Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012794068 = product of:
  0.051176272 = sum of:
    0.051176272 = weight(_text_:reference in 4645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051176272 = score(doc=4645,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 4645, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4645)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Evaluation of ontology alignments is in practice done in two ways: (1) assessing individual correspondences and (2) comparing the alignment to a reference alignment. However, this type of evaluation does not guarantee that an application which uses the alignment will perform well. In this paper, we contribute to the current ontology alignment evaluation practices by proposing two alternative evaluation methods that take into account some characteristics of a usage scenario without doing a full-fledged end-to-end evaluation. We compare different evaluation approaches in three case studies, focussing on methodological issues. Each case study considers an alignment between a different pair of ontologies, ranging from rich and well-structured to small and poorly structured. This enables us to conclude on the use of different evaluation approaches in different settings.

0.010661725 = product of:
  0.0426469 = sum of:
    0.0426469 = weight(_text_:reference in 125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0426469 = score(doc=125,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 125, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=125)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper gives a comprehensive overview over the problem of Semantic Interoperability in the Cultural Heritage domain, with a particular focus on solutions centered around extensional, i.e., instance-based, ontology matching methods. It presents three typical scenarios requiring interoperability, one with homogenous collections, one with heterogeneous collections, and one with multi-lingual collection. It discusses two different ways to evaluate potential alignments, one based on the application of re-indexing, one using a reference alignment. To these scenarios we apply extensional matching with different similarity measures which gives interesting insights. Finally, we firmly position our work in the Cultural Heritage context through an extensive discussion of the relevance for, and issues related to this specific field. The findings are as unspectacular as expected but nevertheless important: the provided methods can really improve interoperability in a number of important cases, but they are not universal solutions to all related problems. This paper will provide a solid foundation for any future work on Semantic Interoperability in the Cultural Heritage domain, in particular for anybody intending to apply extensional methods.

0.009478901 = product of:
  0.037915602 = sum of:
    0.037915602 = product of:
      0.075831205 = sum of:
        0.075831205 = weight(_text_:22 in 116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.075831205 = score(doc=116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 116, 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=116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.0055293585 = product of:
  0.022117434 = sum of:
    0.022117434 = product of:
      0.04423487 = sum of:
        0.04423487 = weight(_text_:22 in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04423487 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2631, 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=2631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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

0.004341234 = product of:
  0.017364936 = sum of:
    0.017364936 = product of:
      0.034729872 = sum of:
        0.034729872 = weight(_text_:services in 3372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034729872 = score(doc=3372,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 3372, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3372)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Europeana provides access to more than 54 million cultural heritage objects through its portal Europeana Collections. It is crucial for Europeana to be recognized by search engines as a trusted authoritative repository of cultural heritage objects. Indeed, even though its portal is the main entry point, most Europeana users come to it via search engines. Europeana Collections is fuelled by metadata describing cultural objects, represented in the Europeana Data Model (EDM). This paper presents the research and consequent recommendations for publishing Europeana metadata using the Schema.org vocabulary and best practices. Schema.org html embedded metadata to be consumed by search engines to power rich services (such as Google Knowledge Graph). Schema.org is an open and widely adopted initiative (used by over 12 million domains) backed by Google, Bing, Yahoo!, and Yandex, for sharing metadata across the web It underpins the emergence of new web techniques, such as so called Semantic SEO. Our research addressed the representation of the embedded metadata as part of the Europeana HTML pages and sitemaps so that the re-use of this data can be optimized. The practical objective of our work is to produce a Schema.org representation of Europeana resources described in EDM, being the richest as possible and tailored to Europeana's realities and user needs as well the search engines and their users.

0.003472987 = product of:
  0.013891948 = sum of:
    0.013891948 = product of:
      0.027783897 = sum of:
        0.027783897 = weight(_text_:services in 4796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027783897 = score(doc=4796,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.1622532 = fieldWeight in 4796, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4796)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Key recommendations of the report are: - That library leaders identify sets of data as possible candidates for early exposure as Linked Data and foster a discussion about Open Data and rights; - That library standards bodies increase library participation in Semantic Web standardization, develop library data standards that are compatible with Linked Data, and disseminate best-practice design patterns tailored to library Linked Data; - That data and systems designers design enhanced user services based on Linked Data capabilities, create URIs for the items in library datasets, develop policies for managing RDF vocabularies and their URIs, and express library data by re-using or mapping to existing Linked Data vocabularies; - That librarians and archivists preserve Linked Data element sets and value vocabularies and apply library experience in curation and long-term preservation to Linked Data datasets.