Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × author_ss:"Soergel, D."
  1. Ahn, J.-w.; Soergel, D.; Lin, X.; Zhang, M.: Mapping between ARTstor terms and the Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus (2014) 0.04 
    0.044312872 = product of:
  0.088625744 = sum of:
    0.088625744 = sum of:
      0.04620442 = weight(_text_:systems in 1421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04620442 = score(doc=1421,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 1421, 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=1421)
      0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 1421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042421322 = score(doc=1421,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1421, 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=1421)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    To make better use of knowledge organization systems (KOS) for query expansion, we have developed a pattern-based technique for composition ontology mapping in a specific domain. The technique was tested in a two-step mapping. The user's free-text queries were first mapped to Getty's Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) terms. The AAT-based queries were then mapped to a search engine's indexing vocabulary (ARTstor terms). The result indicated that our technique has improved the mapping success rate from 40% to 70%. We discuss also how the technique may be applied to other KOS mapping and how it may be implemented in practical systems.
    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
  2. Soergel, D.: Unleashing the power of data through organization : structure and connections for meaning, learning and discovery (2015) 0.04 
    0.036927395 = product of:
  0.07385479 = sum of:
    0.07385479 = sum of:
      0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 2376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038503684 = score(doc=2376,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 2376, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2376)
      0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 2376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0353511 = score(doc=2376,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2376, 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=2376)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Knowledge organization is needed everywhere. Its importance is marked by its pervasiveness. This paper will show many areas, tasks, and functions where proper use of knowledge organization, construed as broadly as the term implies, provides support for learning and understanding, for sense making and meaning making, for inference, and for discovery by people and computer programs and thereby will make the world a better place. The paper focuses not on metadata but rather on structuring and representing the actual data or knowledge itself and argues for more communication between the largely separated KO, ontology, data modeling, and semantic web communities to address the many problems that need better solutions. In particular, the paper discusses the application of knowledge organization in knowledge bases for question answering and cognitive systems, knowledge bases for information extraction from text or multimedia, linked data, big data and data analytics, electronic health records as one example, influence diagrams (causal maps), dynamic system models, process diagrams, concept maps, and other node-link diagrams, information systems in organizations, knowledge organization for understanding and learning, and knowledge transfer between domains. The paper argues for moving beyond triples to a more powerful representation using entities and multi-way relationships but not attributes.
    Date
    27.11.2015 20:52:22
  3. Zhang, P.; Soergel, D.: Towards a comprehensive model of the cognitive process and mechanisms of individual sensemaking (2014) 0.03 
    0.03128866 = product of:
  0.06257732 = sum of:
    0.06257732 = sum of:
      0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027226217 = score(doc=1344,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 1344, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1344)
      0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0353511 = score(doc=1344,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1344, 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=1344)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This review introduces a comprehensive model of the cognitive process and mechanisms of individual sensemaking to provide a theoretical basis for: - empirical studies that improve our understanding of the cognitive process and mechanisms of sensemaking and integration of results of such studies; - education in critical thinking and sensemaking skills; - the design of sensemaking assistant tools that support and guide users. The paper reviews and extends existing sensemaking models with ideas from learning and cognition. It reviews literature on sensemaking models in human-computer interaction (HCI), cognitive system engineering, organizational communication, and library and information sciences (LIS), learning theories, cognitive psychology, and task-based information seeking. The model resulting from this synthesis moves to a stronger basis for explaining sensemaking behaviors and conceptual changes. The model illustrates the iterative processes of sensemaking, extends existing models that focus on activities by integrating cognitive mechanisms and the creation of instantiated structure elements of knowledge, and different types of conceptual change to show a complete picture of the cognitive processes of sensemaking. The processes and cognitive mechanisms identified provide better foundations for knowledge creation, organization, and sharing practices and a stronger basis for design of sensemaking assistant systems and tools.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 16:55:39
  4. Soergel, D.: Knowledge organization for learning (2014) 0.02 
    0.017497903 = product of:
  0.034995805 = sum of:
    0.034995805 = product of:
      0.06999161 = sum of:
        0.06999161 = weight(_text_:22 in 1400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06999161 = score(doc=1400,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 1400, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1400)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Pages
    S.22-32
    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
  5. Berti, Jr., D.W.; Lima, G.; Maculan, B.; Soergel, D.: Computer-assisted checking of conceptual relationships in a large thesaurus (2018) 0.01 
    0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=4721,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    17. 1.2019 19:04:22
  6. Soergel, D.; Popescu, D.: Organization authority database design with classification principles (2015) 0.01 
    0.011789299 = product of:
  0.023578597 = sum of:
    0.023578597 = product of:
      0.047157194 = sum of:
        0.047157194 = weight(_text_:systems in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047157194 = score(doc=2293,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We illustrate the principle of unified treatment of all authority data for any kind of entities, subjects/topics, places, events, persons, organizations, etc. through the design and implementation of an enriched authority database for organizations, maintained as an integral part of an authority database that also includes subject authority control / classification data, using the same structures for data and common modules for processing and display of data. Organization-related data are stored in information systems of many companies. We specifically examine the case of the World Bank Group (WBG) according to organization role: suppliers, partners, customers, competitors, authors, publishers, or subjects of documents, loan recipients, suppliers for WBG-funded projects and subunits of the organization itself. A central organization authority where each organization is identified by a URI, represented by several names and linked to other organizations through hierarchical and other relationships serves to link data from these disparate information systems. Designing the conceptual structure of a unified authority database requires integrating SKOS, the W3C Organization Ontology and other schemes into one comprehensive ontology. To populate the authority database with organizations, we import data from external sources (e.g., DBpedia and Library of Congress authorities) and internal sources (e.g., the lists of organizations from multiple WBG information systems).
  7. Balakrishnan, U.; Voß, J.; Soergel, D.: Towards integrated systems for KOS management, mapping, and access : Coli-conc and its collaborative computer-assisted KOS mapping tool Cocoda (2018) 0.01 
    0.010890487 = product of:
  0.021780973 = sum of:
    0.021780973 = product of:
      0.043561947 = sum of:
        0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 4825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043561947 = score(doc=4825,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 4825, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4825)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  8. Soergel, D.: Conceptual foundations for semantic mapping and semantic search (2011) 0.01 
    0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 3939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=3939,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 3939, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3939)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article proposes an approach to mapping between Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS), including ontologies, classifications, taxonomies, and thesauri and even natural languages, that is based on deep semantics. In this approach, concepts in each KOS are expressed through canonical expressions, such as description logic formulas, that combine atomic (or elemental) concepts drawn from a core classification. Relationships between concepts within or across KOS can then be derived by reasoning over the canonical expressions. The canonical expressions can also be used to provide a facet-based query formulation front-end for free-text search. The article illustrates this approach through many examples. It presents methods for the efficient construction of canonical expressions (linguistic analysis, exploiting information in the KOS and their hierarchies, and crowdsourcing) that make this approach feasible.
  9. Soergel, D.: Towards a relation ontology for the Semantic Web (2011) 0.01 
    0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 4342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=4342,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 4342, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4342)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The Semantic Web consists of data structured for use by computer programs, such as data sets made available under the Linked Open Data initiative. Much of this data is structured following the entity-relationship model encoded in RDF for syntactic interoperability. For semantic interoperability, the semantics of the relationships used in any given dataset needs to be made explicit. Ultimately this requires an inventory of these relationships structured around a relation ontology. This talk will outline a blueprint for such an inventory, including a format for the description/definition of binary and n-ary relations, drawing on ideas put forth in the classification and thesaurus community over the last 60 years, upper level ontologies, systems like FrameNet, the Buffalo Relation Ontology, and an analysis of linked data sets.
  10. Golub, K.; Soergel, D.; Buchanan, G.; Tudhope, D.; Lykke, M.; Hiom, D.: ¬A framework for evaluating automatic indexing or classification in the context of retrieval (2016) 0.01 
    0.0068065543 = product of:
  0.013613109 = sum of:
    0.013613109 = product of:
      0.027226217 = sum of:
        0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 3311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027226217 = score(doc=3311,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 3311, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3311)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Tools for automatic subject assignment help deal with scale and sustainability in creating and enriching metadata, establishing more connections across and between resources and enhancing consistency. Although some software vendors and experimental researchers claim the tools can replace manual subject indexing, hard scientific evidence of their performance in operating information environments is scarce. A major reason for this is that research is usually conducted in laboratory conditions, excluding the complexities of real-life systems and situations. The article reviews and discusses issues with existing evaluation approaches such as problems of aboutness and relevance assessments, implying the need to use more than a single "gold standard" method when evaluating indexing and retrieval, and proposes a comprehensive evaluation framework. The framework is informed by a systematic review of the literature on evaluation approaches: evaluating indexing quality directly through assessment by an evaluator or through comparison with a gold standard, evaluating the quality of computer-assisted indexing directly in the context of an indexing workflow, and evaluating indexing quality indirectly through analyzing retrieval performance.

Authors

Themes