Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.022918554 = product of:
  0.091674216 = sum of:
    0.091674216 = sum of:
      0.059951875 = weight(_text_:processing in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059951875 = score(doc=2648,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = queryNorm
          0.3162615 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
      0.03172234 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03172234 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The growing predominance of social semantics in the form of tagging presents the metadata community with both opportunities and challenges as for leveraging this new form of information content representation and for retrieval. One key challenge is the absence of contextual information associated with these tags. This paper presents an experiment working with Flickr tags as an example of utilizing social semantics sources for enriching subject metadata. The procedure included four steps: 1) Collecting a sample of Flickr tags, 2) Calculating cooccurrences between tags through mutual information, 3) Tracing contextual information of tag pairs via Google search results, 4) Applying natural language processing and machine learning techniques to extract semantic relations between tags. The experiment helped us to build a context sentence collection from the Google search results, which was then processed by natural language processing and machine learning algorithms. This new approach achieved a reasonably good rate of accuracy in assigning semantic relations to tag pairs. This paper also explores the implications of this approach for using social semantics to enrich subject metadata.

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

0.016690476 = product of:
  0.03338095 = sum of:
    0.020692015 = weight(_text_:data in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020692015 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.012688936 = product of:
      0.025377871 = sum of:
        0.025377871 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025377871 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.

Date

12. 9.2004 17:22:35

0.010973599 = product of:
  0.043894395 = sum of:
    0.043894395 = weight(_text_:data in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043894395 = score(doc=3589,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 3589, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3589)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a study of 4 WWW search engines: AltaVista; Lycos; Excite and WebCrawler to collect data on Web objects on polymer chemistry. 1.037 Web objects were examined for data in 4 categories: document information; use of meta fields; use of images and use of chemical names. Issues raised included: whether to provide metadata elements for parts of entities or whole entities only, the use of metasyntax, problems in representation of special types of objects, and whether links should be considered when encoding metadata. Use of metafields was not widespread in the sample and knowledge of metafields in HTML varied greatly among Web object creators. The study formed part of a metadata project funded by the OCLC Library and Information Science Research Grant Program

0.010973599 = product of:
  0.043894395 = sum of:
    0.043894395 = weight(_text_:data in 2269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043894395 = score(doc=2269,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 2269, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2269)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Social semantics is more than just tags or vocabularies. It involves the users who contribute the tags, the perceptions of the world, and intentions that the tags are created for. Whilst social semantics is a valuable, massive data source for developing new knowledge systems or validating existing ones, there are also pitfalls and uncertainties. The epistemological analysis presented in this paper is an attempt to explain the differences and connections between social and controlled semantics from the perspective of knowledge theory. The epistemological connection between social and controlled semantics is particularly important: empirical knowledge can provide data source for testing the rational knowledge and rational knowledge can provide reliability and predictability. Such connection will have significant implications for future research on social and controlled semantics.

0.0103460075 = product of:
  0.04138403 = sum of:
    0.04138403 = weight(_text_:data in 4773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04138403 = score(doc=4773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 4773, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4773)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.009516701 = product of:
  0.038066804 = sum of:
    0.038066804 = product of:
      0.07613361 = sum of:
        0.07613361 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07613361 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

24. 8.2005 19:20:22

0.0077595054 = product of:
  0.031038022 = sum of:
    0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 3818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031038022 = score(doc=3818,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 3818, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3818)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Semantic mapping between controlled vocabulary and keywords is the first step towards knowledge-based subject access. This study reports the preliminary result of a semantic mapping experiment for the Gateway to Educational Materials (GEM). A total of 3,555 keywords were mapped with 322 concept names in the GEM controlled vocabulary. The preliminary test to 10,000 metadata records presented widely varied sets of results between the mapped and non-mapped data. The paper discussed linguistic and technical problems encountered in the mapping process and raised issues in the representation technologies and methods, which will lead to future study of knowledge-based access to networked information resources.

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=4926,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The structural, functional, and production views on learning objects influence metadata structure and vocabulary. The authors drew on these views and conducted a literature review and in-depth analysis of 14 learning objects and over 500 components in these learning objects to model the knowledge framework for a learning object ontology. The learning object ontology reported in this article consists of 8 top-level classes, 28 classes at the second level, and 34 at the third level. Except class Learning object, all other classes have the three properties of preferred term, related term, and synonym. To validate the ontology, we conducted a query log analysis that focused an discovering what terms users have used at both conceptual and word levels. The findings show that the main classes in the ontology are either conceptually or linguistically similar to the top terms in the query log data. The authors built an "Exercise Editor" as an informal experiment to test its adoption ability in authoring tools. The main contribution of this project is in the framework for the learning object domain and the methodology used to develop and validate an ontology.

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 1253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=1253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 1253, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1253)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The scientific metadata model proposed in this article encompasses both classical descriptive metadata such as those defined in the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DC) and the innovative structural and referential metadata properties that go beyond the classical model. Structural metadata capture the structural vocabulary in research publications; referential metadata include not only citations but also data about other types of scholarly output that is based on or related to the same publication. The article describes the structural, descriptive, and referential (SDR) elements of the metadata model and explains the underlying assumptions and justifications for each major component in the model. ScholarWiki, an experimental system developed as a proof of concept, was built over the wiki platform to allow user interaction with the metadata and the editing, deleting, and adding of metadata. By allowing and encouraging scholars (both as authors and as users) to participate in the knowledge and metadata editing and enhancing process, the larger community will benefit from more accurate and effective information retrieval. The ScholarWiki system utilizes machine-learning techniques that can automatically produce self-enhanced metadata by learning from the structural metadata that scholars contribute, which will add intelligence to enhance and update automatically the publication of metadata Wiki pages.