Search (89 results, page 1 of 5)

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.

0.057812307 = 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.

0.01296161 = 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

0.01106417 = 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)

0.009470669 = 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 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

0.0073820096 = 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

0.0067573944 = product of:
  0.047301758 = sum of:
    0.041619197 = weight(_text_:representation in 3403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041619197 = score(doc=3403,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.35945266 = fieldWeight in 3403, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3403)
    0.0056825615 = product of:
      0.017047685 = sum of:
        0.017047685 = weight(_text_:22 in 3403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017047685 = score(doc=3403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3403, 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=3403)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

What is knowledge representation and reasoning (KR&R)? Alas, a thorough account would require a book, or at least a dedicated, full-length paper, but here we shall have to make do with something simpler. Since most readers are likely to have an intuitive grasp of the essence of KR&R, our simple account should suffice. The interesting thing is that this simple account itself makes reference to some of the foundational distinctions in the field of philosophy. These distinctions also play a central role in artificial intelligence (AI) and computer science. To begin with, the first distinction in KR&R is that we identify knowledge with knowledge that such-and-such holds (possibly to a degree), rather than knowing how. If you ask an expert tennis player how he manages to serve a ball at 130 miles per hour on his first serve, and then serve a safer, topspin serve on his second should the first be out, you may well receive a confession that, if truth be told, this athlete can't really tell you. He just does it; he does something he has been doing since his youth. Yet, there is no denying that he knows how to serve. In contrast, the knowledge in KR&R must be expressible in declarative statements. For example, our tennis player knows that if his first serve lands outside the service box, it's not in play. He thus knows a proposition, conditional in form.

Date

9. 2.2017 19:22:14

0.005045009 = product of:
  0.07063012 = sum of:
    0.07063012 = weight(_text_:representation in 5605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07063012 = score(doc=5605,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.6100114 = fieldWeight in 5605, 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=5605)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR & R) has become one of the promising fields of Artificial Intelligence. KR is dedicated towards representing information about the domain that can be utilized in path planning. Ontology based knowledge representation and reasoning techniques provide sophisticated knowledge about the environment for processing tasks or methods. Ontology helps in representing the knowledge about environment, events and actions that help in path planning and making robots more autonomous. Knowledge reasoning techniques can infer new conclusion and thus aids planning dynamically in a non-deterministic environment. In the initial sections, the representation of knowledge using ontology and the techniques for reasoning that could contribute in path planning are discussed in detail. In the following section, we also provide comparison of various planning domain modeling languages, ontology editors, planners and robot simulation tools.

0.005015969 = product of:
  0.03511178 = sum of:
    0.02942922 = weight(_text_:representation in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02942922 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 633, 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=633)
    0.0056825615 = product of:
      0.017047685 = sum of:
        0.017047685 = weight(_text_:22 in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017047685 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 633, 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=633)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Considering the characteristics of hypertext systems and problems such as cognitive overload and the disorientation of users, this project studies subject hypertext documents that have undergone conceptual structuring using facets for content representation and improvement of information retrieval during navigation. The main objective was to assess the possibility of the application of topic map technology for automating the compatibilization process of these structures. For this purpose, two dissertations from the UFMG Information Science Post-Graduation Program were adopted as samples. Both dissertations had been duly analyzed and structured on the MHTX (Hypertextual Map) prototype database. The faceted structures of both dissertations, which had been represented in conceptual maps, were then converted into topic maps. It was then possible to use the merge property of the topic maps to promote the semantic interrelationship between the maps and, consequently, between the hypertextual information resources proper. The merge results were then analyzed in the light of theories dealing with the compatibilization of languages developed within the realm of information technology and librarianship from the 1960s on. The main goals accomplished were: (a) the detailed conceptualization of the merge process of the topic maps, considering the possible compatibilization levels and the applicability of this technology in the integration of faceted structures; and (b) the production of a detailed sequence of steps that may be used in the implementation of topic maps based on faceted structures.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:39:23

0.005015969 = product of:
  0.03511178 = sum of:
    0.02942922 = weight(_text_:representation in 635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02942922 = score(doc=635,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 635, 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=635)
    0.0056825615 = product of:
      0.017047685 = sum of:
        0.017047685 = weight(_text_:22 in 635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017047685 = score(doc=635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 635, 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=635)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Despite the dissemination of modeling languages and tools for representation and construction of ontologies, their underlying methodologies can still be improved. As a consequence, ontology tools can be enhanced accordingly, in order to support users through the ontology construction process. This paper proposes suggestions for ontology tools' improvement based on a case study within the domain of bioinformatics, applying a reuse method ology. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were carried out on a subset of 28 terms of Gene Ontology on a semi-automatic alignment with other biomedical ontologies. As a result, a report is presented containing suggestions for enhancing ontology reuse tools, which is a product derived from difficulties that we had in reusing a set of OBO ontologies. For the reuse process, a set of steps closely related to those of Pinto and Martin's methodology was used. In each step, it was observed that the experiment would have been significantly improved if ontology manipulation tools had provided certain features. Accordingly, problematic aspects in ontology tools are presented and suggestions are made aiming at getting better results in ontology reuse.

Date

22. 2.2013 12:03:53

0.005015969 = product of:
  0.03511178 = sum of:
    0.02942922 = weight(_text_:representation in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02942922 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 4553, 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=4553)
    0.0056825615 = product of:
      0.017047685 = sum of:
        0.017047685 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017047685 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4553, 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=4553)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Semantic Web knowledge representation standards, and in particular RDF and OWL, often come endowed with a formal semantics which is considered to be of fundamental importance for the field. Reasoning, i.e., the drawing of logical inferences from knowledge expressed in such standards, is traditionally based on logical deductive methods and algorithms which can be proven to be sound and complete and terminating, i.e. correct in a very strong sense. For various reasons, though, in particular the scalability issues arising from the ever increasing amounts of Semantic Web data available and the inability of deductive algorithms to deal with noise in the data, it has been argued that alternative means of reasoning should be investigated which bear high promise for high scalability and better robustness. From this perspective, deductive algorithms can be considered the gold standard regarding correctness against which alternative methods need to be tested. In this paper, we show that it is possible to train a Deep Learning system on RDF knowledge graphs, such that it is able to perform reasoning over new RDF knowledge graphs, with high precision and recall compared to the deductive gold standard.

Date

16.11.2018 14:22:01

0.00475648 = product of:
  0.06659072 = sum of:
    0.06659072 = weight(_text_:representation in 1510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06659072 = score(doc=1510,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.57512426 = fieldWeight in 1510, 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=1510)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Starting from an unsolved problem of information retrieval this paper presents an ontology-based model for indexing and retrieval. The model combines the methods and experiences of cognitive-to-interpret indexing languages with the strengths and possibilities of formal knowledge representation. The core component of the model uses inferences along the paths of typed relations between the entities of a knowledge representation for enabling the determination of hit quantities in the context of retrieval processes. The entities are arranged in aspect-oriented facets to ensure a consistent hierarchical structure. The possible consequences for indexing and retrieval are discussed.

0.004414383 = product of:
  0.061801355 = sum of:
    0.061801355 = weight(_text_:representation in 4515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061801355 = score(doc=4515,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.53375995 = fieldWeight in 4515, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4515)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The main purpose of this book is to sum up the vital and highly topical research issue of knowledge representation on the Web and to discuss novel solutions by combining benefits of folksonomies and Web 2.0 approaches with ontologies and semantic technologies. This book contains an overview of knowledge representation approaches in past, present and future, introduction to ontologies, Web indexing and in first case the novel approaches of developing ontologies. This title combines aspects of knowledge representation for both the Semantic Web (ontologies) and the Web 2.0 (folksonomies). Currently there is no monographic book which provides a combined overview over these topics. focus on the topic of using knowledge representation methods for document indexing purposes. For this purpose, considerations from classical librarian interests in knowledge representation (thesauri, classification schemes etc.) are included, which are not part of most other books which have a stronger background in computer science.

Footnote

Rez. in: iwp 62(2011) H.4, S.205-206 (C. Carstens): "Welche Arten der Wissensrepräsentation existieren im Web, wie ausgeprägt sind semantische Strukturen in diesem Kontext, und wie können soziale Aktivitäten im Sinne des Web 2.0 zur Strukturierung von Wissen im Web beitragen? Diesen Fragen widmet sich Wellers Buch mit dem Titel Knowledge Representation in the Social Semantic Web. Der Begriff Social Semantic Web spielt einerseits auf die semantische Strukturierung von Daten im Sinne des Semantic Web an und deutet andererseits auf die zunehmend kollaborative Inhaltserstellung im Social Web hin. Weller greift die Entwicklungen in diesen beiden Bereichen auf und beleuchtet die Möglichkeiten und Herausforderungen, die aus der Kombination der Aktivitäten im Semantic Web und im Social Web entstehen. Der Fokus des Buches liegt dabei primär auf den konzeptuellen Herausforderungen, die sich in diesem Kontext ergeben. So strebt die originäre Vision des Semantic Web die Annotation aller Webinhalte mit ausdrucksstarken, hochformalisierten Ontologien an. Im Social Web hingegen werden große Mengen an Daten von Nutzern erstellt, die häufig mithilfe von unkontrollierten Tags in Folksonomies annotiert werden. Weller sieht in derartigen kollaborativ erstellten Inhalten und Annotationen großes Potenzial für die semantische Indexierung, eine wichtige Voraussetzung für das Retrieval im Web. Das Hauptinteresse des Buches besteht daher darin, eine Brücke zwischen den Wissensrepräsentations-Methoden im Social Web und im Semantic Web zu schlagen. Um dieser Fragestellung nachzugehen, gliedert sich das Buch in drei Teile. . . .

LCSH

Knowledge representation (Information theory)

Subject

Knowledge representation (Information theory)

0.0042041745 = product of:
  0.05885844 = sum of:
    0.05885844 = weight(_text_:representation in 2396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05885844 = score(doc=2396,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.50834286 = fieldWeight in 2396, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2396)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Natural Language is not only the most important means of communication between human beings, it is also used over historical periods for the preservation of cultural achievements and their transmission from one generation to the other. During the last few decades, the flod of digitalized information has been growing tremendously. This tendency will continue with the globalisation of information societies and with the growing importance of national and international computer networks. This is one reason why the theoretical understanding and the automated treatment of communication processes based on natural language have such a decisive social and economic impact. In this context, the semantic representation of knowledge originally formulated in natural language plays a central part, because it connects all components of natural language processing systems, be they the automatic understanding of natural language (analysis), the rational reasoning over knowledge bases, or the generation of natural language expressions from formal representations. This book presents a method for the semantic representation of natural language expressions (texts, sentences, phrases, etc.) which can be used as a universal knowledge representation paradigm in the human sciences, like linguistics, cognitive psychology, or philosophy of language, as well as in computational linguistics and in artificial intelligence. It is also an attempt to close the gap between these disciplines, which to a large extent are still working separately.

0.0042041745 = product of:
  0.05885844 = sum of:
    0.05885844 = weight(_text_:representation in 2719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05885844 = score(doc=2719,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.50834286 = fieldWeight in 2719, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2719)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Personalized search is aimed at tailoring the search outcome to users; to this aim user profiles play an important role: the more faithfully a user profile represents the user interests and preferences, the higher is the probability to improve the search process. In the approaches proposed in the literature, user profiles are formally represented as bags of words, as vectors, or as conceptual taxonomies, generally defined based on external knowledge resources (such as the WordNet and the ODP - Open Directory Project). Ontologies have been more recently considered as a powerful expressive means for knowledge representation. The advantage offered by ontological languages is that they allow a more structured and expressive knowledge representation with respect to the above mentioned approaches. A challenging research activity consists in defining user profiles by a knowledge extraction process from an existing ontology, with the main aim of producing a semantically rich representation of the user interests. In this paper a method to automatically define a personal ontology via a knowledge extraction process from the general purpose ontology YAGO is presented; starting from a set of keywords, which are representatives of the user interests, the process is aimed to define a structured and semantically coherent representation of the user topical interests. In the paper the proposed method is described, as well as some evaluations that show its effectiveness.

0.0042041745 = product of:
  0.05885844 = sum of:
    0.05885844 = weight(_text_:representation in 2801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05885844 = score(doc=2801,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.50834286 = fieldWeight in 2801, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2801)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The book covers multimedia ontology in heritage preservation with intellectual explorations of various themes of Indian cultural heritage. The result of more than 15 years of collective research, Multimedia Ontology: Representation and Applications provides a theoretical foundation for understanding the nature of media data and the principles involved in its interpretation. The book presents a unified approach to recent advances in multimedia and explains how a multimedia ontology can fill the semantic gap between concepts and the media world. It relays real-life examples of implementations in different domains to illustrate how this gap can be filled. The book contains information that helps with building semantic, content-based search and retrieval engines and also with developing vertical application-specific search applications. It guides you in designing multimedia tools that aid in logical and conceptual organization of large amounts of multimedia data. As a practical demonstration, it showcases multimedia applications in cultural heritage preservation efforts and the creation of virtual museums. The book describes the limitations of existing ontology techniques in semantic multimedia data processing, as well as some open problems in the representations and applications of multimedia ontology. As an antidote, it introduces new ontology representation and reasoning schemes that overcome these limitations. The long, compiled efforts reflected in Multimedia Ontology: Representation and Applications are a signpost for new achievements and developments in efficiency and accessibility in the field.

0.0042041745 = product of:
  0.05885844 = sum of:
    0.05885844 = weight(_text_:representation in 3398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05885844 = score(doc=3398,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.50834286 = fieldWeight in 3398, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3398)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Knowledge representation, which is today used in database applications, artificial intelligence (AI), software engineering and many other disciplines of computer science has deep roots in logic and philosophy. In the beginning, there was Aristotle (384 bc-322 bc) who developed logic as a precise method for reasoning about knowledge. Syllogisms were introduced as formal patterns for representing special figures of logical deductions. According to Aristotle, the subject of ontology is the study of categories of things that exist or may exist in some domain. In modern times, Descartes considered the human brain as a store of knowledge representation. Recognition was made possible by an isomorphic correspondence between internal geometrical representations (ideae) and external situations and events. Leibniz was deeply influenced by these traditions. In his mathesis universalis, he required a universal formal language (lingua universalis) to represent human thinking by calculation procedures and to implement them by means of mechanical calculating machines. An ars iudicandi should allow every problem to be decided by an algorithm after representation in numeric symbols. An ars iveniendi should enable users to seek and enumerate desired data and solutions of problems. In the age of mechanics, knowledge representation was reduced to mechanical calculation procedures. In the twentieth century, computational cognitivism arose in the wake of Turing's theory of computability. In its functionalism, the hardware of a computer is related to the wetware of the human brain. The mind is understood as the software of a computer.

0.00416192 = product of:
  0.058266878 = sum of:
    0.058266878 = weight(_text_:representation in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058266878 = score(doc=760,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.50323373 = fieldWeight in 760, 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=760)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Nowadays, eHealth and pHealth solutions have to meet advanced interoperability challenges. Enabling pervasive computing and even autonomic computing, pHealth system architectures cover many domains, scientifically managed by specialized disciplines using their specific ontologies. Therefore, semantic interoperability has to advance from a communication protocol to an ontology coordination challenge including semantic integration, bringing knowledge representation and artificial intelligence on the table. The resulting solutions comprehensively support multi-lingual and multi-jurisdictional environments.

0.00416192 = product of:
  0.058266878 = sum of:
    0.058266878 = weight(_text_:representation in 2777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058266878 = score(doc=2777,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.50323373 = fieldWeight in 2777, 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=2777)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The presented ontology-based model for indexing and retrieval combines the methods and experiences of traditional indexing languages with their cognitively interpreted entities and relationships with the strengths and possibilities of formal knowledge representation. The core component of the model uses inferences along the paths of typed relations between the entities of a knowledge representation for enabling the determination of result sets in the context of retrieval processes. A proposal for a general, but condensed, inventory of typed relations is given. The entities are arranged in aspect-oriented facets to ensure a consistent hierarchical structure. The possible consequences for indexing and retrieval are discussed.