Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.031358406 = product of:
  0.06271681 = sum of:
    0.042461623 = weight(_text_:et in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042461623 = score(doc=2799,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
    0.020255188 = product of:
      0.040510375 = sum of:
        0.040510375 = weight(_text_:al in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040510375 = score(doc=2799,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043643 = queryNorm
            0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Grounded on a strong belief that ontologies enhance the performance of information retrieval systems, there has been an upsurge of interest in ontologies. Its importance is identified in diverse research fields such as knowledge engineering, knowledge representation, qualitative modeling, language engineering, database design, information integration, object-oriented analysis, information retrieval and extraction, knowledge management and agent-based systems design (Guarino, 1998). While the role-played by ontologies, automatically lends a place of legitimacy for these tools, research in this area gains greater significance in the wake of various challenges faced in the contemporary digital environment. With the objective of overcoming various pitfalls associated with current search mechanisms, ontologies are increasingly used for developing efficient information retrieval systems. An indicator of research interest in the area of ontology is the Swoogle, a search engine for Semantic Web documents, terms and data found on the Web (Ding, Li et al, 2004). Given the complex nature of the digital content archived in digital libraries, ontologies can be employed for designing efficient forms of information retrieval in digital libraries. Knowledge representation assumes greater significance due to its crucial role in ontology development. These systems aid in developing intelligent information systems, wherein the notion of intelligence implies the ability of the system to find implicit consequences of its explicitly represented knowledge (Baader and Nutt, 2003). Knowledge representation formalisms such as 'Description Logics' are used to obtain explicit knowledge representation of the subject domain. These representations are developed into ontologies, which are used for developing intelligent information systems. Against this backdrop, the paper examines the use of Description Logics for conceptually modeling a chosen domain, which would be utilized for developing domain ontologies. The knowledge representation languages identified for this purpose are Web Ontology Language (OWL) and KArlsruhe ONtology (KAON) language. Drawing upon the various technical constructs in developing ontology-based information systems, the paper explains the working of the prototypes and also presents a comparative study of the two prototypes.

0.017387636 = product of:
  0.034775272 = sum of:
    0.022949224 = weight(_text_:c in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022949224 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
    0.011826049 = product of:
      0.023652097 = sum of:
        0.023652097 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023652097 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043643 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The BAER Web Resources Group was charged in October 1999 with defining and describing the parameters of electronic resources that do not clearly belong to the categories being defined by the BAER Digital Group or the BAER Electronic Journals Group. After some difficulty identifying precisely which resources fell under the Group's charge, we finally named the following types of resources for our consideration: web sites, electronic texts, indexes, databases and abstracts, online reference resources, and networked and non-networked CD-ROMs. Electronic resources are a vast and growing collection that touch nearly every department within the Library. It is unrealistic to think one department can effectively administer all aspects of the collection. The Group then began to focus on the concern of bibliographic access to these varied resources, and to define parameters for handling or processing them within the Library. Some key elements became evident as the work progressed. * Selection process of resources to be acquired for the collection * Duplication of effort * Use of CORC * Resource Finder design * Maintenance of Resource Finder * CD-ROMs not networked * Communications * Voyager search limitations. An unexpected collaboration with the Web Development Committee on the Resource Finder helped to steer the Group to more detailed descriptions of bibliographic access. This collaboration included development of data elements for the Resource Finder database, and some discussions on Library staff processing of the resources. The Web Resources Group invited expert testimony to help the Group broaden its view to envision public use of the resources and discuss concerns related to technical services processing. The first testimony came from members of the Resource Finder Committee. Some background information on the Web Development Resource Finder Committee was shared. The second testimony was from librarians who select electronic texts. Three main themes were addressed: accessing CD-ROMs; the issue of including non-networked CD-ROMs in the Resource Finder; and, some special concerns about electronic texts. The third testimony came from librarians who select indexes and abstracts and also provide Reference services. Appendices to this report include minutes of the meetings with the experts (Appendix A), a list of proposed data elements to be used in the Resource Finder (Appendix B), and recommendations made to the Resource Finder Committee (Appendix C). Below are summaries of the key elements.

Date

21. 4.2002 10:22:31

0.011474612 = product of:
  0.04589845 = sum of:
    0.04589845 = weight(_text_:c in 1233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04589845 = score(doc=1233,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.3048872 = fieldWeight in 1233, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1233)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.00860596 = product of:
  0.03442384 = sum of:
    0.03442384 = weight(_text_:c in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03442384 = score(doc=2526,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 2526, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2526)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.00860596 = product of:
  0.03442384 = sum of:
    0.03442384 = weight(_text_:c in 3967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03442384 = score(doc=3967,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 3967, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3967)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.00860596 = product of:
  0.03442384 = sum of:
    0.03442384 = weight(_text_:c in 2173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03442384 = score(doc=2173,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 2173, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2173)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0071716327 = product of:
  0.02868653 = sum of:
    0.02868653 = weight(_text_:c in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02868653 = score(doc=3368,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 3368, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3368)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.005737306 = product of:
  0.022949224 = sum of:
    0.022949224 = weight(_text_:c in 1205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022949224 = score(doc=1205,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 1205, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1205)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0050201425 = product of:
  0.02008057 = sum of:
    0.02008057 = weight(_text_:c in 1260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02008057 = score(doc=1260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043643 = queryNorm
        0.13338815 = fieldWeight in 1260, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1260)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.004434768 = product of:
  0.017739072 = sum of:
    0.017739072 = product of:
      0.035478145 = sum of:
        0.035478145 = weight(_text_:22 in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035478145 = score(doc=4189,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4189, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:35:09