Search (210 results, page 11 of 11)

  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  1. ¬The Semantic Web - ISWC 2010 : 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, Shanghai, China, November 7-11, 2010, Revised Selected Papers, Part I. (2010) 0.01
    0.0054452433 = product of:
      0.010890487 = sum of:
        0.010890487 = product of:
          0.021780973 = sum of:
            0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.021780973 = score(doc=4707,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 4707, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4707)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The two-volume set LNCS 6496 and 6497 constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, held in Shanghai, China, during November 7-11, 2010. Part I contains 51 papers out of 578 submissions to the research track. Part II contains 18 papers out of 66 submissions to the semantic Web in-use track, 6 papers out of 26 submissions to the doctoral consortium track, and also 4 invited talks. Each submitted paper were carefully reviewed. The International Semantic Web Conferences (ISWC) constitute the major international venue where the latest research results and technical innovations on all aspects of the Semantic Web are presented. ISWC brings together researchers, practitioners, and users from the areas of artificial intelligence, databases, social networks, distributed computing, Web engineering, information systems, natural language processing, soft computing, and human computer interaction to discuss the major challenges and proposed solutions, the success stories and failures, as well the visions that can advance research and drive innovation in the Semantic Web.
  2. Ziemba, L.: Information retrieval with concept discovery in digital collections for agriculture and natural resources (2011) 0.01
    0.0054452433 = product of:
      0.010890487 = sum of:
        0.010890487 = product of:
          0.021780973 = sum of:
            0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 4728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.021780973 = score(doc=4728,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 4728, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4728)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The amount and complexity of information available in a digital form is already huge and new information is being produced every day. Retrieving information relevant to address a particular need becomes a significant issue. This work utilizes knowledge organization systems (KOS), such as thesauri and ontologies and applies information extraction (IE) and computational linguistics (CL) techniques to organize, manage and retrieve information stored in digital collections in the agricultural domain. Two real world applications of the approach have been developed and are available and actively used by the public. An ontology is used to manage the Water Conservation Digital Library holding a dynamic collection of various types of digital resources in the domain of urban water conservation in Florida, USA. The ontology based back-end powers a fully operational web interface, available at http://library.conservefloridawater.org. The system has demonstrated numerous benefits of the ontology application, including accurate retrieval of resources, information sharing and reuse, and has proved to effectively facilitate information management. The major difficulty encountered with the approach is that large and dynamic number of concepts makes it difficult to keep the ontology consistent and to accurately catalog resources manually. To address the aforementioned issues, a combination of IE and CL techniques, such as Vector Space Model and probabilistic parsing, with the use of Agricultural Thesaurus were adapted to automatically extract concepts important for each of the texts in the Best Management Practices (BMP) Publication Library--a collection of documents in the domain of agricultural BMPs in Florida available at http://lyra.ifas.ufl.edu/LIB. A new approach of domain-specific concept discovery with the use of Internet search engine was developed. Initial evaluation of the results indicates significant improvement in precision of information extraction. The approach presented in this work focuses on problems unique to agriculture and natural resources domain, such as domain specific concepts and vocabularies, but should be applicable to any collection of texts in digital format. It may be of potential interest for anyone who needs to effectively manage a collection of digital resources.
  3. Baker, T.; Bermès, E.; Coyle, K.; Dunsire, G.; Isaac, A.; Murray, P.; Panzer, M.; Schneider, J.; Singer, R.; Summers, E.; Waites, W.; Young, J.; Zeng, M.: Library Linked Data Incubator Group Final Report (2011) 0.01
    0.0054452433 = product of:
      0.010890487 = sum of:
        0.010890487 = product of:
          0.021780973 = sum of:
            0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 4796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.021780973 = score(doc=4796,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 4796, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4796)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Key recommendations of the report are: - That library leaders identify sets of data as possible candidates for early exposure as Linked Data and foster a discussion about Open Data and rights; - That library standards bodies increase library participation in Semantic Web standardization, develop library data standards that are compatible with Linked Data, and disseminate best-practice design patterns tailored to library Linked Data; - That data and systems designers design enhanced user services based on Linked Data capabilities, create URIs for the items in library datasets, develop policies for managing RDF vocabularies and their URIs, and express library data by re-using or mapping to existing Linked Data vocabularies; - That librarians and archivists preserve Linked Data element sets and value vocabularies and apply library experience in curation and long-term preservation to Linked Data datasets.
  4. Stuckenschmidt, H.; Harmelen, F van; Waard, A. de; Scerri, T.; Bhogal, R.; Buel, J. van; Crowlesmith, I.; Fluit, C.; Kampman, A.; Broekstra, J.; Mulligen, E. van: Exploring large document repositories with RDF technology : the DOPE project (2004) 0.01
    0.0054452433 = product of:
      0.010890487 = sum of:
        0.010890487 = product of:
          0.021780973 = sum of:
            0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.021780973 = score(doc=762,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 762, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=762)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    IEEE intelligent systems. 2004, S.34-40
  5. Styltsvig, H.B.: Ontology-based information retrieval (2006) 0.01
    0.0054452433 = product of:
      0.010890487 = sum of:
        0.010890487 = product of:
          0.021780973 = sum of:
            0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.021780973 = score(doc=1154,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In this thesis, we will present methods for introducing ontologies in information retrieval. The main hypothesis is that the inclusion of conceptual knowledge such as ontologies in the information retrieval process can contribute to the solution of major problems currently found in information retrieval. This utilization of ontologies has a number of challenges. Our focus is on the use of similarity measures derived from the knowledge about relations between concepts in ontologies, the recognition of semantic information in texts and the mapping of this knowledge into the ontologies in use, as well as how to fuse together the ideas of ontological similarity and ontological indexing into a realistic information retrieval scenario. To achieve the recognition of semantic knowledge in a text, shallow natural language processing is used during indexing that reveals knowledge to the level of noun phrases. Furthermore, we briefly cover the identification of semantic relations inside and between noun phrases, as well as discuss which kind of problems are caused by an increase in compoundness with respect to the structure of concepts in the evaluation of queries. Measuring similarity between concepts based on distances in the structure of the ontology is discussed. In addition, a shared nodes measure is introduced and, based on a set of intuitive similarity properties, compared to a number of different measures. In this comparison the shared nodes measure appears to be superior, though more computationally complex. Some of the major problems of shared nodes which relate to the way relations differ with respect to the degree they bring the concepts they connect closer are discussed. A generalized measure called weighted shared nodes is introduced to deal with these problems. Finally, the utilization of concept similarity in query evaluation is discussed. A semantic expansion approach that incorporates concept similarity is introduced and a generalized fuzzy set retrieval model that applies expansion during query evaluation is presented. While not commonly used in present information retrieval systems, it appears that the fuzzy set model comprises the flexibility needed when generalizing to an ontology-based retrieval model and, with the introduction of a hierarchical fuzzy aggregation principle, compound concepts can be handled in a straightforward and natural manner.
  6. Hannech, A.: Système de recherche d'information étendue basé sur une projection multi-espaces (2018) 0.01
    0.0054452433 = product of:
      0.010890487 = sum of:
        0.010890487 = product of:
          0.021780973 = sum of:
            0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 4472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.021780973 = score(doc=4472,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 4472, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=4472)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Since its appearance in the early 90's, the World Wide Web (WWW or Web) has provided universal access to knowledge and the world of information has been primarily witness to a great revolution (the digital revolution). It quickly became very popular, making it the largest and most comprehensive database and knowledge base thanks to the amount and diversity of data it contains. However, the considerable increase and evolution of these data raises important problems for users, in particular for accessing the documents most relevant to their search queries. In order to cope with this exponential explosion of data volume and facilitate their access by users, various models are offered by information retrieval systems (IRS) for the representation and retrieval of web documents. Traditional SRIs use simple keywords that are not semantically linked to index and retrieve these documents. This creates limitations in terms of the relevance and ease of exploration of results. To overcome these limitations, existing techniques enrich documents by integrating external keywords from different sources. However, these systems still suffer from limitations that are related to the exploitation techniques of these sources of enrichment. When the different sources are used so that they cannot be distinguished by the system, this limits the flexibility of the exploration models that can be applied to the results returned by this system. Users then feel lost to these results, and find themselves forced to filter them manually to select the relevant information. If they want to go further, they must reformulate and target their search queries even more until they reach the documents that best meet their expectations. In this way, even if the systems manage to find more relevant results, their presentation remains problematic. In order to target research to more user-specific information needs and improve the relevance and exploration of its research findings, advanced SRIs adopt different data personalization techniques that assume that current research of user is directly related to his profile and / or previous browsing / search experiences.
    However, this assumption does not hold in all cases, the needs of the user evolve over time and can move away from his previous interests stored in his profile. In other cases, the user's profile may be misused to extract or infer new information needs. This problem is much more accentuated with ambiguous queries. When multiple POIs linked to a search query are identified in the user's profile, the system is unable to select the relevant data from that profile to respond to that request. This has a direct impact on the quality of the results provided to this user. In order to overcome some of these limitations, in this research thesis, we have been interested in the development of techniques aimed mainly at improving the relevance of the results of current SRIs and facilitating the exploration of major collections of documents. To do this, we propose a solution based on a new concept and model of indexing and information retrieval called multi-spaces projection. This proposal is based on the exploitation of different categories of semantic and social information that enrich the universe of document representation and search queries in several dimensions of interpretations. The originality of this representation is to be able to distinguish between the different interpretations used for the description and the search for documents. This gives a better visibility on the results returned and helps to provide a greater flexibility of search and exploration, giving the user the ability to navigate one or more views of data that interest him the most. In addition, the proposed multidimensional representation universes for document description and search query interpretation help to improve the relevance of the user's results by providing a diversity of research / exploration that helps meet his diverse needs and those of other different users. This study exploits different aspects that are related to the personalized search and aims to solve the problems caused by the evolution of the information needs of the user. Thus, when the profile of this user is used by our system, a technique is proposed and used to identify the interests most representative of his current needs in his profile. This technique is based on the combination of three influential factors, including the contextual, frequency and temporal factor of the data. The ability of users to interact, exchange ideas and opinions, and form social networks on the Web, has led systems to focus on the types of interactions these users have at the level of interaction between them as well as their social roles in the system. This social information is discussed and integrated into this research work. The impact and how they are integrated into the IR process are studied to improve the relevance of the results.
  7. Silva, S.E.; Reis, L.P.; Fernandes, J.M.; Sester Pereira, A.D.: ¬A multi-layer framework for semantic modeling (2020) 0.01
    0.0054452433 = product of:
      0.010890487 = sum of:
        0.010890487 = product of:
          0.021780973 = sum of:
            0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 5712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.021780973 = score(doc=5712,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 5712, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5712)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to introduce a multi-level framework for semantic modeling (MFSM) based on four signification levels: objects, classes of entities, instances and domains. In addition, four fundamental propositions of the signification process underpin these levels, namely, classification, decomposition, instantiation and contextualization. Design/methodology/approach The deductive approach guided the design of this modeling framework. The authors empirically validated the MFSM in two ways. First, the authors identified the signification processes used in articles that deal with semantic modeling. The authors then applied the MFSM to model the semantic context of the literature about lean manufacturing, a field of management science. Findings The MFSM presents a highly consistent approach about the signification process, integrates the semantic modeling literature in a new and comprehensive view; and permits the modeling of any semantic context, thus facilitating the development of knowledge organization systems based on semantic search. Research limitations/implications The use of MFSM is manual and, thus, requires a considerable effort of the team that decides to model a semantic context. In this paper, the modeling was generated by specialists, and in the future should be applicated to lay users. Practical implications The MFSM opens up avenues to a new form of classification of documents, as well as for the development of tools based on the semantic search, and to investigate how users do their searches. Social implications The MFSM can be used to model archives semantically in public or private settings. In future, it can be incorporated to search engines for more efficient searches of users. Originality/value The MFSM provides a new and comprehensive approach about the elementary levels and activities in the process of signification. In addition, this new framework presents a new form to model semantically any context classifying its objects.
  8. Mirizzi, R.: Exploratory browsing in the Web of Data (2011) 0.00
    0.004764588 = product of:
      0.009529176 = sum of:
        0.009529176 = product of:
          0.019058352 = sum of:
            0.019058352 = weight(_text_:systems in 4803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019058352 = score(doc=4803,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.118839346 = fieldWeight in 4803, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4803)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The Linked Data initiative and the state of the art in semantic technologies led off all brand new search and mash-up applications. The basic idea is to have smarter lookup services for a huge, distributed and social knowledge base. All these applications catch and (re)propose, under a semantic data perspective, the view of the classical Web as a distributed collection of documents to retrieve. The interlinked nature of the Web, and consequently of the Semantic Web, is exploited (just) to collect and aggregate data coming from different sources. Of course, this is a big step forward in search and Web technologies, but if we limit our investi- gation to retrieval tasks, we miss another important feature of the current Web: browsing and in particular exploratory browsing (a.k.a. exploratory search). Thanks to its hyperlinked nature, the Web defined a new way of browsing documents and knowledge: selection by lookup, navigation and trial-and-error tactics were, and still are, exploited by users to search for relevant information satisfying some initial requirements. The basic assumptions behind a lookup search, typical of Information Retrieval (IR) systems, are no more valid in an exploratory browsing context. An IR system, such as a search engine, assumes that: the user has a clear picture of what she is looking for ; she knows the terminology of the specific knowledge space. On the other side, as argued in, the main challenges in exploratory search can be summarized as: support querying and rapid query refinement; other facets and metadata-based result filtering; leverage search context; support learning and understanding; other visualization to support insight/decision making; facilitate collaboration. In Section 3 we will show two applications for exploratory search in the Semantic Web addressing some of the above challenges.
  9. Stuart, D.: Practical ontologies for information professionals (2016) 0.00
    0.004764588 = product of:
      0.009529176 = sum of:
        0.009529176 = product of:
          0.019058352 = sum of:
            0.019058352 = weight(_text_:systems in 5152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019058352 = score(doc=5152,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.118839346 = fieldWeight in 5152, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5152)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Content
    C H A P T E R 1 What is an ontology?; Introduction; The data deluge and information overload; Defining terms; Knowledge organization systems and ontologies; Ontologies, metadata and linked data; What can an ontology do?; Ontologies and information professionals; Alternatives to ontologies; The aims of this book; The structure of this book; C H A P T E R 2 Ontologies and the semantic web; Introduction; The semantic web and linked data; Resource Description Framework (RDF); Classes, subclasses and properties; The semantic web stack; Embedded RDF; Alternative semantic visionsLibraries and the semantic web; Other cultural heritage institutions and the semantic web; Other organizations and the semantic web; Conclusion; C H A P T E R 3 Existing ontologies; Introduction; Ontology documentation; Ontologies for representing ontologies; Ontologies for libraries; Upper ontologies; Cultural heritage data models; Ontologies for the web; Conclusion; C H A P T E R 4 Adopting ontologies; Introduction; Reusing ontologies: application profiles and data models; Identifying ontologies; The ideal ontology discovery tool; Selection criteria; Conclusion C H A P T E R 5 Building ontologiesIntroduction; Approaches to building an ontology; The twelve steps; Ontology development example: Bibliometric Metrics Ontology element set; Conclusion; C H A P T E R 6 Interrogating ontologies; Introduction; Interrogating ontologies for reuse; Interrogating a knowledge base; Understanding ontology use; Conclusion; C H A P T E R 7 The future of ontologies and the information professional; Introduction; The future of ontologies for knowledge discovery; The future role of library and information professionals; The practical development of ontologies
  10. Khoo, S.G.; Na, J.-C.: Semantic relations in information science (2006) 0.00
    0.0040839324 = product of:
      0.008167865 = sum of:
        0.008167865 = product of:
          0.01633573 = sum of:
            0.01633573 = weight(_text_:systems in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01633573 = score(doc=1978,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.1018623 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Linguists in the structuralist tradition (e.g., Lyons, 1977; Saussure, 1959) have asserted that concepts cannot be defined on their own but only in relation to other concepts. Semantic relations appear to reflect a logical structure in the fundamental nature of thought (Caplan & Herrmann, 1993). Green, Bean, and Myaeng (2002) noted that semantic relations play a critical role in how we represent knowledge psychologically, linguistically, and computationally, and that many systems of knowledge representation start with a basic distinction between entities and relations. Green (2001, p. 3) said that "relationships are involved as we combine simple entities to form more complex entities, as we compare entities, as we group entities, as one entity performs a process on another entity, and so forth. Indeed, many things that we might initially regard as basic and elemental are revealed upon further examination to involve internal structure, or in other words, internal relationships." Concepts and relations are often expressed in language and text. Language is used not just for communicating concepts and relations, but also for representing, storing, and reasoning with concepts and relations. We shall examine the nature of semantic relations from a linguistic and psychological perspective, with an emphasis on relations expressed in text. The usefulness of semantic relations in information science, especially in ontology construction, information extraction, information retrieval, question-answering, and text summarization is discussed. Research and development in information science have focused on concepts and terms, but the focus will increasingly shift to the identification, processing, and management of relations to achieve greater effectiveness and refinement in information science techniques. Previous chapters in ARIST on natural language processing (Chowdhury, 2003), text mining (Trybula, 1999), information retrieval and the philosophy of language (Blair, 2003), and query expansion (Efthimiadis, 1996) provide a background for this discussion, as semantic relations are an important part of these applications.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 187
  • d 15
  • pt 2
  • f 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 146
  • el 56
  • m 23
  • s 12
  • x 11
  • n 2
  • A 1
  • EL 1
  • p 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Subjects

Classifications