Search (423 results, page 1 of 22)

  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  1. Innovations and advanced techniques in systems, computing sciences and software engineering (2008) 0.10
    0.104384035 = product of:
      0.20876807 = sum of:
        0.013020686 = weight(_text_:for in 4319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013020686 = score(doc=4319,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.14668301 = fieldWeight in 4319, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4319)
        0.19574739 = weight(_text_:computing in 4319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19574739 = score(doc=4319,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.7484989 = fieldWeight in 4319, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4319)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Innovations and Advanced Techniques in Systems, Computing Sciences and Software Engineering includes a set of rigorously reviewed world-class manuscripts addressing and detailing state-of-the-art research projects in the areas of Computer Science, Software Engineering, Computer Engineering, and Systems Engineering and Sciences. Innovations and Advanced Techniques in Systems, Computing Sciences and Software Engineering includes selected papers form the conference proceedings of the International Conference on Systems, Computing Sciences and Software Engineering (SCSS 2007) which was part of the International Joint Conferences on Computer, Information and Systems Sciences and Engineering (CISSE 2007).
    Content
    Inhalt: Image and Pattern Recognition: Compression, Image processing, Signal Processing Architectures, Signal Processing for Communication, Signal Processing Implementation, Speech Compression, and Video Coding Architectures. Languages and Systems: Algorithms, Databases, Embedded Systems and Applications, File Systems and I/O, Geographical Information Systems, Kernel and OS Structures, Knowledge Based Systems, Modeling and Simulation, Object Based Software Engineering, Programming Languages, and Programming Models and tools. Parallel Processing: Distributed Scheduling, Multiprocessing, Real-time Systems, Simulation Modeling and Development, and Web Applications. New trends in computing: Computers for People of Special Needs, Fuzzy Inference, Human Computer Interaction, Incremental Learning, Internet-based Computing Models, Machine Intelligence, Natural Language Processing, Neural Networks, and Online Decision Support System
  2. Blobel, B.: Ontologies, knowledge representation, artificial intelligence : hype or prerequisite for international pHealth interoperability? (2011) 0.09
    0.08555527 = product of:
      0.17111054 = sum of:
        0.012889821 = weight(_text_:for in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012889821 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.14520876 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
        0.15822072 = weight(_text_:computing in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15822072 = score(doc=760,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.60500443 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Nowadays, eHealth and pHealth solutions have to meet advanced interoperability challenges. Enabling pervasive computing and even autonomic computing, pHealth system architectures cover many domains, scientifically managed by specialized disciplines using their specific ontologies. Therefore, semantic interoperability has to advance from a communication protocol to an ontology coordination challenge including semantic integration, bringing knowledge representation and artificial intelligence on the table. The resulting solutions comprehensively support multi-lingual and multi-jurisdictional environments.
  3. Starostenko, O.; Rodríguez-Asomoza, J.; Sénchez-López, S.E.; Chévez-Aragón, J.A.: Shape indexing and retrieval : a hybrid approach using ontological description (2008) 0.08
    0.0788573 = product of:
      0.1577146 = sum of:
        0.022096837 = weight(_text_:for in 4318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022096837 = score(doc=4318,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.24892932 = fieldWeight in 4318, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4318)
        0.13561776 = weight(_text_:computing in 4318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13561776 = score(doc=4318,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.51857525 = fieldWeight in 4318, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4318)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    This paper presents a novel hybrid approach for visual information retrieval (VIR) that combines shape analysis of objects in image with their indexing by textual descriptions. The principal goal of presented technique is applying Two Segments Turning Function (2STF) proposed by authors for efficient invariant to spatial variations shape processing and implementation of semantic Web approaches for ontology-based user-oriented annotations of multimedia information. In the proposed approach the user's textual queries are converted to image features, which are used for images searching, indexing, interpretation, and retrieval. A decision about similarity between retrieved image and user's query is taken computing the shape convergence to 2STF combining it with matching the ontological annotations of objects in image and providing in this way automatic definition of the machine-understandable semantics. In order to evaluate the proposed approach the Image Retrieval by Ontological Description of Shapes system has been designed and tested using some standard image domains.
    Source
    Innovations and advanced techniques in systems, computing sciences and software engineering. Ed.: K. Elleithy
  4. Bringsjord, S.; Clark, M.; Taylor, J.: Sophisticated knowledge representation and reasoning requires philosophy (2014) 0.08
    0.078850895 = product of:
      0.10513453 = sum of:
        0.009207015 = weight(_text_:for in 3403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009207015 = score(doc=3403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.103720546 = fieldWeight in 3403, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3403)
        0.079913534 = weight(_text_:computing in 3403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079913534 = score(doc=3403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.3055734 = fieldWeight in 3403, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3403)
        0.016013984 = product of:
          0.032027967 = sum of:
            0.032027967 = weight(_text_:22 in 3403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.032027967 = score(doc=3403,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047278564 = 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)
      0.75 = coord(3/4)
    
    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
    Source
    Philosophy, computing and information science. Eds.: R. Hagengruber u. U.V. Riss
  5. Semantic applications (2018) 0.07
    0.06868714 = product of:
      0.13737428 = sum of:
        0.024359472 = weight(_text_:for in 5204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024359472 = score(doc=5204,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.27441877 = fieldWeight in 5204, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5204)
        0.11301481 = weight(_text_:computing in 5204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11301481 = score(doc=5204,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.43214604 = fieldWeight in 5204, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5204)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    This book describes proven methodologies for developing semantic applications: software applications which explicitly or implicitly uses the semantics (i.e., the meaning) of a domain terminology in order to improve usability, correctness, and completeness. An example is semantic search, where synonyms and related terms are used for enriching the results of a simple text-based search. Ontologies, thesauri or controlled vocabularies are the centerpiece of semantic applications. The book includes technological and architectural best practices for corporate use.
    Content
    Introduction.- Ontology Development.- Compliance using Metadata.- Variety Management for Big Data.- Text Mining in Economics.- Generation of Natural Language Texts.- Sentiment Analysis.- Building Concise Text Corpora from Web Contents.- Ontology-Based Modelling of Web Content.- Personalized Clinical Decision Support for Cancer Care.- Applications of Temporal Conceptual Semantic Systems.- Context-Aware Documentation in the Smart Factory.- Knowledge-Based Production Planning for Industry 4.0.- Information Exchange in Jurisdiction.- Supporting Automated License Clearing.- Managing cultural assets: Implementing typical cultural heritage archive's usage scenarios via Semantic Web technologies.- Semantic Applications for Process Management.- Domain-Specific Semantic Search Applications.
    LCSH
    Management of Computing and Information Systems
    Subject
    Management of Computing and Information Systems
  6. Fensel, D.; Staab, S.; Studer, R.; Harmelen, F. van; Davies, J.: ¬A future perspective : exploiting peer-to-peer and the Semantic Web for knowledge management (2004) 0.07
    0.065053955 = product of:
      0.13010791 = sum of:
        0.01822896 = weight(_text_:for in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01822896 = score(doc=2262,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.20535621 = fieldWeight in 2262, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2262)
        0.111878954 = weight(_text_:computing in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.111878954 = score(doc=2262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.42780277 = fieldWeight in 2262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2262)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Over the past few years, we have seen a growing interest in the potential of both peer-to-peer (P2P) computing and the use of more formal approaches to knowledge management, involving the development of ontologies. This penultimate chapter discusses possibilities that both approaches may offer for more effective and efficient knowledge management. In particular, we investigate how the two paradigms may be combined. In this chapter, we describe our vision in terms of a set of future steps that need to be taken to bring the results described in earlier chapters to their full potential.
  7. Wong, W.; Liu, W.; Bennamoun, M.: Ontology learning from text : a look back and into the future (2010) 0.07
    0.065053955 = product of:
      0.13010791 = sum of:
        0.01822896 = weight(_text_:for in 4733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01822896 = score(doc=4733,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.20535621 = fieldWeight in 4733, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4733)
        0.111878954 = weight(_text_:computing in 4733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.111878954 = score(doc=4733,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.42780277 = fieldWeight in 4733, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4733)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Ontologies are often viewed as the answer to the need for inter-operable semantics in modern information systems. The explosion of textual information on the "Read/Write" Web coupled with the increasing demand for ontologies to power the Semantic Web have made (semi-)automatic ontology learning from text a very promising research area. This together with the advanced state in related areas such as natural language processing have fuelled research into ontology learning over the past decade. This survey looks at how far we have come since the turn of the millennium, and discusses the remaining challenges that will define the research directions in this area in the near future.
    Content
    Pre-publication version für: ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. X, No. X, Article X, Publication date: X 2011.
  8. Tomassen, S.L.: Research on ontology-driven information retrieval (2006 (?)) 0.06
    0.057516333 = product of:
      0.115032665 = sum of:
        0.019136423 = weight(_text_:for in 4328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019136423 = score(doc=4328,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.21557912 = fieldWeight in 4328, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4328)
        0.095896244 = weight(_text_:computing in 4328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095896244 = score(doc=4328,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.36668807 = fieldWeight in 4328, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4328)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    An increasing number of recent information retrieval systems make use of ontologies to help the users clarify their information needs and come up with semantic representations of documents. A particular concern here is the integration of these semantic approaches with traditional search technology. The research presented in this paper examines how ontologies can be efficiently applied to large-scale search systems for the web. We describe how these systems can be enriched with adapted ontologies to provide both an in-depth understanding of the user's needs as well as an easy integration with standard vector-space retrieval systems. The ontology concepts are adapted to the domain terminology by computing a feature vector for each concept. Later, the feature vectors are used to enrich a provided query. The whole retrieval system is under development as part of a larger Semantic Web standardization project for the Norwegian oil & gas sector.
  9. Andreas, H.: On frames and theory-elements of structuralism (2014) 0.05
    0.04916378 = product of:
      0.09832756 = sum of:
        0.01841403 = weight(_text_:for in 3402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01841403 = score(doc=3402,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.20744109 = fieldWeight in 3402, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3402)
        0.079913534 = weight(_text_:computing in 3402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079913534 = score(doc=3402,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.3055734 = fieldWeight in 3402, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3402)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    There are quite a few success stories illustrating philosophy's relevance to information science. One can cite, for example, Leibniz's work on a characteristica universalis and a corresponding calculus ratiocinator through which he aspired to reduce reasoning to calculating. It goes without saying that formal logic initiated research on decidability and computational complexity. But even beyond the realm of formal logic, philosophy has served as a source of inspiration for developments in information and computer science. At the end of the twentieth century, formal ontology emerged from a quest for a semantic foundation of information systems having a higher reusability than systems being available at the time. A success story that is less well documented is the advent of frame systems in computer science. Minsky is credited with having laid out the foundational ideas of such systems. There, the logic programming approach to knowledge representation is criticized by arguing that one should be more careful about the way human beings recognize objects and situations. Notably, the paper draws heavily on the writings of Kuhn and the Gestalt-theorists. It is not our intent, however, to document the traces of the frame idea in the works of philosophers. What follows is, rather, an exposition of a methodology for representing scientific knowledge that is essentially frame-like. This methodology is labelled as structuralist theory of science or, in short, as structuralism. The frame-like character of its basic meta-theoretical concepts makes structuralism likely to be useful in knowledge representation.
    Source
    Philosophy, computing and information science. Eds.: R. Hagengruber u. U.V. Riss
  10. Jansen, L.: Four rules for classifying social entities (2014) 0.05
    0.04916378 = product of:
      0.09832756 = sum of:
        0.01841403 = weight(_text_:for in 3409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01841403 = score(doc=3409,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.20744109 = fieldWeight in 3409, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3409)
        0.079913534 = weight(_text_:computing in 3409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079913534 = score(doc=3409,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.3055734 = fieldWeight in 3409, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3409)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Many top-level ontologies like Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) have been developed as a framework for ontologies in the natural sciences. The aim of the present essay is to extend the account of BFO to a very special layer of reality, the world of social entities. While natural entities like bacteria, thunderstorms or temperatures exist independently from human action and thought, social entities like countries, hospitals or money come into being only through human collective intentions and collective actions. Recently, the regional ontology of the social world has attracted considerable research interest in philosophy - witness, e.g., the pioneering work by Gilbert, Tuomela and Searle. There is a considerable class of phenomena that require the participation of more than one human agent: nobody can tango alone, play tennis against oneself, or set up a parliamentary democracy for oneself. Through cooperation and coordination of their wills and actions, agents can act together - they can perform social actions and group actions. An important kind of social action is the establishment of an institution (e.g. a hospital, a research agency or a marriage) through mutual promise or (social) contract. Another important kind of social action is the imposition of a social status on certain entities. For example, a society can impose the status of being a 20 Euro note on certain pieces of paper or the status of being an approved medication to a certain chemical substance.
    Source
    Philosophy, computing and information science. Eds.: R. Hagengruber u. U.V. Riss
  11. Saab, D.J.; Fonseca, F.: Ontological complexity and human culture (2014) 0.05
    0.047930278 = product of:
      0.095860556 = sum of:
        0.01594702 = weight(_text_:for in 3405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01594702 = score(doc=3405,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.17964928 = fieldWeight in 3405, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3405)
        0.079913534 = weight(_text_:computing in 3405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079913534 = score(doc=3405,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.3055734 = fieldWeight in 3405, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3405)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    The explosion of the infosphere has led to a proliferation of metadata and formal ontology artefacts for information systems. Information scientists are creating ontologies and metadata in order to facilitate the sharing of meaningful information rather than similarly structured information. Formal ontologies are a complex form of metadata that specify the underlying concepts and their relationships that comprise the information of and for an information system. The most common understanding of ontology in computer and information sciences is Gruber's specification of a conceptualization. However, formal ontologies are problematic in that they simultaneously crystallize and decontextualize information, which in order to be meaningful must be adaptive in context. In trying to construct a correct taxonomical system, formal ontologies are focused on syntactic precision rather than meaningful exchange of information. Smith describes accurately the motivation and practice of ontology creation: It becomes a theory of the ontological content of certain representations . The elicited principles may or may not be true, but this, to the practitioner . is of no concern, since the significance of these principles lies elsewhere - for instance in yielding a correct account of the taxonomical system used by speakers of a given language or by scientists working in a given discipline. It is not fair to claim that syntax is irrelevant, but the meaning we make of information is dependent upon more than its syntactic structure.
    Source
    Philosophy, computing and information science. Eds.: R. Hagengruber u. U.V. Riss
  12. Schutz, A.; Buitelaar, P.: RelExt: a tool for relation extraction from text in ontology extension (2005) 0.05
    0.04646711 = product of:
      0.09293422 = sum of:
        0.013020686 = weight(_text_:for in 1078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013020686 = score(doc=1078,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.14668301 = fieldWeight in 1078, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1078)
        0.079913534 = weight(_text_:computing in 1078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079913534 = score(doc=1078,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.3055734 = fieldWeight in 1078, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1078)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Domain ontologies very rarely model verbs as relations holding between concepts. However, the role of the verb as a central connecting element between concepts is undeniable. Verbs specify the interaction between the participants of some action or event by expressing relations between them. In parallel, it can be argued from an ontology engineering point of view that verbs express a relation between two classes that specify domain and range. The work described here is concerned with relation extraction for ontology extension along these lines. We describe a system (RelExt) that is capable of automatically identifying highly relevant triples (pairs of concepts connected by a relation) over concepts from an existing ontology. RelExt works by extracting relevant verbs and their grammatical arguments (i.e. terms) from a domain-specific text collection and computing corresponding relations through a combination of linguistic and statistical processing. The paper includes a detailed description of the system architecture and evaluation results on a constructed benchmark. RelExt has been developed in the context of the SmartWeb project, which aims at providing intelligent information services via mobile broadband devices on the FIFA World Cup that will be hosted in Germany in 2006. Such services include location based navigational information as well as question answering in the football domain.
  13. Mainzer, K.: ¬The emergence of self-conscious systems : from symbolic AI to embodied robotics (2014) 0.05
    0.04646711 = product of:
      0.09293422 = sum of:
        0.013020686 = weight(_text_:for in 3398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013020686 = score(doc=3398,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.14668301 = fieldWeight in 3398, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3398)
        0.079913534 = weight(_text_:computing in 3398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079913534 = score(doc=3398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.3055734 = fieldWeight in 3398, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3398)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Knowledge representation, which is today used in database applications, artificial intelligence (AI), software engineering and many other disciplines of computer science has deep roots in logic and philosophy. In the beginning, there was Aristotle (384 bc-322 bc) who developed logic as a precise method for reasoning about knowledge. Syllogisms were introduced as formal patterns for representing special figures of logical deductions. According to Aristotle, the subject of ontology is the study of categories of things that exist or may exist in some domain. In modern times, Descartes considered the human brain as a store of knowledge representation. Recognition was made possible by an isomorphic correspondence between internal geometrical representations (ideae) and external situations and events. Leibniz was deeply influenced by these traditions. In his mathesis universalis, he required a universal formal language (lingua universalis) to represent human thinking by calculation procedures and to implement them by means of mechanical calculating machines. An ars iudicandi should allow every problem to be decided by an algorithm after representation in numeric symbols. An ars iveniendi should enable users to seek and enumerate desired data and solutions of problems. In the age of mechanics, knowledge representation was reduced to mechanical calculation procedures. In the twentieth century, computational cognitivism arose in the wake of Turing's theory of computability. In its functionalism, the hardware of a computer is related to the wetware of the human brain. The mind is understood as the software of a computer.
    Source
    Philosophy, computing and information science. Eds.: R. Hagengruber u. U.V. Riss
  14. Smith, B.: ¬The relevance of philosophical ontology to information and computer science (2014) 0.05
    0.04646711 = product of:
      0.09293422 = sum of:
        0.013020686 = weight(_text_:for in 3400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013020686 = score(doc=3400,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.14668301 = fieldWeight in 3400, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3400)
        0.079913534 = weight(_text_:computing in 3400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079913534 = score(doc=3400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.3055734 = fieldWeight in 3400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3400)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Ontology as a branch of philosophy is the science of what is, of the kinds and structures of objects, properties, events, processes and relations in every area of reality. The earliest use of the term 'ontology' (or 'ontologia') seems to have been in 1606 in the book Ogdoas Scholastica by the German Protestant scholastic Jacob Lorhard. For Lorhard, as for many subsequent philosophers, 'ontology' is a synonym of 'metaphysics' (a label meaning literally: 'what comes after the Physics'), a term used by early students of Aristotle to refer to what Aristotle himself called 'first philosophy'. Some philosophers use 'ontology' and 'metaphysics' to refer to two distinct, though interrelated, disciplines, the former to refer to the study of what might exist; the latter to the study of which of the various alternative possible ontologies is in fact true of reality. The term - and the philosophical discipline of ontology - has enjoyed a chequered history since 1606, with a significant expansion, and consolidation, in recent decades. We shall not discuss here the successive rises and falls in philosophical acceptance of the term, but rather focus on certain phases in the history of recent philosophy which are most relevant to the consideration of its recent advance, and increased acceptance, also outside the discipline of philosophy.
    Source
    Philosophy, computing and information science. Eds.: R. Hagengruber u. U.V. Riss
  15. 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) 0.05
    0.045357857 = product of:
      0.090715714 = sum of:
        0.07509089 = product of:
          0.22527267 = sum of:
            0.22527267 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.22527267 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.40082818 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047278564 = 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)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
        0.015624823 = weight(_text_:for in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015624823 = score(doc=400,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.17601961 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Content
    Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.
    Imprint
    Association for Computational Linguistic : Stroudsburg, PA
    Source
    Graph-Based Methods for Natural Language Processing - proceedings of the Thirteenth Workshop (TextGraphs-13): November 4, 2019, Hong Kong : EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019. Ed.: Dmitry Ustalov
  16. Kohne, J.: Ontology, its origins and its meaning in information icience (2014) 0.04
    0.044560276 = product of:
      0.08912055 = sum of:
        0.009207015 = weight(_text_:for in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009207015 = score(doc=3401,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.103720546 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
        0.079913534 = weight(_text_:computing in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079913534 = score(doc=3401,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.3055734 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Ontology - in Aristotelian terms the science of being qua being - as a classical branch of philosophy describes the foundations of being in general. In this context, ontology is general metaphysics: the science of everything. Pursuing ontology means establishing some systematic order among the being, i.e. dividing things into categories or conceptual frameworks. Explaining the reasons why there are things or even anything, however, is part of what is called special metaphysics (theology, cosmology and psychology). If putting things into categories is the key issue of ontology, then general structures are its main level of analysis. To categorize things is to put them into a structural order. Such categorization of things enables one to understand what reality is about. If this is true, and characterizing the general structures of being is a reasonable access for us to reality, then two kinds of analysis of those structures are available: (i) realism and (ii) nominalism. In a realist (Aristotelian) ontology the general structures of being are understood as a kind of mirror reflecting things in their natural order. Those categories, as they are called in realism, then represent or show the structure of being. Ontological realism understands the relation between categories and being as a kind of correspondence or mapping which gives access to reality itself.
    Source
    Philosophy, computing and information science. Eds.: R. Hagengruber u. U.V. Riss
  17. Stojanovic, N.: Ontology-based Information Retrieval : methods and tools for cooperative query answering (2005) 0.03
    0.034774087 = product of:
      0.069548175 = sum of:
        0.050060596 = product of:
          0.15018179 = sum of:
            0.15018179 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.15018179 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.40082818 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047278564 = 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)
        0.019487578 = weight(_text_:for in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019487578 = score(doc=701,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.21953502 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    By the explosion of possibilities for a ubiquitous content production, the information overload problem reaches the level of complexity which cannot be managed by traditional modelling approaches anymore. Due to their pure syntactical nature traditional information retrieval approaches did not succeed in treating content itself (i.e. its meaning, and not its representation). This leads to a very low usefulness of the results of a retrieval process for a user's task at hand. In the last ten years ontologies have been emerged from an interesting conceptualisation paradigm to a very promising (semantic) modelling technology, especially in the context of the Semantic Web. From the information retrieval point of view, ontologies enable a machine-understandable form of content description, such that the retrieval process can be driven by the meaning of the content. However, the very ambiguous nature of the retrieval process in which a user, due to the unfamiliarity with the underlying repository and/or query syntax, just approximates his information need in a query, implies a necessity to include the user in the retrieval process more actively in order to close the gap between the meaning of the content and the meaning of a user's query (i.e. his information need). This thesis lays foundation for such an ontology-based interactive retrieval process, in which the retrieval system interacts with a user in order to conceptually interpret the meaning of his query, whereas the underlying domain ontology drives the conceptualisation process. In that way the retrieval process evolves from a query evaluation process into a highly interactive cooperation between a user and the retrieval system, in which the system tries to anticipate the user's information need and to deliver the relevant content proactively. Moreover, the notion of content relevance for a user's query evolves from a content dependent artefact to the multidimensional context-dependent structure, strongly influenced by the user's preferences. This cooperation process is realized as the so-called Librarian Agent Query Refinement Process. In order to clarify the impact of an ontology on the retrieval process (regarding its complexity and quality), a set of methods and tools for different levels of content and query formalisation is developed, ranging from pure ontology-based inferencing to keyword-based querying in which semantics automatically emerges from the results. Our evaluation studies have shown that the possibilities to conceptualize a user's information need in the right manner and to interpret the retrieval results accordingly are key issues for realizing much more meaningful information retrieval systems.
    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.
  18. Developments in applied artificial intelligence : proceedings / 16th International Conference on Industrial and Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems, IEA/AIE 2003, Loughborough, UK, June 23 - 26, 2003 (2003) 0.03
    0.034603577 = product of:
      0.13841431 = sum of:
        0.13841431 = weight(_text_:computing in 441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13841431 = score(doc=441,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.5292687 = fieldWeight in 441, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=441)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Industrial and Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems, IEA/AIE 2003, held in Loughborough, UK in June 2003. The 81 revised full papers presented were carefully reviewed and selected from more than 140 submissions. Among the topics addressed are soft computing, fuzzy logic, diagnosis, knowledge representation, knowledge management, automated reasoning, machine learning, planning and scheduling, evolutionary computation, computer vision, agent systems, algorithmic learning, tutoring systems, financial analysis, etc.
    RSWK
    Soft Computing / Kongress / Loughborough <2003>
    Subject
    Soft Computing / Kongress / Loughborough <2003>
  19. Xiong, C.: Knowledge based text representations for information retrieval (2016) 0.03
    0.033265304 = product of:
      0.06653061 = sum of:
        0.050060596 = product of:
          0.15018179 = sum of:
            0.15018179 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.15018179 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.40082818 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047278564 = 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)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
        0.01647001 = weight(_text_:for in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01647001 = score(doc=5820,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.18554096 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    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.
  20. ¬The Semantic Web - ISWC 2010 : 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, Shanghai, China, November 7-11, 2010, Revised Selected Papers, Part 2. (2010) 0.03
    0.028253702 = product of:
      0.11301481 = sum of:
        0.11301481 = weight(_text_:computing in 4706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11301481 = score(doc=4706,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.43214604 = fieldWeight in 4706, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4706)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The two-volume set LNCS 6496 and 6497 constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, held in Shanghai, China, during November 7-11, 2010. Part I contains 51 papers out of 578 submissions to the research track. Part II contains 18 papers out of 66 submissions to the semantic Web in-use track, 6 papers out of 26 submissions to the doctoral consortium track, and also 4 invited talks. Each submitted paper were carefully reviewed. The International Semantic Web Conferences (ISWC) constitute the major international venue where the latest research results and technical innovations on all aspects of the Semantic Web are presented. ISWC brings together researchers, practitioners, and users from the areas of artificial intelligence, databases, social networks, distributed computing, Web engineering, information systems, natural language processing, soft computing, and human computer interaction to discuss the major challenges and proposed solutions, the success stories and failures, as well the visions that can advance research and drive innovation in the Semantic Web.

Years

Languages

  • e 397
  • d 15
  • pt 3
  • f 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 313
  • el 117
  • m 25
  • x 17
  • n 12
  • s 12
  • p 4
  • r 3
  • A 1
  • EL 1
  • More… Less…

Subjects

Classifications