Search (89 results, page 2 of 5)

0.007479902 = product of:
  0.059839215 = sum of:
    0.059839215 = weight(_text_:case in 1776) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059839215 = score(doc=1776,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34346986 = fieldWeight in 1776, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1776)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper investigates the semantic structure underlying DBpedia, one of the largest and most heavily used datasets in the current Linked Open Data (LOD) landscape. The analysis attempts to shed light on this new type of knowledge organization tool. Design/methodology/approach - The research followed a case study methodology to analyze DBpedia using the domain of jazz as the application scenario. Findings - The study reveals an evolving knowledge organization tool where different descriptive and classification approaches are employed concurrently. The semantic constructs employed in the DBpedia knowledge base vary significantly in terms of their degree of formalization, stability, cohesiveness and consistency. As such, they challenge the tolerance threshold for data quality and the traditional notion of authority control. Research limitations/implications - The analysis is conducted on a limited portion of a large knowledge base. Initial findings provide a basis for further research and study. Practical implications - Revealing the knowledge organization underlying DBpedia increases the understanding of its power, its limitations and its implications for the new semantic context provided by LOD. Having an understanding of the range of entities and properties available enables LOD users to formulate queries with higher precision. Originality/value - This study is the first conducted from the perspective of the knowledge organization community.

0.0074561527 = product of:
  0.02982461 = sum of:
    0.016537005 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016537005 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.12703274 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
    0.013287606 = product of:
      0.026575211 = sum of:
        0.026575211 = weight(_text_:22 in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026575211 = score(doc=1155,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

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

0.007160733 = product of:
  0.057285864 = sum of:
    0.057285864 = weight(_text_:libraries in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057285864 = score(doc=250,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4400543 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper presents a personal perspective on libraries and the Semantic Web. The paper discusses computing power, increased availability of processable text, social software developments and the ideas underlying Web 2.0 and the impact of these developments in the context of libraries and information. The article concludes with a discussion of social bibliography and the declining hegemony of catalog records, and emphasizes the strengths of librarianship and the profession's ability to contribute to Semantic Web development.

0.0070872875 = product of:
  0.0566983 = sum of:
    0.0566983 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0566983 = score(doc=2553,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4355408 = fieldWeight in 2553, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2553)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0066819587 = product of:
  0.05345567 = sum of:
    0.05345567 = weight(_text_:libraries in 233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05345567 = score(doc=233,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4106318 = fieldWeight in 233, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=233)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Interest is growing in Semantic technologies such as XML, XML Schema, ontologies, and ontology languages, as well as in the tools that facilitate working with such technologies. This paper examines the current library automation environment and identifies semantic tools and technologies that might be suitable for use in some libraries and other knowledge-intensive organizations.

0.0063469075 = product of:
  0.05077526 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 4412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=4412,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 4412, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4412)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

How do we test Semantic Web tools? How can we know that they perform better than current technologies for knowledge management? What does 'better' precisely mean? How can we operationalize and measure this? Some of these questions may be partially answered by simulations in lab experiments that for example look at the speed or scalability of algorithms. However, it is not clear in advance to what extent such laboratory results carry over to the real world. Quality is in the eye of the beholder, and so the quality of Semantic Web methods will very much depend on the perception of their usefulness as seen by tool users. This can only be tested by carefully designed field experiments. In this chapter, we discuss the design considerations and set-up of field experiments with Semantic Web tools, and illustrate these with case examples from a virtual organization in industrial research.

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 3152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=3152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 3152, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3152)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

Table of Contents Part I: Accepted Papers Christoph Tempich and Raphael Volz: Towards a benchmark for Semantic Web reasoners - an analysis of the DAML ontology library M. Carmen Suarez-Figueroa and Asuncion Gomez-Perez: Results of Taxonomic Evaluation of RDF(S) and DAML+OIL ontologies using RDF(S) and DAML+OIL Validation Tools and Ontology Platforms import services Volker Haarslev and Ralf Möller: Racer: A Core Inference Engine for the Semantic Web Mikhail Kazakov and Habib Abdulrab: DL-workbench: a metamodeling approach to ontology manipulation Thorsten Liebig and Olaf Noppens: OntoTrack: Fast Browsing and Easy Editing of Large Ontologie Frederic Fürst, Michel Leclere, and Francky Trichet: TooCoM : a Tool to Operationalize an Ontology with the Conceptual Graph Model Naoki Sugiura, Masaki Kurematsu, Naoki Fukuta, Noriaki Izumi, and Takahira Yamaguchi: A domain ontology engineering tool with general ontologies and text corpus Howard Goldberg, Alfredo Morales, David MacMillan, and Matthew Quinlan: An Ontology-Driven Application to Improve the Prescription of Educational Resources to Parents of Premature Infants Part II: Experiment Contributions Domain natural language description for the experiment Raphael Troncy, Antoine Isaac, and Veronique Malaise: Using XSLT for Interoperability: DOE and The Travelling Domain Experiment Christian Fillies: SemTalk EON2003 Semantic Web Export / Import Interface Test Óscar Corcho, Asunción Gómez-Pérez, Danilo José Guerrero-Rodríguez, David Pérez-Rey, Alberto Ruiz-Cristina, Teresa Sastre-Toral, M. Carmen Suárez-Figueroa: Evaluation experiment of ontology tools' interoperability with the WebODE ontology engineering workbench Holger Knublauch: Case Study: Using Protege to Convert the Travel Ontology to UML and OWL Franz Calvo and John Gennari: Interoperability of Protege 2.0 beta and OilEd 3.5 in the Domain Knowledge of Osteoporosis

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=265,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 265, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=265)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 410, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=410)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Web search engines such as Google, Yahoo! MSN/Bing, and Ask are far from the consummate Web search solution: they do not typically produce direct answers to queries but instead typically recommend a selection of related documents from the Web. We note that in more recent years, search engines have begun to provide direct answers to prose queries matching certain common templates-for example, "population of china" or "12 euro in dollars"-but again, such functionality is limited to a small subset of popular user queries. Furthermore, search engines now provide individual and focused search interfaces over images, videos, locations, news articles, books, research papers, blogs, and real-time social media-although these tools are inarguably powerful, they are limited to their respective domains. In the general case, search engines are not suitable for complex information gathering tasks requiring aggregation from multiple indexed documents: for such tasks, users must manually aggregate tidbits of pertinent information from various pages. In effect, such limitations are predicated on the lack of machine-interpretable structure in HTML-documents, which is often limited to generic markup tags mainly concerned with document renderign and linking. Most of the real content is contained in prose text which is inherently difficult for machines to interpret.

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 3937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=3937,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 3937, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3937)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Answer Set Programming (ASP) has become an established paradigm for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, in particular, when it comes to solving knowledge-intense combinatorial (optimization) problems. ASP's unique pairing of a simple yet rich modeling language with highly performant solving technology has led to an increasing interest in ASP in academia as well as industry. To further boost this development and make ASP fit for real world applications it is indispensable to equip it with means for an easy integration into software environments and for adding complementary forms of reasoning. In this tutorial, we describe how both issues are addressed in the ASP system clingo. At first, we outline features of clingo's application programming interface (API) that are essential for multi-shot ASP solving, a technique for dealing with continuously changing logic programs. This is illustrated by realizing two exemplary reasoning modes, namely branch-and-bound-based optimization and incremental ASP solving. We then switch to the design of the API for integrating complementary forms of reasoning and detail this in an extensive case study dealing with the integration of difference constraints. We show how the syntax of these constraints is added to the modeling language and seamlessly merged into the grounding process. We then develop in detail a corresponding theory propagator for difference constraints and present how it is integrated into clingo's solving process.

0.005114809 = product of:
  0.040918473 = sum of:
    0.040918473 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040918473 = score(doc=1909,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3143245 = fieldWeight in 1909, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1909)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - The general science portal "vascoda" merges structured, high-quality information collections from more than 40 providers on the basis of search engine technology (FAST) and a concept which treats semantic heterogeneity between different controlled vocabularies. First experiences with the portal show some weaknesses of this approach which come out in most metadata-driven Digital Libraries (DLs) or subject specific portals. The purpose of the paper is to propose models to reduce the semantic complexity in heterogeneous DLs. The aim is to introduce value-added services (treatment of term vagueness and document re-ranking) that gain a certain quality in DLs if they are combined with heterogeneity components established in the project "Competence Center Modeling and Treatment of Semantic Heterogeneity". Design/methodology/approach - Two methods, which are derived from scientometrics and network analysis, will be implemented with the objective to re-rank result sets by the following structural properties: the ranking of the results by core journals (so-called Bradfordizing) and ranking by centrality of authors in co-authorship networks. Findings - The methods, which will be implemented, focus on the query and on the result side of a search and are designed to positively influence each other. Conceptually, they will improve the search quality and guarantee that the most relevant documents in result sets will be ranked higher. Originality/value - The central impact of the paper focuses on the integration of three structural value-adding methods, which aim at reducing the semantic complexity represented in distributed DLs at several stages in the information retrieval process: query construction, search and ranking and re-ranking.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Digital libraries and the semantic web: context, applications and research".

0.005114809 = product of:
  0.040918473 = sum of:
    0.040918473 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040918473 = score(doc=2552,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3143245 = fieldWeight in 2552, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2552)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This collection of research papers provides extensive information on deploying services, concepts, and approaches for using open linked data from libraries and other cultural heritage institutions. With a special emphasis on how libraries and other cultural heritage institutions can create effective end user interfaces using open, linked data or other datasets. These papers are essential reading for any one interesting in user interface design or the semantic web.

Content

H. Frank Cervone: Linked data and user interaction : an introduction -- Paola Di Maio: Linked Data Beyond Libraries Towards Universal Interfaces and Knowledge Unification -- Emmanuelle Bermes: Following the user's flow in the Digital Pompidou -- Patrick Le Bceuf: Customized OPACs on the Semantic Web : the OpenCat prototype -- Ryan Shaw, Patrick Golden and Michael Buckland: Using linked library data in working research notes -- Timm Heuss, Bernhard Humm.Tilman Deuschel, Torsten Frohlich, Thomas Herth and Oliver Mitesser: Semantically guided, situation-aware literature research -- Niklas Lindstrom and Martin Malmsten: Building interfaces on a networked graph -- Natasha Simons, Arve Solland and Jan Hettenhausen: Griffith Research Hub. Vgl.: http://d-nb.info/1032799889.

0.005011469 = product of:
  0.040091753 = sum of:
    0.040091753 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040091753 = score(doc=5510,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.30797386 = fieldWeight in 5510, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5510)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Explores the opportunities for libraries to contribute to the proposed global "Semantic Web." Library name and subject authority files, including work that IFLA has done related to a new view of "Universal Bibliographic Control" in the Internet environment and the work underway in the U.S. and Europe, are making a reality of the virtual international authority file on the Web. The bibliographic and authority records created according to AACR2 reflect standards for metadata that libraries have provided for years. New opportunities for using these records in the digital world are described (interoperability), including mapping with Dublin Core metadata. AACR2 recently updated Chapter 9 on Electronic Resources. That process and highlights of the changes are described, including Library of Congress' rule interpretations.

0.005011469 = product of:
  0.040091753 = sum of:
    0.040091753 = weight(_text_:libraries in 240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040091753 = score(doc=240,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.30797386 = fieldWeight in 240, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=240)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper presents several reflections on the traditional card catalogues and RDF (Resource Description Framework), which is "the" standard for creating the Semantic Web. This work grew out of discussion between the authors after Working Group on Metadata Schemes meeting held at IFLA conference in Buenos Aires (2004). The paper provides an overview of RDF from the perspective of cataloguers, catalogues and library cards. The central theme is the discussion of resource description as a discipline that could be based on RDF. RDF is explained as a very simple grammar, using metadata and ontologies to semantic search and access. RDF Knitting the Semantic Web Cataloging & Classification Quarterly Volume 43, Numbers 3/4 has the ability to enhance 21st century libraries and metadata interoperability in digital libraries, while maintaining the expressive power that was available to librarians when catalogues were physical artefacts.

0.0047248583 = product of:
  0.037798867 = sum of:
    0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4815) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037798867 = score(doc=4815,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 4815, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4815)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.004697878 = product of:
  0.037583023 = sum of:
    0.037583023 = product of:
      0.07516605 = sum of:
        0.07516605 = weight(_text_:22 in 4643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07516605 = score(doc=4643,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4643, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4643)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.004650397 = product of:
  0.037203178 = sum of:
    0.037203178 = product of:
      0.074406356 = sum of:
        0.074406356 = weight(_text_:area in 4329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074406356 = score(doc=4329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.38107216 = fieldWeight in 4329, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Plenty of contemporary attempts to search exist that are associated with the area of Semantic Web. But which of them qualify as information retrieval for the Semantic Web? Do such approaches exist? To answer these questions we take a look at the nature of the Semantic Web and Semantic Desktop and at definitions for information and data retrieval. We survey current approaches referred to by their authors as information retrieval for the Semantic Web or that use Semantic Web technology for search.

0.004650397 = product of:
  0.037203178 = sum of:
    0.037203178 = product of:
      0.074406356 = sum of:
        0.074406356 = weight(_text_:area in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074406356 = score(doc=829,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.38107216 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper provides an analysis of the knowledge structure underlying DBpedia, one of the largest and most heavily used datasets in the current Linked Data landscape. The study reveals an evolving knowledge representation environment where different descriptive and classification approaches are employed concurrently. This analysis opens up a new area of research to which the knowledge organization community can make a significant contribution.

0.0043570166 = product of:
  0.034856133 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 2801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=2801,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 2801, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2801)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Footnote

Rez. in: Annals of Library and Information Studies 62(2015) no.4, S.299-300 (A.K. Das)

0.004231272 = product of:
  0.033850174 = sum of:
    0.033850174 = weight(_text_:case in 4405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033850174 = score(doc=4405,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 4405, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4405)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Developing ontologies is central to our vision of Semantic Web-based knowledge management. The methodology described in Chapter 3 guides the development of ontologies for different applications. However, because of the size of ontologies, their complexity, their formal underpinnings and the necessity to come towards a shared understanding within a group of people when defining an ontology, ontology construction is still far from being a well-understood process. Concerning the methodology, OntoEdit focuses on three of the main steps for ontology development (the methodology is described in Chapter 3), viz. the kick off, refinement, and evaluation. We describe the steps supported by OntoEdit and focus on collaborative aspects that occur during each of the step. First, all requirements of the envisaged ontology are collected during the kick off phase. Typically for ontology engineering, ontology engineers and domain experts are joined in a team that works together on a description of the domain and the goal of the ontology, design guidelines, available knowledge sources (e.g. re-usable ontologies and thesauri, etc.), potential users and use cases and applications supported by the ontology. The output of this phase is a semiformal description of the ontology. Second, during the refinement phase, the team extends the semi-formal description in several iterations and formalizes it in an appropriate representation language like RDF(S) or, more advanced, DAML1OIL. The output of this phase is a mature ontology (the 'target ontology'). Third, the target ontology needs to be evaluated according to the requirement specifications. Typically this phase serves as a proof for the usefulness of ontologies (and ontology-based applications) and may involve the engineering team as well as end users of the targeted application. The output of this phase is an evaluated ontology, ready for roll-out into a productive environment. Support for these collaborative development steps within the ontology development methodology is crucial in order to meet the conflicting needs for ease of use and construction of complex ontology structures. We now illustrate OntoEdit's support for each of the supported steps. The examples shown are taken from the Swiss Life case study on skills management (cf. Chapter 12).