Search (197 results, page 1 of 10)

0.0770362 = product of:
  0.2696267 = sum of:
    0.019984502 = product of:
      0.07993801 = sum of:
        0.07993801 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07993801 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21335082 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, 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=5820)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.11304941 = weight(_text_:2f in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11304941 = score(doc=5820,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21335082 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.5298757 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
    0.11304941 = weight(_text_:2f in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11304941 = score(doc=5820,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21335082 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.5298757 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
    0.023543375 = weight(_text_:representation in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023543375 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.20333713 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

The successes of information retrieval (IR) in recent decades were built upon bag-of-words representations. Effective as it is, bag-of-words is only a shallow text understanding; there is a limited amount of information for document ranking in the word space. This dissertation goes beyond words and builds knowledge based text representations, which embed the external and carefully curated information from knowledge bases, and provide richer and structured evidence for more advanced information retrieval systems. This thesis research first builds query representations with entities associated with the query. Entities' descriptions are used by query expansion techniques that enrich the query with explanation terms. Then we present a general framework that represents a query with entities that appear in the query, are retrieved by the query, or frequently show up in the top retrieved documents. A latent space model is developed to jointly learn the connections from query to entities and the ranking of documents, modeling the external evidence from knowledge bases and internal ranking features cooperatively. To further improve the quality of relevant entities, a defining factor of our query representations, we introduce learning to rank to entity search and retrieve better entities from knowledge bases. In the document representation part, this thesis research also moves one step forward with a bag-of-entities model, in which documents are represented by their automatic entity annotations, and the ranking is performed in the entity space.

Content

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Information Technologies. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.cmu.edu%2F~cx%2Fpapers%2Fknowledge_based_text_representation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0SaTSvhWLTh__Uz_HtOtl3.

0.0581154 = product of:
  0.20340389 = sum of:
    0.019984502 = product of:
      0.07993801 = sum of:
        0.07993801 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07993801 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21335082 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.07993801 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07993801 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21335082 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = 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)
    0.07993801 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07993801 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21335082 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = 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)
    0.023543375 = weight(_text_:representation in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023543375 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.20333713 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

By the explosion of possibilities for a ubiquitous content production, the information overload problem reaches the level of complexity which cannot be managed by traditional modelling approaches anymore. Due to their pure syntactical nature traditional information retrieval approaches did not succeed in treating content itself (i.e. its meaning, and not its representation). This leads to a very low usefulness of the results of a retrieval process for a user's task at hand. In the last ten years ontologies have been emerged from an interesting conceptualisation paradigm to a very promising (semantic) modelling technology, especially in the context of the Semantic Web. From the information retrieval point of view, ontologies enable a machine-understandable form of content description, such that the retrieval process can be driven by the meaning of the content. However, the very ambiguous nature of the retrieval process in which a user, due to the unfamiliarity with the underlying repository and/or query syntax, just approximates his information need in a query, implies a necessity to include the user in the retrieval process more actively in order to close the gap between the meaning of the content and the meaning of a user's query (i.e. his information need). This thesis lays foundation for such an ontology-based interactive retrieval process, in which the retrieval system interacts with a user in order to conceptually interpret the meaning of his query, whereas the underlying domain ontology drives the conceptualisation process. In that way the retrieval process evolves from a query evaluation process into a highly interactive cooperation between a user and the retrieval system, in which the system tries to anticipate the user's information need and to deliver the relevant content proactively. Moreover, the notion of content relevance for a user's query evolves from a content dependent artefact to the multidimensional context-dependent structure, strongly influenced by the user's preferences. This cooperation process is realized as the so-called Librarian Agent Query Refinement Process. In order to clarify the impact of an ontology on the retrieval process (regarding its complexity and quality), a set of methods and tools for different levels of content and query formalisation is developed, ranging from pure ontology-based inferencing to keyword-based querying in which semantics automatically emerges from the results. Our evaluation studies have shown that the possibilities to conceptualize a user's information need in the right manner and to interpret the retrieval results accordingly are key issues for realizing much more meaningful information retrieval systems.

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F1627&ei=tAtYUYrBNoHKtQb3l4GYBw&usg=AFQjCNHeaxKkKU3-u54LWxMNYGXaaDLCGw&sig2=8WykXWQoDKjDSdGtAakH2Q&bvm=bv.44442042,d.Yms.

0.057812307 = product of:
  0.26979077 = sum of:
    0.029976752 = product of:
      0.11990701 = sum of:
        0.11990701 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11990701 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21335082 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.11990701 = weight(_text_:2f in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11990701 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21335082 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
    0.11990701 = weight(_text_:2f in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11990701 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21335082 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.013504505 = product of:
  0.09453153 = sum of:
    0.08155664 = weight(_text_:representation in 3671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08155664 = score(doc=3671,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.7043805 = fieldWeight in 3671, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3671)
    0.012974886 = product of:
      0.038924657 = sum of:
        0.038924657 = weight(_text_:29 in 3671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038924657 = score(doc=3671,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.43971092 = fieldWeight in 3671, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3671)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Semantic networks produced from human data have statistical properties that cannot be easily captured by spatial representations. We explore a probabilistic approach to semantic representation that explicitly models the probability with which words occurin diffrent contexts, and hence captures the probabilistic relationships between words. We show that this representation has statistical properties consistent with the large-scale structure of semantic networks constructed by humans, and trace the origins of these properties.

Date

29. 6.2015 14:55:01
29. 6.2015 16:09:05

0.01296161 = product of:
  0.09073127 = sum of:
    0.08155664 = weight(_text_:representation in 3839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08155664 = score(doc=3839,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.7043805 = fieldWeight in 3839, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3839)
    0.00917463 = product of:
      0.027523888 = sum of:
        0.027523888 = weight(_text_:29 in 3839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027523888 = score(doc=3839,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 3839, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3839)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Ontologies may be considered knowledge organization systems since the elements interact in a consistent conceptual structure. Theories of the representation of knowledge domains produce models that include definition, representation units, and semantic relationships that are essential for structuring such domain models. A realist viewpoint is proposed to enhance domain ontologies, as definitions provide structure that reveals not only ontological commitment but also relationships between unit representations.

Date

6. 5.2017 19:29:28

0.0129082 = product of:
  0.09035739 = sum of:
    0.082401805 = weight(_text_:representation in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.082401805 = score(doc=2654,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.71167994 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
    0.007955586 = product of:
      0.023866756 = sum of:
        0.023866756 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023866756 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Faceted Knowledge Representation provides a formalism for implementing knowledge systems. The basic notions of faceted knowledge representation are "unit", "relation", "facet" and "interpretation". Units are atomic elements and can be abstract elements or refer to external objects in an application. Relations are sequences or matrices of 0 and 1's (binary matrices). Facets are relational structures that combine units and relations. Each facet represents an aspect or viewpoint of a knowledge system. Interpretations are mappings that can be used to translate between different representations. This paper introduces the basic notions of faceted knowledge representation. The formalism is applied here to an abstract modeling of a faceted thesaurus as used in information retrieval.

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31

0.01106417 = product of:
  0.07744919 = sum of:
    0.07063012 = weight(_text_:representation in 987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07063012 = score(doc=987,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.6100114 = fieldWeight in 987, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=987)
    0.006819073 = product of:
      0.02045722 = sum of:
        0.02045722 = weight(_text_:22 in 987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02045722 = score(doc=987,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 987, 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=987)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Content

Introduction: envisioning semantic information spacesIndexing and knowledge organization -- Semantic technologies for knowledge representation -- Information retrieval and knowledge exploration -- Approaches to handle heterogeneity -- Problems with establishing semantic interoperability -- Formalization in indexing languages -- Typification of semantic relations -- Inferences in retrieval processes -- Semantic interoperability and inferences -- Remaining research questions.

Date

23. 7.2017 13:49:22

LCSH

Knowledge representation (Information theory)

Subject

Knowledge representation (Information theory)

0.010811832 = product of:
  0.07568282 = sum of:
    0.06659072 = weight(_text_:representation in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06659072 = score(doc=318,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.57512426 = fieldWeight in 318, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=318)
    0.009092098 = product of:
      0.027276294 = sum of:
        0.027276294 = weight(_text_:22 in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027276294 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 318, 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=318)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

In der Session "Knowledge Representation" auf der ISI 2021 wurden unter der Moderation von Jürgen Reischer (Uni Regensburg) drei Projekte vorgestellt, in denen Knowledge Representation mit RDF umgesetzt wird. Die Domänen sind erfreulich unterschiedlich, die gemeinsame Klammer indes ist die Absicht, den Zugang zu Forschungsdaten zu verbessern: - Japanese Visual Media Graph - Taxonomy of Digital Research Activities in the Humanities - Forschungsdaten im konzeptuellen Modell von FRBR

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.010142457 = product of:
  0.07099719 = sum of:
    0.047453817 = weight(_text_:mental in 758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047453817 = score(doc=758,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16438161 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.28868082 = fieldWeight in 758, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=758)
    0.023543375 = weight(_text_:representation in 758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023543375 = score(doc=758,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.20333713 = fieldWeight in 758, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=758)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Innovative research institutes rely on the availability of complete and accurate information about new research and development, and it is the business of information providers such as Elsevier to provide the required information in a cost-effective way. It is very likely that the semantic web will make an important contribution to this effort, since it facilitates access to an unprecedented quantity of data. However, with the unremitting growth of scientific information, integrating access to all this information remains a significant problem, not least because of the heterogeneity of the information sources involved - sources which may use different syntactic standards (syntactic heterogeneity), organize information in very different ways (structural heterogeneity) and even use different terminologies to refer to the same information (semantic heterogeneity). The ability to address these different kinds of heterogeneity is the key to integrated access. Thesauri have already proven to be a core technology to effective information access as they provide controlled vocabularies for indexing information, and thereby help to overcome some of the problems of free-text search by relating and grouping relevant terms in a specific domain. However, currently there is no open architecture which supports the use of these thesauri for querying other data sources. For example, when we move from the centralized and controlled use of EMTREE within EMBASE.com to a distributed setting, it becomes crucial to improve access to the thesaurus by means of a standardized representation using open data standards that allow for semantic qualifications. In general, mental models and keywords for accessing data diverge between subject areas and communities, and so many different ontologies have been developed. An ideal architecture must therefore support the disclosure of distributed and heterogeneous data sources through different ontologies. The aim of the DOPE project (Drug Ontology Project for Elsevier) is to investigate the possibility of providing access to multiple information sources in the area of life science through a single interface.

0.009721208 = product of:
  0.068048455 = sum of:
    0.061167482 = weight(_text_:representation in 4641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061167482 = score(doc=4641,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.5282854 = fieldWeight in 4641, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4641)
    0.006880972 = product of:
      0.020642916 = sum of:
        0.020642916 = weight(_text_:29 in 4641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020642916 = score(doc=4641,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4641, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4641)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This paper presents an overview of the work in progress at the W3C to produce a standard conversion of WordNet to the RDF/OWL representation language in use in the SemanticWeb community. Such a standard representation is useful to provide application developers a high-quality resource and to promote interoperability. Important requirements in this conversion process are that it should be complete and should stay close to WordNet's conceptual model. The paper explains the steps taken to produce the conversion and details design decisions such as the composition of the class hierarchy and properties, the addition of suitable OWL semantics and the chosen format of the URIs. Additional topics include a strategy to incorporate OWL and RDFS semantics in one schema such that both RDF(S) infrastructure and OWL infrastructure can interpret the information correctly, problems encountered in understanding the Prolog source files and the description of the two versions that are provided (Basic and Full) to accommodate different usages of WordNet.

Date

29. 7.2011 14:44:56

0.009712365 = product of:
  0.067986555 = sum of:
    0.061167482 = weight(_text_:representation in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061167482 = score(doc=2655,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.5282854 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
    0.006819073 = product of:
      0.02045722 = sum of:
        0.02045722 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02045722 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2655, 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=2655)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The term "facet" was introduced into the field of library classification systems by Ranganathan in the 1930's [Ranganathan, 1962]. A facet is a viewpoint or aspect. In contrast to traditional classification systems, faceted systems are modular in that a domain is analyzed in terms of baseline facets which are then synthesized. In this paper, the term "facet" is used in a broader meaning. Facets can describe different aspects on the same level of abstraction or the same aspect on different levels of abstraction. The notion of facets is related to database views, multicontexts and conceptual scaling in formal concept analysis [Ganter and Wille, 1999], polymorphism in object-oriented design, aspect-oriented programming, views and contexts in description logic and semantic networks. This paper presents a definition of facets in terms of faceted knowledge representation that incorporates the traditional narrower notion of facets and potentially facilitates translation between different knowledge representation formalisms. A goal of this approach is a modular, machine-aided knowledge base design mechanism. A possible application is faceted thesaurus construction for information retrieval and data mining. Reasoning complexity depends on the size of the modules (facets). A more general analysis of complexity will be left for future research.

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31

0.009470669 = product of:
  0.06629468 = sum of:
    0.058266878 = weight(_text_:representation in 1565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058266878 = score(doc=1565,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.50323373 = fieldWeight in 1565, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1565)
    0.008027801 = product of:
      0.024083402 = sum of:
        0.024083402 = weight(_text_:29 in 1565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024083402 = score(doc=1565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1565, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1565)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Faceted arrangement of entities and typed relations for representing different associations between the entities are established tools in knowledge representation. In this paper, a proposal is being discussed combining both tools to draw inferences along relational paths. This approach may yield new benefit for information retrieval processes, especially when modeled for heterogeneous environments in the Semantic Web. Faceted arrangement can be used as a selection tool for the semantic knowledge modeled within the knowledge representation. Typed relations between the entities of different facets can be used as restrictions for selecting them across the facets.

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 8th Research Conference, MTSR 2014, Karlsruhe, Germany, November 27-29, 2014, Proceedings. Eds.: S. Closs et al

0.009460352 = product of:
  0.06622247 = sum of:
    0.058266878 = weight(_text_:representation in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058266878 = score(doc=5095,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.50323373 = fieldWeight in 5095, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5095)
    0.007955586 = product of:
      0.023866756 = sum of:
        0.023866756 = weight(_text_:22 in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023866756 = score(doc=5095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5095, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5095)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This paper presents an abstract formalization of the notion of "facets". Facets are relational structures of units, relations and other facets selected for a certain purpose. Facets can be used to structure large knowledge representation systems into a hierarchical arrangement of consistent and independent subsystems (facets) that facilitate flexibility and combinations of different viewpoints or aspects. This paper describes the basic notions, facet characteristics and construction mechanisms. It then explicates the theory in an example of a faceted information retrieval system (FaIR)

Date

22. 1.2016 17:47:06

0.009460352 = product of:
  0.06622247 = sum of:
    0.058266878 = weight(_text_:representation in 1437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058266878 = score(doc=1437,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.50323373 = fieldWeight in 1437, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1437)
    0.007955586 = product of:
      0.023866756 = sum of:
        0.023866756 = weight(_text_:22 in 1437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023866756 = score(doc=1437,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1437, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1437)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This paper describes to construct faceted ontologies for domain modeling. Building upon the faceted theory of S.R. Ranganathan (1967), the paper intends to address the faceted classification approach applied to build domain ontologies. As classificatory ontologies are employed to represent the relationships of entities and objects on the web, the faceted approach helps to analyze domain representation in an effective way for modeling. Based on this perspective, an ontology of the music domain has been analyzed that would serve as a case study.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.00929306 = product of:
  0.065051414 = sum of:
    0.059317272 = weight(_text_:mental in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059317272 = score(doc=103,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16438161 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.36085102 = fieldWeight in 103, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=103)
    0.005734144 = product of:
      0.017202431 = sum of:
        0.017202431 = weight(_text_:29 in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017202431 = score(doc=103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 103, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=103)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

There have been many attempts at classifying the semantic modification relations (R) of N + N compounds but this work has not led to the acceptance of a definitive scheme, so that devising a reusable classification is a worthwhile aim. The scope of this undertaking is extended to other binominal lexemes, i.e. units that contain two thing-morphemes without explicitly stating R, like prepositional units, N + relational adjective units, etc. The 25-relation taxonomy of Bourque (2014) was tested against over 15,000 binominal lexemes from 106 languages and extended to a 29-relation scheme ("Bourque2") through the introduction of two new reversible relations. Bourque2 is then mapped onto Hatcher's (1960) four-relation scheme (extended by the addition of a fifth relation, similarity , as "Hatcher2"). This results in a two-tier system usable at different degrees of granularities. On account of its semantic proximity to compounding, metonymy is then taken into account, following Janda's (2011) suggestion that it plays a role in word formation; Peirsman and Geeraerts' (2006) inventory of 23 metonymic patterns is mapped onto Bourque2, confirming the identity of metonymic and binominal modification relations. Finally, Blank's (2003) and Koch's (2001) work on lexical semantics justifies the addition to the scheme of a third, superordinate level which comprises the three Aristotelean principles of similarity, contiguity and contrast.

Source

¬The Mental Lexicon. 15(2020) no.1, S.101-122

0.008806332 = product of:
  0.12328864 = sum of:
    0.12328864 = weight(_text_:mental in 832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12328864 = score(doc=832,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16438161 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.7500148 = fieldWeight in 832, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=832)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

In the context of Knowledge Organization (KO) the ontological focus is sometimes overlooked in studies related to the nature of the concept. This study presents an analysis with this purpose, questioning possible modes of existence of concepts (such as mental representations, cognitive abilities or abstract objects), framed in four different readings: a linguistic one, the psychological one, the epistemological one, and the ontological one; and focuses on the two first ones. The suitability of using the concept as an elementary unit of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) is analyzed according to the different perspectives. From a mental entity, passing to another one that exists in a non-mental realm, although also non-physical, moving on to another one with an objective linguistic existence.

0.008025549 = product of:
  0.056178845 = sum of:
    0.04708675 = weight(_text_:representation in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04708675 = score(doc=4476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
    0.009092098 = product of:
      0.027276294 = sum of:
        0.027276294 = weight(_text_:22 in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027276294 = score(doc=4476,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4476, 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=4476)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Describes the types of representations used in different theories of abstractions. Shows how the type of mapping between these representations has been increasingly generalised. Discusses desirable properties preserved by such mappings and identifies how these properties are influenced by the mappings and the presentations defined. Surveys programs made in understanding the complexity reduction associated with abstraction. Focuses on formal models of how abstraction reduces the search space. Presents some of the systems that implement abstraction. shows how the efforts in this area have focused on the mechanisation of languages for the declarative representation of abstraction.

Date

1.10.2018 14:13:22

0.0073820096 = product of:
  0.051674064 = sum of:
    0.04708675 = weight(_text_:representation in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04708675 = score(doc=4639,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
    0.004587315 = product of:
      0.013761944 = sum of:
        0.013761944 = weight(_text_:29 in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013761944 = score(doc=4639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This thesis focuses on conversion of vocabularies for representation and integration of collections on the Semantic Web. A secondary focus is how to represent metadata schemas (RDF Schemas representing metadata element sets) such that they interoperate with vocabularies. The primary domain in which we operate is that of cultural heritage collections. The background worldview in which a solution is sought is that of the Semantic Web research paradigmwith its associated theories, methods, tools and use cases. In other words, we assume the SemanticWeb is in principle able to provide the context to realize interoperable collections. Interoperability is dependent on the interplay between representations and the applications that use them. We mean applications in the widest sense, such as "search" and "annotation". These applications or tasks are often present in software applications, such as the E-Culture application. It is therefore necessary that applications requirements on the vocabulary representation are met. This leads us to formulate the following problem statement: HOW CAN EXISTING VOCABULARIES BE MADE AVAILABLE TO SEMANTIC WEB APPLICATIONS?
We refine the problem statement into three research questions. The first two focus on the problem of conversion of a vocabulary to a Semantic Web representation from its original format. Conversion of a vocabulary to a representation in a Semantic Web language is necessary to make the vocabulary available to SemanticWeb applications. In the last question we focus on integration of collection metadata schemas in a way that allows for vocabulary representations as produced by our methods. Academisch proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad Doctor aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Dutch Research School for Information and Knowledge Systems.

Date

29. 7.2011 14:44:56

0.0070326724 = product of:
  0.049228705 = sum of:
    0.041200902 = weight(_text_:representation in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041200902 = score(doc=4644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.35583997 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
    0.008027801 = product of:
      0.024083402 = sum of:
        0.024083402 = weight(_text_:29 in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024083402 = score(doc=4644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This paper describes a method for converting existing thesauri and related resources from their native format to RDF(S) and OWL. The method identifies four steps in the conversion process. In each step, decisions have to be taken with respect to the syntax or semantics of the resulting representation. Each step is supported through a number of guidelines. The method is illustrated through conversions of two large thesauri: MeSH and WordNet.

Date

29. 7.2011 14:44:56

0.006971834 = product of:
  0.097605675 = sum of:
    0.097605675 = weight(_text_:representation in 1529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097605675 = score(doc=1529,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.84299123 = fieldWeight in 1529, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1529)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The aim of this book is to highlight the relationship between knowledge representation and language in artificial intelligence, and in particular on the way in which the choice of representation influences the language used to discuss a problem - and vice versa. Opening with a discussion of knowledge representation methods, and following this with a look at reasoning methods, the author begins to make his case for the intimate relationship between language and representation. He shows how each representation method fits particularly well with some reasoning methods and less so with others, using specific languages as examples. The question of representation change, an important and complex issue about which very little is known, is addressed. Dr Hodgson gathers together recent work on problem solving, showing how, in some cases, it has been possible to use representation changes to recast problems into a language that makes them easier to solve. The author maintains throughout that the relationships that this book explores lie at the heart of the construction of large systems, examining a number of the current large AI systems from the viewpoint of representation and language to prove his point.

LCSH

Knowledge / representation (Information theory)

Subject

Knowledge / representation (Information theory)