-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.08
0.077220224 = product of:
0.15444045 = sum of:
0.15444045 = sum of:
0.054452434 = weight(_text_:systems in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054452434 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.339541 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.09998801 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09998801 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:22:28
-
Mitchell, J.S.; Zeng, M.L.; Zumer, M.: Modeling classification systems in multicultural and multilingual contexts (2012)
0.06
0.05829072 = product of:
0.11658144 = sum of:
0.11658144 = sum of:
0.056588627 = weight(_text_:systems in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056588627 = score(doc=1967,freq=6.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
0.059992813 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059992813 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.
-
Popper, K.R.: Three worlds : the Tanner lecture on human values. Deliverd at the University of Michigan, April 7, 1978 (1978)
0.06
0.055254754 = product of:
0.11050951 = sum of:
0.11050951 = product of:
0.3315285 = sum of:
0.3315285 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.3315285 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
0.4424171 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H
-
Bittner, T.; Donnelly, M.; Winter, S.: Ontology and semantic interoperability (2006)
0.05
0.053882122 = product of:
0.107764244 = sum of:
0.107764244 = sum of:
0.06534292 = weight(_text_:systems in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06534292 = score(doc=4820,freq=8.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 4820, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4820)
0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042421322 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4820, 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=4820)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- One of the major problems facing systems for Computer Aided Design (CAD), Architecture Engineering and Construction (AEC) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) applications today is the lack of interoperability among the various systems. When integrating software applications, substantial di culties can arise in translating information from one application to the other. In this paper, we focus on semantic di culties that arise in software integration. Applications may use di erent terminologies to describe the same domain. Even when appli-cations use the same terminology, they often associate di erent semantics with the terms. This obstructs information exchange among applications. To cir-cumvent this obstacle, we need some way of explicitly specifying the semantics for each terminology in an unambiguous fashion. Ontologies can provide such specification. It will be the task of this paper to explain what ontologies are and how they can be used to facilitate interoperability between software systems used in computer aided design, architecture engineering and construction, and geographic information processing.
- Date
- 3.12.2016 18:39:22
-
Priss, U.: Description logic and faceted knowledge representation (1999)
0.05
0.049504973 = product of:
0.099009946 = sum of:
0.099009946 = sum of:
0.056588627 = weight(_text_:systems in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056588627 = score(doc=2655,freq=6.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042421322 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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
-
Voß, J.: Classification of knowledge organization systems with Wikidata (2016)
0.05
0.049504973 = product of:
0.099009946 = sum of:
0.099009946 = sum of:
0.056588627 = weight(_text_:systems in 3082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056588627 = score(doc=3082,freq=6.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 3082, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3082)
0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 3082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042421322 = score(doc=3082,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3082, 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=3082)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper presents a crowd-sourced classification of knowledge organization systems based on open knowledge base Wikidata. The focus is less on the current result in its rather preliminary form but on the environment and process of categorization in Wikidata and the extraction of KOS from the collaborative database. Benefits and disadvantages are summarized and discussed for application to knowledge organization of other subject areas with Wikidata.
- Pages
- S.15-22
- Source
- Proceedings of the 15th European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems Workshop (NKOS 2016) co-located with the 20th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries 2016 (TPDL 2016), Hannover, Germany, September 9, 2016. Edi. by Philipp Mayr et al. [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1676/=urn:nbn:de:0074-1676-5]
-
Beppler, F.D.; Fonseca, F.T.; Pacheco, R.C.S.: Hermeneus: an architecture for an ontology-enabled information retrieval (2008)
0.04
0.044312872 = product of:
0.088625744 = sum of:
0.088625744 = sum of:
0.04620442 = weight(_text_:systems in 3261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04620442 = score(doc=3261,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 3261, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3261)
0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 3261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042421322 = score(doc=3261,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3261, 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=3261)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Ontologies improve IR systems regarding its retrieval and presentation of information, which make the task of finding information more effective, efficient, and interactive. In this paper we argue that ontologies also greatly improve the engineering of such systems. We created a framework that uses ontology to drive the process of engineering an IR system. We developed a prototype that shows how a domain specialist without knowledge in the IR field can build an IR system with interactive components. The resulting system provides support for users not only to find their information needs but also to extend their state of knowledge. This way, our approach to ontology-enabled information retrieval addresses both the engineering aspect described here and also the usability aspect described elsewhere.
- Date
- 28.11.2016 12:43:22
-
Priss, U.: Faceted knowledge representation (1999)
0.04
0.043804124 = product of:
0.08760825 = sum of:
0.08760825 = sum of:
0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038116705 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049491543 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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
-
Wolchover, N.: Wie ein Aufsehen erregender Beweis kaum Beachtung fand (2017)
0.02
0.024997003 = product of:
0.049994007 = sum of:
0.049994007 = product of:
0.09998801 = sum of:
0.09998801 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09998801 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38
-
Dunning, A.: Do we still need search engines? (1999)
0.02
0.024745772 = product of:
0.049491543 = sum of:
0.049491543 = product of:
0.09898309 = sum of:
0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 6021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09898309 = score(doc=6021,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6021, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6021)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Ariadne. 1999, no.22
-
Foerster, H. von; Müller, A.; Müller, K.H.: Rück- und Vorschauen : Heinz von Foerster im Gespräch mit Albert Müller und Karl H. Müller (2001)
0.02
0.022156436 = product of:
0.044312872 = sum of:
0.044312872 = sum of:
0.02310221 = weight(_text_:systems in 5988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02310221 = score(doc=5988,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.14405504 = fieldWeight in 5988, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5988)
0.021210661 = weight(_text_:22 in 5988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021210661 = score(doc=5988,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 5988, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5988)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Content
- Noch einige Schritte weiter zurück. Oft haben mich Bibliothekare angesprochen, wie sollte man eine Bibliothek aufbauen? Wir schauen, sagten sie, in eine Bibliothek so hinein, als wäre sie wie ein Gedächtnis. "Das ist schön, aber wissen Sie, wie das Gedächtnis funktioniert? "Nein, aber viele Leute sagen, das Gedächtnis arbeitet wie eine große Bibliothek. Man muß nur hineingreifen und das richtige Buch finden. "Das ist alles wunderschön und sehr lieb, aber wissen Sie, die Leute, die ein Buch suchen, suchen es ja nur, weil sie ein Problem haben und hoffen, in dem Buch die Antwort für das Problem zu finden. Das Buch ist nur ein Zwischenträger von einer Frage und einer vielleicht in dem Buch zu findenden Antwort. Aber das Buch ist nicht die Antwort. "Aha, wie stellen Sie sich das vor? Wir sollten das Problem so sehen, daß die Inhalte der Bücher, die semantische Struktur - wenn man jetzt diesen Ausdruck wieder verwenden möchte - dieser Bücher in einem System sitzt, sodaß ich in diese semantische Struktur mit meiner Frage einsteigen kann, und mir die semantische Struktur dieses Systems sagt, dann mußt du Karl Müllers Arbeiten über Symbole lesen, dann wirst du wissen, was du suchst. Ich wüßte aber von vornherein überhaupt nicht, wer der Karl Müller ist, daß er über Symbole geschrieben hat, etc., aber das System kann mir das liefern.
Da braucht also der Mensch, der sich dafür interessiert, solche Antworten zu finden, nicht erst indirekt über den Karl Müller, den er auf irgendeiner Karteikarte findet, dort hineinzugehen, sondern durch direktes Ansprechen der semantischen Struktur seines Problems, sich mit der semantischen Struktur des Systems in Verbindung setzen, das mir dann weiterhilft in diejenigen Bereiche zu gehen, in denen ich dann vielleicht Antworten für meine Probleme finde. Also mit solchen und ähnlichen Gedanken haben wir uns beschäftigt, und Paul Weston hat hervorragende Arbeiten dazu geschrieben, der hat durch diese Sache durchgeschaut. Der Projektvorschlag, den ich heute noch habe, für dieses unerhörte Riesenprojekt, das waren mehrere Millionen Dollar, wurde überhaupt nicht verstanden. Das brauchen wir nicht, wir haben ja die Bücher, wir haben ja die Karteikarten. Da waren eben Schwierigkeiten, wo mir meine Freunde richtig vorwerfen, Heinz, du hast unseren Fall nicht richtig vorgetragen, sodaß die Leute, die imstande gewesen wären, uns finanziell zu unterstützen, nicht verstanden haben, wovon du redest. Trotz meiner intensiven Bemühungen ist es in vielen Fällen nicht gelungen, eine Überzeugung, ein Verständnis zu erreichen. Mein Gefühl damals war, daß das Verständnis einfach blockiert war, weil schon bestimmte Verständnisdirektionen so festgefroren waren. Um etwas zu erreichen, hätte man viel mehr Zeit gebraucht und vielmehr miteinander sprechen sollen, um ein Verständnis durchzusetzen.
- Date
- 10. 9.2006 17:22:54
-
DeSilva, J.M.; Traniello, J.F.A.; Claxton, A.G.; Fannin, L.D.: When and why did human brains decrease in size? : a new change-point analysis and insights from brain evolution in ants (2021)
0.02
0.022156436 = product of:
0.044312872 = sum of:
0.044312872 = sum of:
0.02310221 = weight(_text_:systems in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02310221 = score(doc=405,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.14405504 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
0.021210661 = weight(_text_:22 in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021210661 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Human brain size nearly quadrupled in the six million years since Homo last shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but human brains are thought to have decreased in volume since the end of the last Ice Age. The timing and reason for this decrease is enigmatic. Here we use change-point analysis to estimate the timing of changes in the rate of hominin brain evolution. We find that hominin brains experienced positive rate changes at 2.1 and 1.5 million years ago, coincident with the early evolution of Homo and technological innovations evident in the archeological record. But we also find that human brain size reduction was surprisingly recent, occurring in the last 3,000 years. Our dating does not support hypotheses concerning brain size reduction as a by-product of body size reduction, a result of a shift to an agricultural diet, or a consequence of self-domestication. We suggest our analysis supports the hypothesis that the recent decrease in brain size may instead result from the externalization of knowledge and advantages of group-level decision-making due in part to the advent of social systems of distributed cognition and the storage and sharing of information. Humans live in social groups in which multiple brains contribute to the emergence of collective intelligence. Although difficult to study in the deep history of Homo, the impacts of group size, social organization, collective intelligence and other potential selective forces on brain evolution can be elucidated using ants as models. The remarkable ecological diversity of ants and their species richness encompasses forms convergent in aspects of human sociality, including large group size, agrarian life histories, division of labor, and collective cognition. Ants provide a wide range of social systems to generate and test hypotheses concerning brain size enlargement or reduction and aid in interpreting patterns of brain evolution identified in humans. Although humans and ants represent very different routes in social and cognitive evolution, the insights ants offer can broadly inform us of the selective forces that influence brain size.
- Source
- Frontiers in ecology and evolution, 22 October 2021 [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.742639/full]
-
Qin, J.; Paling, S.: Converting a controlled vocabulary into an ontology : the case of GEM (2001)
0.02
0.021210661 = product of:
0.042421322 = sum of:
0.042421322 = product of:
0.084842645 = sum of:
0.084842645 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084842645 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 24. 8.2005 19:20:22
-
Jaeger, L.: Wissenschaftler versus Wissenschaft (2020)
0.02
0.021210661 = product of:
0.042421322 = sum of:
0.042421322 = product of:
0.084842645 = sum of:
0.084842645 = weight(_text_:22 in 4156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084842645 = score(doc=4156,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4156, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4156)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 2. 3.2020 14:08:22
-
Feinberg, M.: Hidden bias to responsible bias: an approach to information systems based on Haraway's situated knowledges (2007)
0.02
0.019058352 = product of:
0.038116705 = sum of:
0.038116705 = product of:
0.07623341 = sum of:
0.07623341 = weight(_text_:systems in 4142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07623341 = score(doc=4142,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 4142, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4142)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Hoang, H.H.; Tjoa, A.M: ¬The state of the art of ontology-based query systems : a comparison of existing approaches (2006)
0.02
0.018862877 = product of:
0.037725754 = sum of:
0.037725754 = product of:
0.07545151 = sum of:
0.07545151 = weight(_text_:systems in 792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07545151 = score(doc=792,freq=6.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.4704818 = fieldWeight in 792, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=792)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Based on an in-depth analysis of existing approaches in building ontology-based query systems we discuss and compare the methods, approaches to be used in current query systems using Ontology or the Semantic Web techniques. This paper identifies various relevant research directions in ontology-based querying research. Based on the results of our investigation we summarise the state of the art ontology-based query/search and name areas of further research activities.
-
Lewandowski, D.: Wie "Next Generation Search Systems" die Suche auf eine neue Ebene heben und die Informationswelt verändern (2017)
0.02
0.018862877 = product of:
0.037725754 = sum of:
0.037725754 = product of:
0.07545151 = sum of:
0.07545151 = weight(_text_:systems in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07545151 = score(doc=3611,freq=6.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.4704818 = fieldWeight in 3611, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3611)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Suchmaschinen befinden sich einerseits in einem beständigen Wandel. Andererseits gibt es immer wieder Entwicklungen, die die Suche "auf eine neue Ebene" heben. Eine solche Entwicklung, die wir zurzeit erleben, wird unter dem Label "Next Generation Search Systems" geführt. Der Begriff fasst die Veränderungen durch eine Vielfalt von Geräten und Eingabemöglichkeiten, die Verfügbarkeit von Verhaltensdaten en masse und den Wandel von Dokumenten zu Antworten zusammen.
- Footnote
- Bezug zum Buch: White, R.: Interactions with search systems. New York ; Cambridge University Press ; 2016.
-
Fang, L.: ¬A developing search service : heterogeneous resources integration and retrieval system (2004)
0.02
0.01800845 = product of:
0.0360169 = sum of:
0.0360169 = product of:
0.0720338 = sum of:
0.0720338 = weight(_text_:systems in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0720338 = score(doc=1193,freq=14.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.4491705 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article describes two approaches for searching heterogeneous resources, which are explained as they are used in two corresponding existing systems-RIRS (Resource Integration Retrieval System) and HRUSP (Heterogeneous Resource Union Search Platform). On analyzing the existing systems, a possible framework-the MUSP (Multimetadata-Based Union Search Platform) is presented. Libraries now face a dilemma. On one hand, libraries subscribe to many types of database retrieval systems that are produced by various providers. The libraries build their data and information systems independently. This results in highly heterogeneous and distributed systems at the technical level (e.g., different operating systems and user interfaces) and at the conceptual level (e.g., the same objects are named using different terms). On the other hand, end users want to access all these heterogeneous data via a union interface, without having to know the structure of each information system or the different retrieval methods used by the systems. Libraries must achieve a harmony between information providers and users. In order to bridge the gap between the service providers and the users, it would seem that all source databases would need to be rebuilt according to a uniform data structure and query language, but this seems impossible. Fortunately, however, libraries and information and technology providers are now making an effort to find a middle course that meets the requirements of both data providers and users. They are doing this through resource integration.
-
Guidi, F.; Sacerdoti Coen, C.: ¬A survey on retrieval of mathematical knowledge (2015)
0.02
0.01767555 = product of:
0.0353511 = sum of:
0.0353511 = product of:
0.0707022 = sum of:
0.0707022 = weight(_text_:22 in 5865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0707022 = score(doc=5865,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5865, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5865)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 2.2017 12:51:57
-
Wagner, E.: Über Impfstoffe zur digitalen Identität? (2020)
0.02
0.01767555 = product of:
0.0353511 = sum of:
0.0353511 = product of:
0.0707022 = sum of:
0.0707022 = weight(_text_:22 in 5846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0707022 = score(doc=5846,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5846, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5846)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 4. 5.2020 17:22:40
