digital libraries, information retrieval, linked and social data; track on metadata and semantics for open repositories, research information systems and data infrastructure; track on metadata and semantics for agriculture, food and environment; track on metadata and semantics for cultural collections and applications; track on European and national projects.

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 3084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=3084,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 3084, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3084)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ontologies have moved beyond the domains of library science, philosophy, and knowledge representation. They are now the concerns of marketing departments, CEOs, and mainstream business. Research analyst companies such as Forrester Research report on the critical roles of ontologies in support of browsing and search for e-commerce and in support of interoperability for facilitation of knowledge management and configuration. One now sees ontologies used as central controlled vocabularies that are integrated into catalogues, databases, web publications, knowledge management applications, etc. Large ontologies are essential components in many online applications including search (such as Yahoo and Lycos), e-commerce (such as Amazon and eBay), configuration (such as Dell and PC-Order), etc. One also sees ontologies that have long life spans, sometimes in multiple projects (such as UMLS, SIC codes, etc.). Such diverse usage generates many implications for ontology environments. In this paper, we will discuss ontologies and requirements in their current instantiations on the web today. We will describe some desirable properties of ontologies. We will also discuss how both simple and complex ontologies are being and may be used to support varied applications. We will conclude with a discussion of emerging trends in ontologies and their environments and briefly mention our evolving ontology evolution environment.

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 429, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=429)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We are witnessing a smooth evolution of the Web from a worldwide information space of linked documents to a global knowledge base, where resources are identified by means of uniform resource identifiers (URIs, essentially string identifiers) and are semantically described and correlated through resource description framework (RDF, a metadata data model) statements. With the size and availability of data constantly increasing (currently around 7 billion RDF triples and 150 million RDF links), a fundamental problem lies in the difficulty users face to find and retrieve the information they are interested in. In general, to access semantic data, users need to know the organization of data and the syntax of a specific query language (e.g., SPARQL or variants thereof). Clearly, this represents an obstacle to information access for nonexpert users. For this reason, keyword search-based systems are increasingly capturing the attention of researchers. Recently, many approaches to keyword-based search over structured and semistructured data have been proposed]. These approaches usually implement IR strategies on top of traditional database management systems with the goal of freeing the users from having to know data organization and query languages.

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=850,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 850, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=850)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Primitive thinking forms affected the organization of knowledge, and at a later date writing also affected organization. Currently, the web requires new forms of learning and knowledge; with the globalization of information, connectivity and virtuality have a bearing on human thought. Digital thinking is shaping our reality and its organizational form. Natural memory, considered to be a process that requires the structure of natural language and human capabilities, is interwoven with a subject and a conscience; memory preserved through writing required other tools to assist it, and classifications, cataloguing, organization or other KOS were created. The new tool for recovering digital memory is the semantic web. This points to information's future on the Internet and seems to approach the utopia of global, organized information and attempts to give the website greater significance. The Web 3.0 incorporates a proliferation of languages, concepts and tools that are difficult to govern and are created by users. The semantic web seems to be a natural evolution of the participative web in which we find ourselves, and if an effective combination is achieved between the inclusion of semantic content in web pages and the use of artificial intelligence it will be a revolution; semantic codification will be a fact when it is totally automated. Based on this, a collective digital intelligence is being constituted. We find ourselves before intelligent multitudes with broad access to enormous amounts of information. The intelligent multitude emerges when technologies interconnect. In this global interconnection of semantic information an exponential pattern of technological growth can take place.

0.014326988 = product of:
  0.05730795 = sum of:
    0.05730795 = weight(_text_:evolution in 3923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05730795 = score(doc=3923,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19585751 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03697776 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 3923, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3923)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this lecture we will discuss and introduce challenges of integrating openly available Web data and how to solve them. Firstly, while we will address this topic from the viewpoint of Semantic Web research, not all data is readily available as RDF or Linked Data, so we will give an introduction to different data formats prevalent on the Web, namely, standard formats for publishing and exchanging tabular, tree-shaped, and graph data. Secondly, not all Open Data is really completely open, so we will discuss and address issues around licences, terms of usage associated with Open Data, as well as documentation of data provenance. Thirdly, we will discuss issues connected with (meta-)data quality issues associated with Open Data on the Web and how Semantic Web techniques and vocabularies can be used to describe and remedy them. Fourth, we will address issues about searchability and integration of Open Data and discuss in how far semantic search can help to overcome these. We close with briefly summarizing further issues not covered explicitly herein, such as multi-linguality, temporal aspects (archiving, evolution, temporal querying), as well as how/whether OWL and RDFS reasoning on top of integrated open data could be help.

0.0058449726 = product of:
  0.02337989 = sum of:
    0.02337989 = product of:
      0.07013967 = sum of:
        0.07013967 = weight(_text_:22 in 4643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07013967 = score(doc=4643,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4643, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4643)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.005009976 = product of:
  0.020039905 = sum of:
    0.020039905 = product of:
      0.060119715 = sum of:
        0.060119715 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060119715 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.005009976 = product of:
  0.020039905 = sum of:
    0.020039905 = product of:
      0.060119715 = sum of:
        0.060119715 = weight(_text_:22 in 100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060119715 = score(doc=100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 100, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=100)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.0041749803 = product of:
  0.016699921 = sum of:
    0.016699921 = product of:
      0.050099764 = sum of:
        0.050099764 = weight(_text_:22 in 2090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050099764 = score(doc=2090,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2090, 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=2090)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.0033399842 = product of:
  0.013359937 = sum of:
    0.013359937 = product of:
      0.04007981 = sum of:
        0.04007981 = weight(_text_:22 in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04007981 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3376, 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=3376)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

31. 7.2010 16:58:22

0.0033399842 = product of:
  0.013359937 = sum of:
    0.013359937 = product of:
      0.04007981 = sum of:
        0.04007981 = weight(_text_:22 in 4331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04007981 = score(doc=4331,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4331, 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=4331)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

15. 3.2011 19:21:22

0.0033399842 = product of:
  0.013359937 = sum of:
    0.013359937 = product of:
      0.04007981 = sum of:
        0.04007981 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04007981 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4685, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4685)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

14. 8.2011 13:33:22

0.0029224863 = product of:
  0.011689945 = sum of:
    0.011689945 = product of:
      0.035069834 = sum of:
        0.035069834 = weight(_text_:22 in 1026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035069834 = score(doc=1026,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1026, 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=1026)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 7th European Conference, proceedings / ECDL 2003, Trondheim, Norway, August 17-22, 2003

0.0029224863 = product of:
  0.011689945 = sum of:
    0.011689945 = product of:
      0.035069834 = sum of:
        0.035069834 = weight(_text_:22 in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035069834 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2640, 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=2640)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.0029224863 = product of:
  0.011689945 = sum of:
    0.011689945 = product of:
      0.035069834 = sum of:
        0.035069834 = weight(_text_:22 in 4184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035069834 = score(doc=4184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12948982 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03697776 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4184, 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=4184)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2011 10:38:28