Search (64 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  1. Stojanovic, N.: Ontology-based Information Retrieval : methods and tools for cooperative query answering (2005) 0.16 
    0.16080073 = product of:
  0.32160145 = sum of:
    0.041959506 = product of:
      0.12587851 = sum of:
        0.12587851 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12587851 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3359639 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
    0.12587851 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12587851 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3359639 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = 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)
    0.027884906 = weight(_text_:studies in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027884906 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.17634688 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
    0.12587851 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12587851 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3359639 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    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.
  2. Reimer, U.; Brockhausen, P.; Lau, T.; Reich, J.R.: Ontology-based knowledge management at work : the Swiss life case studies (2004) 0.04 
    0.040703367 = product of:
  0.16281347 = sum of:
    0.107043654 = weight(_text_:case in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107043654 = score(doc=4411,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.6144176 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
    0.055769812 = weight(_text_:studies in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055769812 = score(doc=4411,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35269377 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    This chapter describes two case studies conducted by the Swiss Life insurance group with the objective of proving the practical applicability and superiority of ontology-based knowledge management over classical approaches based on text retrieval technologies. The first case study in the domain of skills management uses manually constructed ontologies about skills, job functions and education. The purpose of the system is to give support for finding employees with certain skills. The ontologies are used to ensure that the user description of skills and the machine-held index of skills and people use the same vocabulary. The use of a shared vocabulary increases the performance of such a system significantly. The second case study aims at improving content-oriented access to passages of a 1000 page document about the International Accounting Standard on the corporate intranet. To this end, an ontology was automatically extracted from the document. It can be used to reformulate queries that turned out not to deliver the intended results. Since the ontology was automatically built, it is of a rather simple structure, consisting of weighted semantic associations between the relevant concepts in the document. We therefore call it a 'lightweight ontology'. The two case studies cover quite different aspects of using ontologies in knowledge management applications. Whereas in the second case study an ontology was automatically derived from a search space to improve information retrieval, in the first skills management case study the ontology itself introduces a structured search space. In one case study we gathered experience in building an ontology manually, while the challenge of the other case study was automatic ontology creation. A number of the novel Semantic Web-based tools described elsewhere in this book were used to build the two systems and both case studies described have led to projects to deploy live systems within Swiss Life.
  3. Gendt, M. van; Isaac, I.; Meij, L. van der; Schlobach, S.: Semantic Web techniques for multiple views on heterogeneous collections : a case study (2006) 0.04 
    0.03571178 = product of:
  0.095231414 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 2418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2418)
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 2418, 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=2418)
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2418, 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=2418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Source
    Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006
  4. Dobrev, P.; Kalaydjiev, O.; Angelova, G.: From conceptual structures to semantic interoperability of content (2007) 0.03 
    0.033971757 = product of:
  0.090591356 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 4607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=4607,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 4607, 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=4607)
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 4607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=4607,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 4607, 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=4607)
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 4607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=4607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4607, 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=4607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Smart applications behave intelligently because they understand at least partially the context where they operate. To do this, they need not only a formal domain model but also formal descriptions of the data they process and their own operational behaviour. Interoperability of smart applications is based on formalised definitions of all their data and processes. This paper studies the semantic interoperability of data in the case of eLearning and describes an experiment and its assessment. New content is imported into a knowledge-based learning environment without real updates of the original domain model, which is encoded as a knowledge base of conceptual graphs. A component called mediator enables the import by assigning dummy metadata annotations for the imported items. However, some functionality of the original system is lost, when processing the imported content, due to the lack of proper metadata annotation which cannot be associated fully automatically. So the paper presents an interoperability scenario when appropriate content items are viewed from the perspective of the original world and can be (partially) reused there.
    Source
    Conceptual structures: knowledge architectures for smart applications: 15th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2007, Sheffield, UK, July 22 - 27, 2007 ; proceedings. Eds.: U. Priss u.a
  5. Hollink, L.; Assem, M. van; Wang, S.; Isaac, A.; Schreiber, G.: Two variations on ontology alignment evaluation : methodological issues (2008) 0.03 
    0.028408606 = product of:
  0.11363442 = sum of:
    0.071807064 = weight(_text_:case in 4645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071807064 = score(doc=4645,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 4645, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4645)
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 4645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=4645,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 4645, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4645)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Evaluation of ontology alignments is in practice done in two ways: (1) assessing individual correspondences and (2) comparing the alignment to a reference alignment. However, this type of evaluation does not guarantee that an application which uses the alignment will perform well. In this paper, we contribute to the current ontology alignment evaluation practices by proposing two alternative evaluation methods that take into account some characteristics of a usage scenario without doing a full-fledged end-to-end evaluation. We compare different evaluation approaches in three case studies, focussing on methodological issues. Each case study considers an alignment between a different pair of ontologies, ranging from rich and well-structured to small and poorly structured. This enables us to conclude on the use of different evaluation approaches in different settings.
  6. Wielinga, B.; Wielemaker, J.; Schreiber, G.; Assem, M. van: Methods for porting resources to the Semantic Web (2004) 0.02 
    0.023150655 = product of:
  0.09260262 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 4640, 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=4640)
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Ontologies will play a central role in the development of the Semantic Web. It is unrealistic to assume that such ontologies will be developed from scratch. Rather, we assume that existing resources such as thesauri and lexical data bases will be reused in the development of ontologies for the Semantic Web. In this paper we describe a method for converting existing source material to a representation that is compatible with Semantic Web languages such as RDF(S) and OWL. The method is illustrated with three case studies: converting Wordnet, AAT and MeSH to RDF(S) and OWL.
  7. Assem, M. van; Malaisé, V.; Miles, A.; Schreiber, G.: ¬A method to convert thesauri to SKOS (2006) 0.02 
    0.023150655 = product of:
  0.09260262 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 4642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=4642,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 4642, 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=4642)
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 4642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=4642,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 4642, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4642)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Thesauri can be useful resources for indexing and retrieval on the Semantic Web, but often they are not published in RDF/OWL. To convert thesauri to RDF for use in Semantic Web applications and to ensure the quality and utility of the conversion a structured method is required. Moreover, if different thesauri are to be interoperable without complicated mappings, a standard schema for thesauri is required. This paper presents a method for conversion of thesauri to the SKOS RDF/OWL schema, which is a proposal for such a standard under development by W3Cs Semantic Web Best Practices Working Group. We apply the method to three thesauri: IPSV, GTAA and MeSH. With these case studies we evaluate our method and the applicability of SKOS for representing thesauri.
  8. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.02 
    0.022777952 = product of:
  0.09111181 = sum of:
    0.0750048 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0750048 = score(doc=3387,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.57616633 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, 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=3387)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Libraries are the tools we use to learn and to answer our questions. The quality of our work depends, among others, on the quality of the tools we use. Recent research in digital libraries is focused, on one hand on improving the infrastructure of the digital library management systems (DLMS), and on the other on improving the metadata models used to annotate collections of objects maintained by DLMS. The latter includes, among others, the semantic web and social networking technologies. Recently, the semantic web and social networking technologies are being introduced to the digital libraries domain. The expected outcome is that the overall quality of information discovery in digital libraries can be improved by employing social and semantic technologies. In this chapter we present the results of an evaluation of social and semantic end-user information discovery services for the digital libraries.
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
    Source
    Semantic digital libraries. Eds.: S.R. Kruk, B. McDaniel
  9. King, B.E.; Reinold, K.: Finding the concept, not just the word : a librarian's guide to ontologies and semantics (2008) 0.02 
    0.022678455 = product of:
  0.060475882 = sum of:
    0.014174575 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014174575 = score(doc=2863,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.1088852 = fieldWeight in 2863, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2863)
    0.02538763 = weight(_text_:case in 2863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02538763 = score(doc=2863,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.14572193 = fieldWeight in 2863, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2863)
    0.02091368 = weight(_text_:studies in 2863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02091368 = score(doc=2863,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.13226016 = fieldWeight in 2863, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2863)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Aimed at students and professionals within Library and Information Services (LIS), this book is about the power and potential of ontologies to enhance the electronic search process. The book will compare search strategies and results in the current search environment and demonstrate how these could be transformed using ontologies and concept searching. Simple descriptions, visual representations, and examples of ontologies will bring a full understanding of how these concept maps are constructed to enhance retrieval through natural language queries. Readers will gain a sense of how ontologies are currently being used and how they could be applied in the future, encouraging them to think about how their own work and their users' search experiences could be enhanced by the creation of a customized ontology. Key Features Written by a librarian, for librarians (most work on ontologies is written and read by people in computer science and knowledge management) Written by a librarian who has created her own ontology and performed research on its capabilities Written in easily understandable language, with concepts broken down to the basics The Author Ms. King is the Information Specialist at the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital Boston. She is a graduate of Smith College (B.A.) and Simmons College (M.L.I.S.). She is an active member of the Special Libraries Association, and was the recipient of the 2005 SLA Innovation in Technology Award for the creation of a customized media effects ontology used for semantic searching. Readership The book is aimed at practicing librarians and information professionals as well as graduate students of Library and Information Science. Contents Introduction Part 1: Understanding Ontologies - organising knowledge; what is an ontology? How are ontologies different from other knowledge representations? How are ontologies currently being used? Key concepts Ontologies in semantic search - determining whether a search was successful; what does semantic search have to offer? Semantic techniques; semantic searching behind the scenes; key concepts Creating an ontology - how to create an ontology; key concepts Building an ontology from existing components - choosing components; customizing your knowledge structure; key concepts Part 2: Semantic Technologies Natural language processing - tagging parts of speech; grammar-based NLP; statistical NLP; semantic analysis,; current applications of NLP; key concepts Using metadata to add semantic information - structured languages; metadata tagging; semantic tagging; key concepts Other semantic capabilities - semantic classification; synsets; topic maps; rules and inference; key concepts Part 3: Case Studies: Theory into Practice Biogen Idec: using semantics in drug discovery research - Biogen Idec's solution; the future The Center on Media and Child Health: using an ontology to explore the effects of media - building the ontology; choosing the source; implementing and comparing to Boolean search; the future Partners HealthCare System: semantic technologies to improve clinical decision support - the medical appointment; partners healthcare system's solution; lessons learned; the future MINDSWAP: using ontologies to aid terrorism; intelligence gathering - building, using and maintaining the ontology; sharing information with other experts; future plans Part 4: Advanced Topics Languages for expressing ontologies - XML; RDF; OWL; SKOS; Ontology language features - comparison chart Tools for building ontologies - basic criteria when evaluating ontologies Part 5: Transitions to the Future
  10. Schwarz, K.: Domain model enhanced search : a comparison of taxonomy, thesaurus and ontology (2005) 0.02 
    0.021628782 = product of:
  0.08651513 = sum of:
    0.05863022 = weight(_text_:case in 4569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05863022 = score(doc=4569,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3365304 = fieldWeight in 4569, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4569)
    0.027884906 = weight(_text_:studies in 4569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027884906 = score(doc=4569,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.17634688 = fieldWeight in 4569, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4569)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    The results of this thesis are intended to support the information architect in designing a solution for improved search in a corporate environment. Specifically we have examined the type of search problems that require a domain model to enhance the search process. There are several approaches to modeling a domain. We have considered 3 different types of domain modeling schemes; taxonomy, thesaurus and ontology. The intention is to support the information architect in making an informed choice between one or more of these schemes. In our opinion the main criteria for this choice are the modeling characteristics of a scheme and the suitability for application in the search process. The second chapter is a discussion of modeling characteristics of each scheme, followed by a comparison between them. This should give an information architect an idea of which aspects of a domain can be modeled with each scheme. What is missing here is an indication of the effort required to model a domain with each scheme. There are too many factors that influence the amount of required effort, ranging from measurable factors like domain size and resource characteristics to cultural matters such as the willingness to share knowledge and the existence of a project champion in the team to keep the project running. The third chapter shows what role domain models can play in each part of the search process. This gives an idea of the problems that domain models can solve. We have split the search process into individual parts to show that domain models can be applied very differently in the process. The fourth chapter makes recommendations about the suitability of each individualdomain modeling scheme for improving search. Each scheme has particular characteristics that make it especially suitable for a domain or a search problem. In the appendix each case study is described in detail. These descriptions are intended to serve as a benchmark. The current problem of the enterprise can be compared to those described to see which case study is most similar, which solution was chosen, which problems arose and how they were dealt with. An important issue that we have not touched upon in this thesis is that of maintenance. The real problems of a domain model are revealed when it is applied in a search system and its deficits and wrong assumptions become clear. Adaptation and maintenance are always required. Unfortunately we have not been able to glean sufficient information about maintenance issues from our case studies to draw any meaningful conclusions.
  11. Jiang, X.; Tan, A.-H.: CRCTOL: a semantic-based domain ontology learning system (2009) 0.02 
    0.019292213 = product of:
  0.07716885 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 3320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=3320,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 3320, 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=3320)
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 3320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=3320,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 3320, 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=3320)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Domain ontologies play an important role in supporting knowledge-based applications in the Semantic Web. To facilitate the building of ontologies, text mining techniques have been used to perform ontology learning from texts. However, traditional systems employ shallow natural language processing techniques and focus only on concept and taxonomic relation extraction. In this paper we present a system, known as Concept-Relation-Concept Tuple-based Ontology Learning (CRCTOL), for mining ontologies automatically from domain-specific documents. Specifically, CRCTOL adopts a full text parsing technique and employs a combination of statistical and lexico-syntactic methods, including a statistical algorithm that extracts key concepts from a document collection, a word sense disambiguation algorithm that disambiguates words in the key concepts, a rule-based algorithm that extracts relations between the key concepts, and a modified generalized association rule mining algorithm that prunes unimportant relations for ontology learning. As a result, the ontologies learned by CRCTOL are more concise and contain a richer semantics in terms of the range and number of semantic relations compared with alternative systems. We present two case studies where CRCTOL is used to build a terrorism domain ontology and a sport event domain ontology. At the component level, quantitative evaluation by comparing with Text-To-Onto and its successor Text2Onto has shown that CRCTOL is able to extract concepts and semantic relations with a significantly higher level of accuracy. At the ontology level, the quality of the learned ontologies is evaluated by either employing a set of quantitative and qualitative methods including analyzing the graph structural property, comparison to WordNet, and expert rating, or directly comparing with a human-edited benchmark ontology, demonstrating the high quality of the ontologies learned.
  12. Doerr, M.: ¬The CIDOC CRM, an ontological approach to schema heterogeneity (2005) 0.02 
    0.018428948 = product of:
  0.07371579 = sum of:
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 1662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=1662,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 1662, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1662)
    0.031888437 = product of:
      0.06377687 = sum of:
        0.06377687 = weight(_text_:area in 1662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06377687 = score(doc=1662,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.32663327 = fieldWeight in 1662, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1662)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    The creation of the World Wide Web has had a profound impact an the ease with which information can be distributed and presented. Now with more and more information becoming available, there is an increasing demand for targeted global search, comparative studies, data transfer and data migration between heterogeneous sources of cultural and scholarly contents. This requires interoperability not only at the encoding level - a task solved well by XML for instance - but also at the more complex semantics level, where lie the characteristics of the domain. In the meanwhile, the reality of semantic interoperability is getting frustrating. In the cultural area alone, dozens of "standard" and hundreds of proprietary metadata and data structures exist, as well as hundreds of terminology systems. Core systems like the Dublin Core represent a common denominator by far too small to fulfil advanced requirements. Overstretching its already limited semantics in order to capture complex contents leads to further loss of meaning.
  13. Urs, S.R.; Angrosh, M.A.: Ontology-based knowledge organization systems in digital libraries : a comparison of experiments in OWL and KAON ontologies (2006 (?)) 0.02 
    0.01569987 = product of:
  0.06279948 = sum of:
    0.032734778 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032734778 = score(doc=2799,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2514596 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
    0.03006471 = product of:
      0.06012942 = sum of:
        0.06012942 = weight(_text_:area in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06012942 = score(doc=2799,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.30795282 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Grounded on a strong belief that ontologies enhance the performance of information retrieval systems, there has been an upsurge of interest in ontologies. Its importance is identified in diverse research fields such as knowledge engineering, knowledge representation, qualitative modeling, language engineering, database design, information integration, object-oriented analysis, information retrieval and extraction, knowledge management and agent-based systems design (Guarino, 1998). While the role-played by ontologies, automatically lends a place of legitimacy for these tools, research in this area gains greater significance in the wake of various challenges faced in the contemporary digital environment. With the objective of overcoming various pitfalls associated with current search mechanisms, ontologies are increasingly used for developing efficient information retrieval systems. An indicator of research interest in the area of ontology is the Swoogle, a search engine for Semantic Web documents, terms and data found on the Web (Ding, Li et al, 2004). Given the complex nature of the digital content archived in digital libraries, ontologies can be employed for designing efficient forms of information retrieval in digital libraries. Knowledge representation assumes greater significance due to its crucial role in ontology development. These systems aid in developing intelligent information systems, wherein the notion of intelligence implies the ability of the system to find implicit consequences of its explicitly represented knowledge (Baader and Nutt, 2003). Knowledge representation formalisms such as 'Description Logics' are used to obtain explicit knowledge representation of the subject domain. These representations are developed into ontologies, which are used for developing intelligent information systems. Against this backdrop, the paper examines the use of Description Logics for conceptually modeling a chosen domain, which would be utilized for developing domain ontologies. The knowledge representation languages identified for this purpose are Web Ontology Language (OWL) and KArlsruhe ONtology (KAON) language. Drawing upon the various technical constructs in developing ontology-based information systems, the paper explains the working of the prototypes and also presents a comparative study of the two prototypes.
  14. Synak, M.; Dabrowski, M.; Kruk, S.R.: Semantic Web and ontologies (2009) 0.01 
    0.0148187205 = product of:
  0.059274882 = sum of:
    0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037798867 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 3376, 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=3376)
    0.021476014 = product of:
      0.042952027 = sum of:
        0.042952027 = weight(_text_:22 in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042952027 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Date
    31. 7.2010 16:58:22
    Source
    Semantic digital libraries. Eds.: S.R. Kruk, B. McDaniel
  15. Kruk, S.R.; McDaniel, B.: Conclusions: The future of semantic digital libraries (2009) 0.01 
    0.010126806 = product of:
  0.08101445 = sum of:
    0.08101445 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08101445 = score(doc=3372,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.6223308 = fieldWeight in 3372, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3372)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Through out this book we showed that Semantic Digital Libraries are no longer an abstract concept; we have presented both underlying technologies, examples of semantic digital libraries, and their applications. However, the bright future of this technology only begins, and we expect more and more genuine applications of semantic digital libraries to emerge. In this section we will spotlight on three of, in our opinion, the most promising of applications: semantic museums, eLearning 2.0, and semantic digital libraries in enterprises.
    Source
    Semantic digital libraries. Eds.: S.R. Kruk, B. McDaniel
  16. Semantic digital libraries (2009) 0.01 
    0.0097405445 = product of:
  0.077924356 = sum of:
    0.077924356 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3371) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077924356 = score(doc=3371,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.59859353 = fieldWeight in 3371, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3371)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Libraries have always been an inspiration for the standards and technologies developed by semantic web activities. However, except for the Dublin Core specification, semantic web and social networking technologies have not been widely adopted and further developed by major digital library initiatives and projects. Yet semantic technologies offer a new level of flexibility, interoperability, and relationships for digital repositories. Kruk and McDaniel present semantic web-related aspects of current digital library activities, and introduce their functionality; they show examples ranging from general architectural descriptions to detailed usages of specific ontologies, and thus stimulate the awareness of researchers, engineers, and potential users of those technologies. Their presentation is completed by chapters on existing prototype systems such as JeromeDL, BRICKS, and Greenstone, as well as a look into the possible future of semantic digital libraries. This book is aimed at researchers and graduate students in areas like digital libraries, the semantic web, social networks, and information retrieval. This audience will benefit from detailed descriptions of both today's possibilities and also the shortcomings of applying semantic web technologies to large digital repositories of often unstructured data.
    Content
    Inhalt: Introduction to Digital Libraries and Semantic Web: Introduction / Bill McDaniel and Sebastian Ryszard Kruk - Digital Libraries and Knowledge Organization / Dagobert Soergel - Semantic Web and Ontologies / Marcin Synak, Maciej Dabrowski and Sebastian Ryszard Kruk - Social Semantic Information Spaces / John G. Breslin A Vision of Semantic Digital Libraries: Goals of Semantic Digital Libraries / Sebastian Ryszard Kruk and Bill McDaniel - Architecture of Semantic Digital Libraries / Sebastian Ryszard Kruk, Adam Westerki and Ewelina Kruk - Long-time Preservation / Markus Reis Ontologies for Semantic Digital Libraries: Bibliographic Ontology / Maciej Dabrowski, Macin Synak and Sebastian Ryszard Kruk - Community-aware Ontologies / Slawomir Grzonkowski, Sebastian Ryszard Kruk, Adam Gzella, Jakub Demczuk and Bill McDaniel Prototypes of Semantic Digital Libraries: JeromeDL: The Social Semantic Digital Library / Sebastian Ryszard Kruk, Mariusz Cygan, Adam Gzella, Tomasz Woroniecki and Maciej Dabrowski - The BRICKS Digital Library Infrastructure / Bernhard Haslhofer and Predrag Knezevié - Semantics in Greenstone / Annika Hinze, George Buchanan, David Bainbridge and Ian Witten Building the Future - Semantic Digital Libraries in Use: Hyperbooks / Gilles Falquet, Luka Nerima and Jean-Claude Ziswiler - Semantic Digital Libraries for Archiving / Bill McDaniel - Evaluation of Semantic and Social Technologies for Digital Libraries / Sebastian Ryszard Kruk, Ewelina Kruk and Katarzyna Stankiewicz - Conclusions: The Future of Semantic Digital Libraries / Sebastian Ryszard Kruk and Bill McDaniel
    LCSH
    Digital libraries
    Subject
    Digital libraries
  17. Kruk, S.R.; McDaniel, B.: Goals of semantic digital libraries (2009) 0.01 
    0.008680119 = product of:
  0.06944095 = sum of:
    0.06944095 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06944095 = score(doc=3378,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.5334264 = fieldWeight in 3378, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3378)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Digital libraries have become commodity in the current world of Internet. More and more information is produced, and more and more non-digital information is being rendered available. The new, more user friendly, community-oriented technologies used throughout the Internet are raising the bar of expectations. Digital libraries cannot stand still with their technologies; if not for the sake of handling rapidly growing amount and diversity of information, they must provide for better user experience matching and overgrowing standards set by the industry. The next generation of digital libraries combine technological solutions, such as P2P, SOA, or Grid, with recent research on semantics and social networks. These solutions are put into practice to answer a variety of requirements imposed on digital libraries.
    Source
    Semantic digital libraries. Eds.: S.R. Kruk, B. McDaniel
  18. Panzer, M.: Towards the "webification" of controlled subject vocabulary : a case study involving the Dewey Decimal Classification (2007) 0.01 
    0.0074047255 = product of:
  0.059237804 = sum of:
    0.059237804 = weight(_text_:case in 538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059237804 = score(doc=538,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 538, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=538)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
  19. Soergel, D.: Digital libraries and knowledge organization (2009) 0.01 
    0.0072334325 = product of:
  0.05786746 = sum of:
    0.05786746 = weight(_text_:libraries in 672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05786746 = score(doc=672,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.44452196 = fieldWeight in 672, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=672)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    This chapter describes not so much what digital libraries are but what digital libraries with semantic support could and should be. It discusses the nature of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) and how KOS can support digital library users. It projects a vision for designers to make and for users to demand better digital libraries. What is a digital library? The term \Digital Library" (DL) is used to refer to a range of systems, from digital object and metadata repositories, reference-linking systems, archives, and content management systems to complex systems that integrate advanced digital library services and support for research and practice communities. A DL may offer many technology-enabled functions and services that support users, both as information producers and as information users. Many of these functions appear in information systems that would not normally be considered digital libraries, making boundaries even more blurry. Instead of pursuing the hopeless quest of coming up with the definition of digital library, we present a framework that allows a clear and somewhat standardized description of any information system so that users can select the system(s) that best meet their requirements. Section 2 gives a broad outline for more detail see the DELOS DL Reference Model.
    Source
    Semantic digital libraries. Eds.: S.R. Kruk, B. McDaniel
  20. Kruk, S.R.; Westerki, A.; Kruk, E.: Architecture of semantic digital libraries (2009) 0.01 
    0.0070872875 = product of:
  0.0566983 = sum of:
    0.0566983 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0566983 = score(doc=3379,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4355408 = fieldWeight in 3379, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3379)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    The main motivation of this chapter was to gather existing requirements and solutions, and to present a generic architectural design of semantic digital libraries. This design is meant to answer a number of requirements, such as interoperability or ability to exchange resources and solutions, and set up the foundations for the best practices in the new domain of semantic digital libraries. We start by presenting the library from different high-level perspectives, i.e., user (see Sect. 2) and metadata (see Sect. 1) perspective; this overview narrows the scope and puts emphasis on certain aspects related to the system perspective, i.e., the architecture of the actual digital library management system. We conclude by presenting the system architecture from three perspectives: top-down layered architecture (see Sect. 3), vertical architecture of core services (see Sect. 4), and stack of enabling infrastructures (see Sect. 5); based upon the observations and evaluation of the contemporary state of the art presented in the previous sections, these last three subsections will describe an in-depth model of the digital library management system.
    Source
    Semantic digital libraries. Eds.: S.R. Kruk, B. McDaniel

Authors

Languages

  • e 59
  • d 4
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 44
  • el 20
  • x 5
  • m 3
  • n 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications