Search (266 results, page 1 of 14)

0.16574462 = product of:
  0.20718077 = sum of:
    0.15182401 = weight(_text_:section in 1541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15182401 = score(doc=1541,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.57716006 = fieldWeight in 1541, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1541)
    0.02637536 = weight(_text_:on in 1541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02637536 = score(doc=1541,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 1541, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1541)
    0.011881187 = weight(_text_:information in 1541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011881187 = score(doc=1541,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1541, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1541)
    0.017100206 = product of:
      0.03420041 = sum of:
        0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 1541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03420041 = score(doc=1541,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 1541, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1541)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)

Abstract

The next major advance in the Web-Web 3.0-will be built on semantic Web technologies, which will allow data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries. Written by a team of highly experienced Web developers, this book explains examines how this powerful new technology can unify and fully leverage the ever-growing data, information, and services that are available on the Internet. Helpful examples demonstrate how to use the semantic Web to solve practical, real-world problems while you take a look at the set of design principles, collaborative working groups, and technologies that form the semantic Web. The companion Web site features full code, as well as a reference section, a FAQ section, a discussion forum, and a semantic blog.

0.13087691 = product of:
  0.21812819 = sum of:
    0.1878335 = weight(_text_:section in 4403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1878335 = score(doc=4403,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.7140504 = fieldWeight in 4403, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4403)
    0.013321568 = weight(_text_:on in 4403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013321568 = score(doc=4403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 4403, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4403)
    0.016973123 = weight(_text_:information in 4403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016973123 = score(doc=4403,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 4403, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4403)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The resource description framework (RDF) is a W3C recommendation for the formulation of meta-data on the World Wide Web. RDF Schema (RDFS) extends this standard with the means to specify domain vocabulary and object structures. These techniques will enable the enrichment of the Web with machine-processable semantics, thus giving rise to what has been dubbed the Semantic Web. We have developed Sesame, an architecture for storage and querying of RDF and RDFS information. Sesame allows persistent storage of RDF data and schema information, and provides access methods to that information through export and querying modules. It features ways of caching information and offers support for concurrency control. This chapter is organized as follows: In Section 5.2 we discuss why a query language specifically tailored to RDF and RDFS is needed, over and above existing query languages such as XQuery. In Section 5.3 we look at Sesame's modular architecture in some detail. In Section 5.4 we give an overview of the SAIL API and a brief comparison to other RDF API approaches. Section 5.5 discusses our experiences with Sesame to date, and Section 5.6 looks into possible future developments. Finally, we provide our conclusions in Section 5.7.

0.12458849 = product of:
  0.15573561 = sum of:
    0.10844573 = weight(_text_:section in 2022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10844573 = score(doc=2022,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.4122572 = fieldWeight in 2022, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2022)
    0.023073634 = weight(_text_:on in 2022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023073634 = score(doc=2022,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 2022, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2022)
    0.012001811 = weight(_text_:information in 2022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012001811 = score(doc=2022,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2022, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2022)
    0.012214432 = product of:
      0.024428863 = sum of:
        0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 2022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024428863 = score(doc=2022,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2022, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2022)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)

Abstract

Logic and precision are fundamental to ontologies underlying the semantic web and, by extension, to linked data. This special section focuses on the interaction of semantics, ontologies and linked data. The discussion presents the Simple Knowledge Organization Scheme (SKOS) as a less formal strategy for expressing concept hierarchies and associations and questions the value of deep domain ontologies in favor of simpler vocabularies that are more open to reuse, albeit risking illogical outcomes. RDF ontologies harbor another unexpected drawback. While structurally sound, they leave validation gaps permitting illogical uses, a problem being addressed by a W3C Working Group. Data models based on RDF graphs and properties may replace traditional library catalog models geared to predefined entities, with relationships between RDF classes providing the semantic connections. The BIBFRAME Initiative takes a different and streamlined approach to linking data, building rich networks of information resources rather than relying on a strict underlying structure and vocabulary. Taken together, the articles illustrate the trend toward a pragmatic approach to a Semantic Web, sacrificing some specificity for greater flexibility and partial interoperability.

Footnote

Introduction to a special section "Linked data and the charm of weak semantics".

Source

Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 41(2015) no.4, S.10-12

0.10322505 = product of:
  0.17204174 = sum of:
    0.092019245 = weight(_text_:section in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092019245 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.34981182 = fieldWeight in 2024, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2024)
    0.0101838745 = weight(_text_:information in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0101838745 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2024, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2024)
    0.06983863 = sum of:
      0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029314637 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2024, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2024)
      0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040523995 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2024, 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=2024)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Footnote

Contribution to a special section "Linked data and the charm of weak semantics".

Source

Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 41(2015) no.4, S.18-22

0.089287184 = product of:
  0.11160898 = sum of:
    0.075912006 = weight(_text_:section in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075912006 = score(doc=4409,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.28858003 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
    0.009325097 = weight(_text_:on in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009325097 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.08505116 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
    0.01782178 = weight(_text_:information in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01782178 = score(doc=4409,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20365247 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
    0.008550103 = product of:
      0.017100206 = sum of:
        0.017100206 = weight(_text_:technology in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017100206 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.115173936 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)

Abstract

We saw in the introduction how the Semantic Web makes possible a new generation of knowledge management tools. We now turn our attention more specifically to Semantic Web based support for virtual communities of practice. The notion of communities of practice has attracted much attention in the field of knowledge management. Communities of practice are groups within (or sometimes across) organizations who share a common set of information needs or problems. They are typically not a formal organizational unit but an informal network, each sharing in part a common agenda and shared interests or issues. In one example it was found that a lot of knowledge sharing among copier engineers took place through informal exchanges, often around a water cooler. As well as local, geographically based communities, trends towards flexible working and globalisation have led to interest in supporting dispersed communities using Internet technology. The challenge for organizations is to support such communities and make them effective. Provided with an ontology meeting the needs of a particular community of practice, knowledge management tools can arrange knowledge assets into the predefined conceptual classes of the ontology, allowing more natural and intuitive access to knowledge. Knowledge management tools must give users the ability to organize information into a controllable asset. Building an intranet-based store of information is not sufficient for knowledge management; the relationships within the stored information are vital. These relationships cover such diverse issues as relative importance, context, sequence, significance, causality and association. The potential for knowledge management tools is vast; not only can they make better use of the raw information already available, but they can sift, abstract and help to share new information, and present it to users in new and compelling ways.
In this chapter, we describe the OntoShare system which facilitates and encourages the sharing of information between communities of practice within (or perhaps across) organizations and which encourages people - who may not previously have known of each other's existence in a large organization - to make contact where there are mutual concerns or interests. As users contribute information to the community, a knowledge resource annotated with meta-data is created. Ontologies defined using the resource description framework (RDF) and RDF Schema (RDFS) are used in this process. RDF is a W3C recommendation for the formulation of meta-data for WWW resources. RDF(S) extends this standard with the means to specify domain vocabulary and object structures - that is, concepts and the relationships that hold between them. In the next section, we describe in detail the way in which OntoShare can be used to share and retrieve knowledge and how that knowledge is represented in an RDF-based ontology. We then proceed to discuss in Section 10.3 how the ontologies in OntoShare evolve over time based on user interaction with the system and motivate our approach to user-based creation of RDF-annotated information resources. The way in which OntoShare can help to locate expertise within an organization is then described, followed by a discussion of the sociotechnical issues of deploying such a tool. Finally, a planned evaluation exercise and avenues for further research are outlined.

0.08856422 = product of:
  0.11070527 = sum of:
    0.07668271 = weight(_text_:section in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07668271 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29150987 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
    0.013321568 = weight(_text_:on in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013321568 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
    0.0084865615 = weight(_text_:information in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0084865615 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
    0.012214432 = product of:
      0.024428863 = sum of:
        0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024428863 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)

Abstract

Libraries, archives and museums rely on structured schemas and vocabularies to indicate classes in which a resource may belong. In the context of linked data, key organizational components are the RDF data model, element schemas and value vocabularies, with simple ontologies having minimally defined classes and properties in order to facilitate reuse and interoperability. Simplicity over formal semantics is a tenet of the open-world assumption underlying ontology languages central to the Semantic Web, but the result is a lack of constraints, data quality checks and validation capacity. Inconsistent use of vocabularies and ontologies that do not follow formal semantics rules and logical concept hierarchies further complicate the use of Semantic Web technologies. The Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) helps make existing value vocabularies available in the linked data environment, but it exchanges precision for simplicity. Incompatibilities between simple organized vocabularies, Resource Description Framework Schemas and OWL ontologies and even basic notions of subjects and concepts prevent smooth translations and challenge the conversion of cultural institutions' unique legacy vocabularies for linked data. Adopting the linked data vision requires accepting loose semantic interpretations. To avoid semantic inconsistencies and illogical results, cultural organizations following the linked data path must be careful to choose the level of semantics that best suits their domain and needs.

Footnote

Contribution to a special section "Linked data and the charm of weak semantics".

Source

Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 41(2015) no.4, S.34-39

0.08180231 = product of:
  0.13633718 = sum of:
    0.10735579 = weight(_text_:section in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10735579 = score(doc=3293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.40811378 = fieldWeight in 3293, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3293)
    0.011881187 = weight(_text_:information in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011881187 = score(doc=3293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3293, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3293)
    0.017100206 = product of:
      0.03420041 = sum of:
        0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03420041 = score(doc=3293,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 3293, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3293)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Footnote

Contribution to a special section "Linked data and the charm of weak semantics".

Source

Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 41(2015) no.4, S.13-17

0.07539761 = product of:
  0.12566268 = sum of:
    0.03230309 = weight(_text_:on in 1026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230309 = score(doc=1026,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 1026, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1026)
    0.011881187 = weight(_text_:information in 1026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011881187 = score(doc=1026,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1026, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1026)
    0.08147841 = sum of:
      0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 1026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03420041 = score(doc=1026,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 1026, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1026)
      0.047278 = weight(_text_:22 in 1026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047278 = score(doc=1026,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

We have created software applications that allow users to both author and use Semantic Web metadata. To create and use a layer of semantic content on top of the existing Web, we have (1) implemented a user interface that expedites the task of attributing metadata to resources on the Web, and (2) augmented a Web browser to leverage this semantic metadata to provide relevant information and tasks to the user. This project provides a framework for annotating and reorganizing existing files, pages, and sites on the Web that is similar to Vannevar Bushrsquos original concepts of trail blazing and associative indexing.

Source

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

0.07486399 = product of:
  0.09357999 = sum of:
    0.052783445 = product of:
      0.15835033 = sum of:
        0.15835033 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15835033 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42262965 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = 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)
    0.010657255 = weight(_text_:on in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010657255 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.097201325 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
    0.020367747 = weight(_text_:information in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020367747 = score(doc=701,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.23274568 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
    0.009771545 = product of:
      0.01954309 = sum of:
        0.01954309 = weight(_text_:technology in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01954309 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)

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.

0.070913404 = product of:
  0.11818901 = sum of:
    0.092019245 = weight(_text_:section in 5995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092019245 = score(doc=5995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.34981182 = fieldWeight in 5995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5995)
    0.015985882 = weight(_text_:on in 5995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015985882 = score(doc=5995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 5995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5995)
    0.0101838745 = weight(_text_:information in 5995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0101838745 = score(doc=5995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5995)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The first section of "Semantic Web and Education" surveys the basic aspects and features of the Semantic Web. After this basic review, the book turns its focus to its primary topic of how Semantic Web developments can be used to build attractive and more successful education applications. The book analytically discusses the technical areas of architecture, metadata, learning objects, software engineering trends, and more. Integrated with these technical topics are the examinations of learning-oriented topics such as learner modeling, collaborative learning, learning management, learning communities, ontological engineering of web-based learning, and related topics. The result is a thorough and highly useful presentation on the confluence of the technical aspects of the Semantic Web and the field of Education or the art of teaching. The book will be of considerable interest to researchers and students in the fields Information Systems, Computer Science, and Education.

0.061577972 = product of:
  0.10262995 = sum of:
    0.022607451 = weight(_text_:on in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022607451 = score(doc=2556,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
    0.0101838745 = weight(_text_:information in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0101838745 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
    0.06983863 = sum of:
      0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029314637 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
      0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040523995 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2556, 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=2556)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

First generation scholarly research on the Web lacked a firm system of authority control. Second generation Web research is beginning to model subject access with library science principles of bibliographic control and cataloguing. Harnessing the Web and organising the intellectual content with standards and controlled vocabulary provides precise search and retrieval capability, increasing relevance and efficient use of technology. Dublin Core metadata standards permit a full evaluation and cataloguing of Web resources appropriate to highly specific research needs and discovery. Current research points to a type of structure based on a system of faceted classification. This system allows the semantic and syntactic relationships to be defined. Controlled vocabulary, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings, can be assigned, not in a hierarchical structure, but rather as descriptive facets of relating concepts. Web design features such as this are adding value to discovery and filtering out data that lack authority. The system design allows for scalability and extensibility, two technical features that are integral to future development of the digital library and resource discovery.

Date

30.12.2008 18:22:46

Source

Online information review. 27(2003) no.2, S.94-101

0.05828912 = product of:
  0.0728614 = sum of:
    0.038341355 = weight(_text_:section in 468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038341355 = score(doc=468,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.14575493 = fieldWeight in 468, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=468)
    0.02106325 = weight(_text_:on in 468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02106325 = score(doc=468,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19211099 = fieldWeight in 468, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=468)
    0.0073495787 = weight(_text_:information in 468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0073495787 = score(doc=468,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.083984874 = fieldWeight in 468, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=468)
    0.006107216 = product of:
      0.012214432 = sum of:
        0.012214432 = weight(_text_:technology in 468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012214432 = score(doc=468,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.08226709 = fieldWeight in 468, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=468)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)

Abstract

The development of the Semantic Web, with machine-readable content, has the potential to revolutionise the World Wide Web and its use. A Semantic Web Primer provides an introduction and guide to this emerging field, describing its key ideas, languages and technologies. Suitable for use as a textbook or for self-study by professionals, it concentrates on undergraduate-level fundamental concepts and techniques that will enable readers to proceed with building applications on their own. It includes exercises, project descriptions and annotated references to relevant online materials. A Semantic Web Primer is the only available book on the Semantic Web to include a systematic treatment of the different languages (XML, RDF, OWL and rules) and technologies (explicit metadata, ontologies and logic and interference) that are central to Semantic Web development. The book also examines such crucial related topics as ontology engineering and application scenarios. After an introductory chapter, topics covered in succeeding chapters include XML and related technologies that support semantic interoperability; RDF and RDF Schema, the standard data model for machine-processable semantics; and OWL, the W3C-approved standard for a Web ontology language more extensive than RDF Schema; rules, both monotonic and nonmonotonic, in the framework of the Semantic Web; selected application domains and how the Semantic Web would benefit them; the development of ontology-based systems; and current debates on key issues and predictions for the future.

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 57(2006) no.8, S.1132-1133 (H. Che): "The World Wide Web has been the main source of an important shift in the way people communicate with each other, get information, and conduct business. However, most of the current Web content is only suitable for human consumption. The main obstacle to providing better quality of service is that the meaning of Web content is not machine-accessible. The "Semantic Web" is envisioned by Tim Berners-Lee as a logical extension to the current Web that enables explicit representations of term meaning. It aims to bring the Web to its full potential via the exploration of these machine-processable metadata. To fulfill this, it pros ides some meta languages like RDF, OWL, DAML+OIL, and SHOE for expressing knowledge that has clear, unambiguous meanings. The first steps in searing the Semantic Web into the current Web are successfully underway. In the forthcoming years, these efforts still remain highly focused in the research and development community. In the next phase, the Semantic Web will respond more intelligently to user queries. The first chapter gets started with an excellent introduction to the Semantic Web vision. At first, today's Web is introduced, and problems with some current applications like search engines are also covered. Subsequently, knowledge management. business-to-consumer electronic commerce, business-to-business electronic commerce, and personal agents are used as examples to show the potential requirements for the Semantic Web. Next comes the brief description of the underpinning technologies, including metadata, ontology, logic, and agent. The differences between the Semantic Web and Artificial Intelligence are also discussed in a later subsection. In section 1.4, the famous "laser-cake" diagram is given to show a layered view of the Semantic Web. From chapter 2, the book starts addressing some of the most important technologies for constructing the Semantic Web. In chapter 2, the authors discuss XML and its related technologies such as namespaces, XPath, and XSLT. XML is a simple, very flexible text format which is often used for the exchange of a wide variety of data on the Web and elsewhere. The W3C has defined various languages on top of XML, such as RDF. Although this chapter is very well planned and written, many details are not included because of the extensiveness of the XML technologies. Many other books on XML provide more comprehensive coverage.
The next chapter introduces resource description framework (RDF) and RDF schema (RDFS). Unlike XML, RDF provides a foundation for expressing the semantics of dada: it is a standard dada model for machine-processable semantics. Resource description framework schema offers a number of modeling primitives for organizing RDF vocabularies in typed hierarchies. In addition to RDF and RDFS, a query language for RDF, i.e. RQL. is introduced. This chapter and the next chapter are two of the most important chapters in the book. Chapter 4 presents another language called Web Ontology Language (OWL). Because RDFS is quite primitive as a modeling language for the Web, more powerful languages are needed. A richer language. DAML+OIL, is thus proposed as a joint endeavor of the United States and Europe. OWL takes DAML+OIL as the starting point, and aims to be the standardized and broadly accepted ontology language. At the beginning of the chapter, the nontrivial relation with RDF/RDFS is discussed. Then the authors describe the various language elements of OWL in some detail. Moreover, Appendix A contains an abstract OWL syntax. which compresses OWL and makes OWL much easier to read. Chapter 5 covers both monotonic and nonmonotonic rules. Whereas the previous chapter's mainly concentrate on specializations of knowledge representation, this chapter depicts the foundation of knowledge representation and inference. Two examples are also givwn to explain monotonic and non-monotonic rules, respectively. "To get the most out of the chapter. readers had better gain a thorough understanding of predicate logic first. Chapter 6 presents several realistic application scenarios to which the Semantic Web technology can be applied. including horizontal information products at Elsevier, data integration at Audi, skill finding at Swiss Life, a think tank portal at EnerSearch, e-learning. Web services, multimedia collection indexing, online procurement, raid device interoperability. These case studies give us some real feelings about the Semantic Web.
The chapter on ontology engineering describes the development of ontology-based systems for the Web using manual and semiautomatic methods. Ontology is a concept similar to taxonomy. As stated in the introduction, ontology engineering deals with some of the methodological issues that arise when building ontologies, in particular, con-structing ontologies manually, reusing existing ontologies. and using semiautomatic methods. A medium-scale project is included at the end of the chapter. Overall the book is a nice introduction to the key components of the Semantic Web. The reading is quite pleasant, in part due to the concise layout that allows just enough content per page to facilitate readers' comprehension. Furthermore, the book provides a large number of examples, code snippets, exercises, and annotated online materials. Thus, it is very suitable for use as a textbook for undergraduates and low-grade graduates, as the authors say in the preface. However, I believe that not only students but also professionals in both academia and iudustry will benefit from the book. The authors also built an accompanying Web site for the book at http://www.semanticwebprimer.org. On the main page, there are eight tabs for each of the eight chapters. For each tabm the following sections are included: overview, example, presentations, problems and quizzes, errata, and links. These contents will greatly facilitate readers: for example, readers can open the listed links to further their readings. The vacancy of the errata sections also proves the quality of the book."

Series

Cooperative information systems

0.047979552 = product of:
  0.07996592 = sum of:
    0.016151546 = weight(_text_:on in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016151546 = score(doc=1155,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.14731294 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
    0.01328357 = weight(_text_:information in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01328357 = score(doc=1155,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1517936 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
    0.0505308 = sum of:
      0.017100206 = weight(_text_:technology in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017100206 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.115173936 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
      0.033430595 = weight(_text_:22 in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033430595 = score(doc=1155,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19150631 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Metadata and semantics are integral to any information system and significant to the sphere of Web data. Research focusing on metadata and semantics is crucial for advancing our understanding and knowledge of metadata; and, more profoundly for being able to effectively discover, use, archive, and repurpose information. In response to this need, researchers are actively examining methods for generating, reusing, and interchanging metadata. Integrated with these developments is research on the application of computational methods, linked data, and data analytics. A growing body of work also targets conceptual and theoretical designs providing foundational frameworks for metadata and semantic applications. There is no doubt that metadata weaves its way into nearly every aspect of our information ecosystem, and there is great motivation for advancing the current state of metadata and semantics. To this end, it is vital that scholars and practitioners convene and share their work.
The MTSR 2013 program and the contents of these proceedings show a rich diversity of research and practices, drawing on problems from metadata and semantically focused tools and technologies, linked data, cross-language semantics, ontologies, metadata models, and semantic system and metadata standards. The general session of the conference included 18 papers covering a broad spectrum of topics, proving the interdisciplinary field of metadata, and was divided into three main themes: platforms for research data sets, system architecture and data management; metadata and ontology validation, evaluation, mapping and interoperability; and content management. Metadata as a research topic is maturing, and the conference also supported the following five tracks: Metadata and Semantics for Open Repositories, Research Information Systems and Data Infrastructures; Metadata and Semantics for Cultural Collections and Applications; Metadata and Semantics for Agriculture, Food and Environment; Big Data and Digital Libraries in Health, Science and Technology; and European and National Projects, and Project Networking. Each track had a rich selection of papers, giving broader diversity to MTSR, and enabling deeper exploration of significant topics.

Date

17.12.2013 12:51:22

Series

Communications in computer and information science; vol.390

0.047275607 = product of:
  0.07879268 = sum of:
    0.061346166 = weight(_text_:section in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061346166 = score(doc=4707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.23320788 = fieldWeight in 4707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4707)
    0.010657255 = weight(_text_:on in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010657255 = score(doc=4707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.097201325 = fieldWeight in 4707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4707)
    0.0067892494 = weight(_text_:information in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067892494 = score(doc=4707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 4707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4707)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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.

Footnote

Vgl. unter: http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-3-642-17745-3/#section=829448&page=13&locus=1.

0.044930506 = product of:
  0.074884176 = sum of:
    0.053677894 = weight(_text_:section in 4803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053677894 = score(doc=4803,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20405689 = fieldWeight in 4803, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4803)
    0.009325097 = weight(_text_:on in 4803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009325097 = score(doc=4803,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.08505116 = fieldWeight in 4803, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4803)
    0.011881187 = weight(_text_:information in 4803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011881187 = score(doc=4803,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4803, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4803)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Thanks to the recent Linked Data initiative, the foundations of the Semantic Web have been built. Shared, open and linked RDF datasets give us the possibility to exploit both the strong theoretical results and the robust technologies and tools developed since the seminal paper in the Semantic Web appeared in 2001. In a simplistic way, we may think at the Semantic Web as a ultra large distributed database we can query to get information coming from different sources. In fact, every dataset exposes a SPARQL endpoint to make the data accessible through exact queries. If we know the URI of the famous actress Nicole Kidman in DBpedia we may retrieve all the movies she acted with a simple SPARQL query. Eventually we may aggregate this information with users ratings and genres from IMDB. Even though these are very exciting results and applications, there is much more behind the curtains. Datasets come with the description of their schema structured in an ontological way. Resources refer to classes which are in turn organized in well structured and rich ontologies. Exploiting also this further feature we go beyond the notion of a distributed database and we can refer to the Semantic Web as a distributed knowledge base. If in our knowledge base we have that Paris is located in France (ontological level) and that Moulin Rouge! is set in Paris (data level) we may query the Semantic Web (interpreted as a set of interconnected datasets and related ontologies) to return all the movies starred by Nicole Kidman set in France and Moulin Rouge! will be in the final result set. The ontological level makes possible to infer new relations among data.
The Linked Data initiative and the state of the art in semantic technologies led off all brand new search and mash-up applications. The basic idea is to have smarter lookup services for a huge, distributed and social knowledge base. All these applications catch and (re)propose, under a semantic data perspective, the view of the classical Web as a distributed collection of documents to retrieve. The interlinked nature of the Web, and consequently of the Semantic Web, is exploited (just) to collect and aggregate data coming from different sources. Of course, this is a big step forward in search and Web technologies, but if we limit our investi- gation to retrieval tasks, we miss another important feature of the current Web: browsing and in particular exploratory browsing (a.k.a. exploratory search). Thanks to its hyperlinked nature, the Web defined a new way of browsing documents and knowledge: selection by lookup, navigation and trial-and-error tactics were, and still are, exploited by users to search for relevant information satisfying some initial requirements. The basic assumptions behind a lookup search, typical of Information Retrieval (IR) systems, are no more valid in an exploratory browsing context. An IR system, such as a search engine, assumes that: the user has a clear picture of what she is looking for ; she knows the terminology of the specific knowledge space. On the other side, as argued in, the main challenges in exploratory search can be summarized as: support querying and rapid query refinement; other facets and metadata-based result filtering; leverage search context; support learning and understanding; other visualization to support insight/decision making; facilitate collaboration. In Section 3 we will show two applications for exploratory search in the Semantic Web addressing some of the above challenges.

0.04337829 = product of:
  0.21689145 = sum of:
    0.21689145 = weight(_text_:section in 3244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21689145 = score(doc=3244,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.8245144 = fieldWeight in 3244, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3244)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This chapter discusses OIL and DAML1OIL, currently the most prominent ontology languages for the Semantic Web. The chapter starts by discussing the pyramid of languages that underlie the architecture of the Semantic Web (XML, RDF, RDFS). In section 2.2, we briefly describe XML, RDF and RDFS. We then discuss in more detail OIL and DAML1OIL, the first proposals for languages at the ontology layer of the semantic pyramid. For OIL (and to some extent DAML1OIL) we discuss the general design motivations (Section 2.3), describe the constructions in the language (Section 2.4), and the various syntactic forms of these languages (Section 2.5). Section 2.6 discusses the layered architecture of the language, section 2.7 briefly mentions the formal semantics, section 2.8 discusses the transition from OIL to DAML+OIL, and section 2.9 concludes with our experience with the language to date and future development in the context of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). This chapter is not intended to give full and formal definitions of either the syntax or the semantics of OIL or DAML1OIL. Such definitions are already available elsewhere: http://www.ontoknowledge.org/oil/ for OIL and http://www.w3.org/submission/2001/12/ for DAML1OIL.

0.042739302 = product of:
  0.07123217 = sum of:
    0.015071635 = weight(_text_:on in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015071635 = score(doc=2661,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13746344 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
    0.009601449 = weight(_text_:information in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009601449 = score(doc=2661,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
    0.046559088 = sum of:
      0.01954309 = weight(_text_:technology in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01954309 = score(doc=2661,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
      0.027015999 = weight(_text_:22 in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027015999 = score(doc=2661,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2661, 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=2661)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The basic goal of education within a discipline is to transform a novice into an expert. This entails moving the novice toward the "semantic space" that the expert inhabits-the space of concepts, meanings, vocabularies, and other intellectual constructs that comprise the discipline. Metadata is significant to this goal in digitally mediated education environments. Encoding the experts' semantic space not only enables the sharing of semantics among discipline scientists, but also creates an environment that bridges the semantic gap between the common vocabulary of the novice and the granular descriptive language of the seasoned scientist (Greenberg, et al, 2005). Developments underlying the Semantic Web, where vocabularies are formalized in the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and Web 2.0 approaches of user-generated folksonomies provide an infrastructure for linking vocabulary systems and promoting group learning via metadata literacy. Group learning is a pedagogical approach to teaching that harnesses the phenomenon of "collective intelligence" to increase learning by means of collaboration. Learning a new semantic system can be daunting for a novice, and yet it is integral to advance one's knowledge in a discipline and retain interest. These ideas are key to the "BOT 2.0: Botany through Web 2.0, the Memex and Social Learning" project (Bot 2.0).72 Bot 2.0 is a collaboration involving the North Carolina Botanical Garden, the UNC SILS Metadata Research center, and the Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI). Bot 2.0 presents a curriculum utilizing a memex as a way for students to link and share digital information, working asynchronously in an environment beyond the traditional classroom. Our conception of a memex is not a centralized black box but rather a flexible, distributed framework that uses the most salient and easiest-to-use collaborative platforms (e.g., Facebook, Flickr, wiki and blog technology) for personal information management. By meeting students "where they live" digitally, we hope to attract students to the study of botanical science. A key aspect is to teach students scientific terminology and about the value of metadata, an inherent function in several of the technologies and in the instructional approach we are utilizing. This poster will report on a study examining the value of both folksonomies and taxonomies for post-secondary college students learning plant identification. Our data is drawn from a curriculum involving a virtual independent learning portion and a "BotCamp" weekend at UNC, where students work with digital plan specimens that they have captured. Results provide some insight into the importance of collaboration and shared vocabulary for gaining confidence and for student progression from novice to expert in botany.

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

0.041385405 = product of:
  0.06897567 = sum of:
    0.010657255 = weight(_text_:on in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010657255 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.097201325 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
    0.011759326 = weight(_text_:information in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011759326 = score(doc=2656,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
    0.046559088 = sum of:
      0.01954309 = weight(_text_:technology in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01954309 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
      0.027015999 = weight(_text_:22 in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027015999 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2656, 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=2656)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This poster explores the customization of DSpace to allow the use of the AGRIS Application Profile metadata standard and the AGROVOC thesaurus. The objective is the adaptation of DSpace, through the least invasive code changes either in the form of plug-ins or add-ons, to the specific needs of the Agricultural Sciences and Technology community. Metadata standards such as AGRIS AP, and Knowledge Organization Systems such as the AGROVOC thesaurus, provide mechanisms for sharing information in a standardized manner by recommending the use of common semantics and interoperable syntax (Subirats et al., 2007). AGRIS AP was created to enhance the description, exchange and subsequent retrieval of agricultural Document-like Information Objects (DLIOs). It is a metadata schema which draws from Metadata standards such as Dublin Core (DC), the Australian Government Locator Service Metadata (AGLS) and the Agricultural Metadata Element Set (AgMES) namespaces. It allows sharing of information across dispersed bibliographic systems (FAO, 2005). AGROVOC68 is a multilingual structured thesaurus covering agricultural and related domains. Its main role is to standardize the indexing process in order to make searching simpler and more efficient. AGROVOC is developed by FAO (Lauser et al., 2006). The customization of the DSpace is taking place in several phases. First, the AGRIS AP metadata schema was mapped onto the metadata DSpace model, with several enhancements implemented to support AGRIS AP elements. Next, AGROVOC will be integrated as a controlled vocabulary accessed through a local SKOS or OWL file. Eventually the system will be configurable to access AGROVOC through local files or remotely via webservices. Finally, spell checking and tooltips will be incorporated in the user interface to support metadata editing. Adapting DSpace to support AGRIS AP and annotation using the semantically-rich AGROVOC thesaurus transform DSpace into a powerful, domain-specific system for annotation and exchange of bibliographic metadata in the agricultural domain.

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

0.040901706 = product of:
  0.068169504 = sum of:
    0.016315522 = weight(_text_:on in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016315522 = score(doc=150,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.14880852 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
    0.010393873 = weight(_text_:information in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010393873 = score(doc=150,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.11877254 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
    0.04146011 = sum of:
      0.012214432 = weight(_text_:technology in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.012214432 = score(doc=150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.08226709 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
      0.029245678 = weight(_text_:22 in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029245678 = score(doc=150,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.16753313 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Classification

006.7 22

Date

7. 3.2007 19:30:22

DDC

006.7 22

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.3, S.457-458 (A.M.A. Ahmad): "The concept of the semantic web has emerged because search engines and text-based searching are no longer adequate, as these approaches involve an extensive information retrieval process. The deployed searching and retrieving descriptors arc naturally subjective and their deployment is often restricted to the specific application domain for which the descriptors were configured. The new era of information technology imposes different kinds of requirements and challenges. Automatic extracted audiovisual features are required, as these features are more objective, domain-independent, and more native to audiovisual content. This book is a useful guide for researchers, experts, students, and practitioners; it is a very valuable reference and can lead them through their exploration and research in multimedia content and the semantic web. The book is well organized, and introduces the concept of the semantic web and multimedia content analysis to the reader through a logical sequence from standards and hypotheses through system examples, presenting relevant tools and methods. But in some chapters readers will need a good technical background to understand some of the details. Readers may attain sufficient knowledge here to start projects or research related to the book's theme; recent results and articles related to the active research area of integrating multimedia with semantic web technologies are included. This book includes full descriptions of approaches to specific problem domains such as content search, indexing, and retrieval. This book will be very useful to researchers in the multimedia content analysis field who wish to explore the benefits of emerging semantic web technologies in applying multimedia content approaches. The first part of the book covers the definition of the two basic terms multimedia content and semantic web. The Moving Picture Experts Group standards MPEG7 and MPEG21 are quoted extensively. In addition, the means of multimedia content description are elaborated upon and schematically drawn. This extensive description is introduced by authors who are actively involved in those standards and have been participating in the work of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/MPEG for many years. On the other hand, this results in bias against the ad hoc or nonstandard tools for multimedia description in favor of the standard approaches. This is a general book for multimedia content; more emphasis on the general multimedia description and extraction could be provided.
Semantic web technologies are explained, and ontology representation is emphasized. There is an excellent summary of the fundamental theory behind applying a knowledge-engineering approach to vision problems. This summary represents the concept of the semantic web and multimedia content analysis. A definition of the fuzzy knowledge representation that can be used for realization in multimedia content applications has been provided, with a comprehensive analysis. The second part of the book introduces the multimedia content analysis approaches and applications. In addition, some examples of methods applicable to multimedia content analysis are presented. Multimedia content analysis is a very diverse field and concerns many other research fields at the same time; this creates strong diversity issues, as everything from low-level features (e.g., colors, DCT coefficients, motion vectors, etc.) up to the very high and semantic level (e.g., Object, Events, Tracks, etc.) are involved. The second part includes topics on structure identification (e.g., shot detection for video sequences), and object-based video indexing. These conventional analysis methods are supplemented by results on semantic multimedia analysis, including three detailed chapters on the development and use of knowledge models for automatic multimedia analysis. Starting from object-based indexing and continuing with machine learning, these three chapters are very logically organized. Because of the diversity of this research field, including several chapters of recent research results is not sufficient to cover the state of the art of multimedia. The editors of the book should write an introductory chapter about multimedia content analysis approaches, basic problems, and technical issues and challenges, and try to survey the state of the art of the field and thus introduce the field to the reader.
The final part of the book discusses research in multimedia content management systems and the semantic web, and presents examples and applications for semantic multimedia analysis in search and retrieval systems. These chapters describe example systems in which current projects have been implemented, and include extensive results and real demonstrations. For example, real case scenarios such as ECommerce medical applications and Web services have been introduced. Topics in natural language, speech and image processing techniques and their application for multimedia indexing, and content-based retrieval have been elaborated upon with extensive examples and deployment methods. The editors of the book themselves provide the readers with a chapter about their latest research results on knowledge-based multimedia content indexing and retrieval. Some interesting applications for multimedia content and the semantic web are introduced. Applications that have taken advantage of the metadata provided by MPEG7 in order to realize advance-access services for multimedia content have been provided. The applications discussed in the third part of the book provide useful guidance to researchers and practitioners properly planning to implement semantic multimedia analysis techniques in new research and development projects in both academia and industry. A fourth part should be added to this book: performance measurements for integrated approaches of multimedia analysis and the semantic web. Performance of the semantic approach is a very sophisticated issue and requires extensive elaboration and effort. Measuring the semantic search is an ongoing research area; several chapters concerning performance measurement and analysis would be required to adequately cover this area and introduce it to readers."

LCSH

Information storage and retrieval systems

RSWK

Semantic Web / Multimedia / Automatische Indexierung / Information Retrieval

Subject

Semantic Web / Multimedia / Automatische Indexierung / Information Retrieval
Information storage and retrieval systems

0.04069397 = product of:
  0.067823276 = sum of:
    0.03230309 = weight(_text_:on in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230309 = score(doc=759,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
    0.011881187 = weight(_text_:information in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011881187 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
    0.023639 = product of:
      0.047278 = sum of:
        0.047278 = weight(_text_:22 in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047278 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 759, 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=759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

XML will have a profound impact on the way data is exchanged on the Internet. An important feature of this language is the separation of content from presentation, which makes it easier to select and/or reformat the data. However, due to the likelihood of numerous industry and domain specific DTDs, those who wish to integrate information will still be faced with the problem of semantic interoperability. In this paper we discuss why this problem is not solved by XML, and then discuss why the Resource Description Framework is only a partial solution. We then present the SHOE language, which we feel has many of the features necessary to enable a semantic web, and describe an existing set of tools that make it easy to use the language.

Date

11. 5.2013 19:22:18