Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0021020873 = product of:
  0.02942922 = sum of:
    0.02942922 = weight(_text_:representation in 475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02942922 = score(doc=475,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 475, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=475)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Ontologies are a well-affirmed way of representing complex structured information and they provide a sound conceptual foundation to Semantic Web technologies. On the other hand, a huge amount of information available on the web is stored in legacy relational databases. The issues raised by the collaboration between such worlds are well known and addressed by consolidated mapping languages. Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, a best practice for such cooperation is missing: in this work we thus present a method to guide the definition of cooperations between ontology-based and relational databases systems. Our method, mainly based on ideas from knowledge reuse and re-engineering, is aimed at the separation of data between database and ontology instances and at the definition of suitable mappings in both directions, taking advantage of the representation possibilities offered by both models. We present the steps of our method along with guidelines for their application. Finally, we propose an example of its deployment in the context of a large repository of bio-medical images we developed.

0.0017836799 = product of:
  0.024971519 = sum of:
    0.024971519 = weight(_text_:representation in 3391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024971519 = score(doc=3391,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.2156716 = fieldWeight in 3391, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3391)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Content

Short Papers * A Database Backend for OWL, Jörg Henss, Joachim Kleb and Stephan Grimm. * Unifying SysML and OWL, Henson Graves. * The OWLlink Protocol, Thorsten Liebig, Marko Luther and Olaf Noppens. * A Reasoning Broker Framework for OWL, Juergen Bock, Tuvshintur Tserendorj, Yongchun Xu, Jens Wissmann and Stephan Grimm. * Change Representation For OWL 2 Ontologies, Raul Palma, Peter Haase, Oscar Corcho and Asunción Gómez-Pérez. * Practical Aspects of Query Rewriting for OWL 2, Héctor Pérez-Urbina, Ian Horrocks and Boris Motik. * CSage: Use of a Configurable Semantically Attributed Graph Editor as Framework for Editing and Visualization, Lawrence Levin. * A Conformance Test Suite for the OWL 2 RL/RDF Rules Language and the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics, Michael Schneider and Kai Mainzer. * Improving the Data Quality of Relational Databases using OBDA and OWL 2 QL, Olivier Cure. * Temporal Classes and OWL, Natalya Keberle. * Using Ontologies for Medical Image Retrieval - An Experiment, Jasmin Opitz, Bijan Parsia and Ulrike Sattler. * Task Representation and Retrieval in an Ontology-Guided Modelling System, Yuan Ren, Jens Lemcke, Andreas Friesen, Tirdad Rahmani, Srdjan Zivkovic, Boris Gregorcic, Andreas Bartho, Yuting Zhao and Jeff Z. Pan. * A platform for reasoning with OWL-EL knowledge bases in a Peer-to-Peer environment, Alexander De Leon and Michel Dumontier. * Axiomé: a Tool for the Elicitation and Management of SWRL Rules, Saeed Hassanpour, Martin O'Connor and Amar Das. * SQWRL: A Query Language for OWL, Martin O'Connor and Amar Das. * Classifying ELH Ontologies In SQL Databases, Vincent Delaitre and Yevgeny Kazakov. * A Semantic Web Approach to Represent and Retrieve Information in a Corporate Memory, Ana B. Rios-Alvarado, R. Carolina Medina-Ramirez and Ricardo Marcelin-Jimenez. * Towards a Graphical Notation for OWL 2, Elisa Kendall, Roy Bell, Roger Burkhart, Mark Dutra and Evan Wallace.

0.0017836799 = product of:
  0.024971519 = sum of:
    0.024971519 = weight(_text_:representation in 468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024971519 = score(doc=468,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.2156716 = fieldWeight in 468, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=468)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Archival Information Systems (AIS) are becoming increasingly important. For decades, the amount of content created digitally is growing and its complete life cycle nowadays tends to remain digital. A selection of this content is expected to be of value for the future and can thus be considered being part of our cultural heritage. However, digital content poses many challenges for long-term or indefinite preservation, e.g. digital publications become increasingly complex by the embedding of different kinds of multimedia, data in arbitrary formats and software. As soon as these digital publications become obsolete, but are still deemed to be of value in the future, they have to be transferred smoothly into appropriate AIS where they need to be kept accessible even through changing technologies. The successful previous SDA workshop in 2011 showed: Both, the library and the archiving community have made valuable contributions to the management of huge amounts of knowledge and data. However, both are approaching this topic from different views which shall be brought together to cross-fertilize each other. There are promising combinations of pertinence and provenance models since those are traditionally the prevailing knowledge organization principles of the library and archiving community, respectively. Another scientific discipline providing promising technical solutions for knowledge representation and knowledge management is semantic technologies, which is supported by appropriate W3C recommendations and a large user community. At the forefront of making the semantic web a mature and applicable reality is the linked data initiative, which already has started to be adopted by the library community. It can be expected that using semantic (web) technologies in general and linked data in particular can mature the area of digital archiving as well as technologically tighten the natural bond between digital libraries and digital archives. Semantic representations of contextual knowledge about cultural heritage objects will enhance organization and access of data and knowledge. In order to achieve a comprehensive investigation, the information seeking and document triage behaviors of users (an area also classified under the field of Human Computer Interaction) will also be included in the research.
One of the major challenges of digital archiving is how to deal with changing technologies and changing user communities. On the one hand software, hardware and (multimedia) data formats that become obsolete and are not supported anymore still need to be kept accessible. On the other hand changing user communities necessitate technical means to formalize, detect and measure knowledge evolution. Furthermore, digital archival records are usually not deleted from the AIS and therefore, the amount of digitally archived (multimedia) content can be expected to grow rapidly. Therefore, efficient storage management solutions geared to the fact that cultural heritage is not as frequently accessed like up-to-date content residing in a digital library are required. Software and hardware needs to be tightly connected based on sophisticated knowledge representation and management models in order to face that challenge. In line with the above, contributions to the workshop should focus on, but are not limited to:

5.6825613E-4 = product of:
  0.007955586 = sum of:
    0.007955586 = product of:
      0.023866756 = sum of:
        0.023866756 = weight(_text_:22 in 4661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023866756 = score(doc=4661,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4661, 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=4661)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

22. 7.2000 18:45:51

4.0958173E-4 = product of:
  0.005734144 = sum of:
    0.005734144 = product of:
      0.017202431 = sum of:
        0.017202431 = weight(_text_:29 in 470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017202431 = score(doc=470,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 470, 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=470)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Pages

S.18-29

4.0589727E-4 = product of:
  0.0056825615 = sum of:
    0.0056825615 = product of:
      0.017047685 = sum of:
        0.017047685 = weight(_text_:22 in 1648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017047685 = score(doc=1648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1648, 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=1648)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

27. 1.2015 11:48:22