Search (191 results, page 1 of 10)

  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  1. Stojanovic, N.: Ontology-based Information Retrieval : methods and tools for cooperative query answering (2005) 0.13 
    0.12741205 = product of:
  0.21235341 = sum of:
    0.048590675 = product of:
      0.14577202 = sum of:
        0.14577202 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14577202 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38905874 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, 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=701)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.017990718 = weight(_text_:technology in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017990718 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
    0.14577202 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14577202 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38905874 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, 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=701)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    By the explosion of possibilities for a ubiquitous content production, the information overload problem reaches the level of complexity which cannot be managed by traditional modelling approaches anymore. Due to their pure syntactical nature traditional information retrieval approaches did not succeed in treating content itself (i.e. its meaning, and not its representation). This leads to a very low usefulness of the results of a retrieval process for a user's task at hand. In the last ten years ontologies have been emerged from an interesting conceptualisation paradigm to a very promising (semantic) modelling technology, especially in the context of the Semantic Web. From the information retrieval point of view, ontologies enable a machine-understandable form of content description, such that the retrieval process can be driven by the meaning of the content. However, the very ambiguous nature of the retrieval process in which a user, due to the unfamiliarity with the underlying repository and/or query syntax, just approximates his information need in a query, implies a necessity to include the user in the retrieval process more actively in order to close the gap between the meaning of the content and the meaning of a user's query (i.e. his information need). This thesis lays foundation for such an ontology-based interactive retrieval process, in which the retrieval system interacts with a user in order to conceptually interpret the meaning of his query, whereas the underlying domain ontology drives the conceptualisation process. In that way the retrieval process evolves from a query evaluation process into a highly interactive cooperation between a user and the retrieval system, in which the system tries to anticipate the user's information need and to deliver the relevant content proactively. Moreover, the notion of content relevance for a user's query evolves from a content dependent artefact to the multidimensional context-dependent structure, strongly influenced by the user's preferences. This cooperation process is realized as the so-called Librarian Agent Query Refinement Process. In order to clarify the impact of an ontology on the retrieval process (regarding its complexity and quality), a set of methods and tools for different levels of content and query formalisation is developed, ranging from pure ontology-based inferencing to keyword-based querying in which semantics automatically emerges from the results. Our evaluation studies have shown that the possibilities to conceptualize a user's information need in the right manner and to interpret the retrieval results accordingly are key issues for realizing much more meaningful information retrieval systems.
    Content
    Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F1627&ei=tAtYUYrBNoHKtQb3l4GYBw&usg=AFQjCNHeaxKkKU3-u54LWxMNYGXaaDLCGw&sig2=8WykXWQoDKjDSdGtAakH2Q&bvm=bv.44442042,d.Yms.
  2. Zeng, Q.; Yu, M.; Yu, W.; Xiong, J.; Shi, Y.; Jiang, M.: Faceted hierarchy : a new graph type to organize scientific concepts and a construction method (2019) 0.12 
    0.11661762 = product of:
  0.29154405 = sum of:
    0.07288601 = product of:
      0.21865803 = sum of:
        0.21865803 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21865803 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38905874 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.21865803 = weight(_text_:2f in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21865803 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38905874 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.
  3. Xiong, C.: Knowledge based text representations for information retrieval (2016) 0.10 
    0.10189738 = product of:
  0.25474346 = sum of:
    0.048590675 = product of:
      0.14577202 = sum of:
        0.14577202 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14577202 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38905874 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.20615277 = weight(_text_:2f in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20615277 = score(doc=5820,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.38905874 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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.
  4. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.05 
    0.054855913 = product of:
  0.13713978 = sum of:
    0.11848726 = weight(_text_:social in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11848726 = score(doc=3387,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.6475021 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
    0.01865252 = product of:
      0.03730504 = sum of:
        0.03730504 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03730504 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, 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=3387)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Libraries are the tools we use to learn and to answer our questions. The quality of our work depends, among others, on the quality of the tools we use. Recent research in digital libraries is focused, on one hand on improving the infrastructure of the digital library management systems (DLMS), and on the other on improving the metadata models used to annotate collections of objects maintained by DLMS. The latter includes, among others, the semantic web and social networking technologies. Recently, the semantic web and social networking technologies are being introduced to the digital libraries domain. The expected outcome is that the overall quality of information discovery in digital libraries can be improved by employing social and semantic technologies. In this chapter we present the results of an evaluation of social and semantic end-user information discovery services for the digital libraries.
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
    Theme
    Social tagging
  5. Weller, K.: Knowledge representation in the Social Semantic Web (2010) 0.04 
    0.04294279 = product of:
  0.10735697 = sum of:
    0.089230396 = weight(_text_:social in 4515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.089230396 = score(doc=4515,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.48762095 = fieldWeight in 4515, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4515)
    0.018126579 = product of:
      0.036253158 = sum of:
        0.036253158 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036253158 = score(doc=4515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20741826 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.17478286 = fieldWeight in 4515, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4515)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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. . . .
    Insgesamt besticht das Buch insbesondere durch seine breite Sichtweise, die Aktualität und die Fülle an Referenzen. Es ist somit sowohl als Überblickswerk geeignet, das umfassend über aktuelle Entwicklungen und Trends der Wissensrepräsentation im Semantic und Social Web informiert, als auch als Lektüre für Experten, für die es vor allem als kontextualisierte und sehr aktuelle Sammlung von Referenzen eine wertvolle Ressource darstellt." Weitere Rez. in: Journal of Documentation. 67(2011), no.5, S.896-899 (P. Rafferty)
    RSWK
    Social Tagging
    Subject
    Social Tagging
  6. Semantic digital libraries (2009) 0.04 
    0.037130058 = product of:
  0.092825145 = sum of:
    0.07210905 = weight(_text_:social in 3371) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07210905 = score(doc=3371,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.39405724 = fieldWeight in 3371, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3371)
    0.02071609 = product of:
      0.04143218 = sum of:
        0.04143218 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3371) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04143218 = score(doc=3371,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20741826 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.19975184 = fieldWeight in 3371, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3371)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Libraries have always been an inspiration for the standards and technologies developed by semantic web activities. However, except for the Dublin Core specification, semantic web and social networking technologies have not been widely adopted and further developed by major digital library initiatives and projects. Yet semantic technologies offer a new level of flexibility, interoperability, and relationships for digital repositories. Kruk and McDaniel present semantic web-related aspects of current digital library activities, and introduce their functionality; they show examples ranging from general architectural descriptions to detailed usages of specific ontologies, and thus stimulate the awareness of researchers, engineers, and potential users of those technologies. Their presentation is completed by chapters on existing prototype systems such as JeromeDL, BRICKS, and Greenstone, as well as a look into the possible future of semantic digital libraries. This book is aimed at researchers and graduate students in areas like digital libraries, the semantic web, social networks, and information retrieval. This audience will benefit from detailed descriptions of both today's possibilities and also the shortcomings of applying semantic web technologies to large digital repositories of often unstructured data.
    Content
    Inhalt: Introduction to Digital Libraries and Semantic Web: Introduction / Bill McDaniel and Sebastian Ryszard Kruk - Digital Libraries and Knowledge Organization / Dagobert Soergel - Semantic Web and Ontologies / Marcin Synak, Maciej Dabrowski and Sebastian Ryszard Kruk - Social Semantic Information Spaces / John G. Breslin A Vision of Semantic Digital Libraries: Goals of Semantic Digital Libraries / Sebastian Ryszard Kruk and Bill McDaniel - Architecture of Semantic Digital Libraries / Sebastian Ryszard Kruk, Adam Westerki and Ewelina Kruk - Long-time Preservation / Markus Reis Ontologies for Semantic Digital Libraries: Bibliographic Ontology / Maciej Dabrowski, Macin Synak and Sebastian Ryszard Kruk - Community-aware Ontologies / Slawomir Grzonkowski, Sebastian Ryszard Kruk, Adam Gzella, Jakub Demczuk and Bill McDaniel Prototypes of Semantic Digital Libraries: JeromeDL: The Social Semantic Digital Library / Sebastian Ryszard Kruk, Mariusz Cygan, Adam Gzella, Tomasz Woroniecki and Maciej Dabrowski - The BRICKS Digital Library Infrastructure / Bernhard Haslhofer and Predrag Knezevié - Semantics in Greenstone / Annika Hinze, George Buchanan, David Bainbridge and Ian Witten Building the Future - Semantic Digital Libraries in Use: Hyperbooks / Gilles Falquet, Luka Nerima and Jean-Claude Ziswiler - Semantic Digital Libraries for Archiving / Bill McDaniel - Evaluation of Semantic and Social Technologies for Digital Libraries / Sebastian Ryszard Kruk, Ewelina Kruk and Katarzyna Stankiewicz - Conclusions: The Future of Semantic Digital Libraries / Sebastian Ryszard Kruk and Bill McDaniel
  7. Held, C.; Cress, U.: Social Tagging aus kognitionspsychologischer Sicht (2008) 0.03 
    0.033860557 = product of:
  0.16930278 = sum of:
    0.16930278 = weight(_text_:social in 2885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16930278 = score(doc=2885,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.9251957 = fieldWeight in 2885, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2885)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Der vorliegende Artikel beschreibt Social-Tagging-Systeme aus theoretisch-kognitionspsychologischer Perspektive und zeigt einige Parallelen und Analogien zwischen Social Tagging und der individuellen kognitiven bedeutungsbezogenen Wissensrepräsentation auf. Zuerst werden wesentliche Aspekte von Social Tagging vorgestellt, die für eine psychologische Betrachtungsweise von Bedeutung sind. Danach werden Modelle und empirische Befunde der Kognitionswissenschaften bezüglich der Speicherung und des Abrufs von Inhalten des Langzeitgedächtnisses beschrieben. Als Drittes werden Parallelen und Unterschiede zwischen Social Tagging und der internen Wissensrepräsentation erläutert und die Möglichkeit von individuellen Lernprozessen durch Social-Tagging-Systeme aufgezeigt.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  8. Qin, J.; Creticos, P.; Hsiao, W.Y.: Adaptive modeling of workforce domain knowledge (2006) 0.03 
    0.030143319 = product of:
  0.075358294 = sum of:
    0.026986076 = weight(_text_:technology in 2519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026986076 = score(doc=2519,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2519, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2519)
    0.04837222 = weight(_text_:social in 2519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04837222 = score(doc=2519,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 2519, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2519)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Workforce development is a multidisciplinary domain in which policy, laws and regulations, social services, training and education, and information technology and systems are heavily involved. It is essential to have a semantic base accepted by the workforce development community for knowledge sharing and exchange. This paper describes how such a semantic base-the Workforce Open Knowledge Exchange (WOKE) Ontology-was built by using the adaptive modeling approach. The focus of this paper is to address questions such as how ontology designers should extract and model concepts obtained from different sources and what methodologies are useful along the steps of ontology development. The paper proposes a methodology framework "adaptive modeling" and explains the methodology through examples and some lessons learned from the process of developing the WOKE ontology.
  9. Voß, J.: Vom Social Tagging zum Semantic Tagging (2008) 0.03 
    0.027647028 = product of:
  0.13823514 = sum of:
    0.13823514 = weight(_text_:social in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13823514 = score(doc=2884,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.75541914 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Social Tagging als freie Verschlagwortung durch Nutzer im Web wird immer häufiger mit der Idee des Semantic Web in Zusammenhang gebracht. Wie beide Konzepte in der Praxis konkret zusammenkommen sollen, bleibt jedoch meist unklar. Dieser Artikel soll hier Aufklärung leisten, indem die Kombination von Social Tagging und Semantic Web in Form von Semantic Tagging mit dem Simple Knowledge Organisation System dargestellt und auf die konkreten Möglichkeiten, Vorteile und offenen Fragen der Semantischen Indexierung eingegangen wird.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  10. Derntl, M.; Hampel, T.; Motschnig, R.; Pitner, T.: Social Tagging und Inclusive Universal Access (2008) 0.03 
    0.027363459 = product of:
  0.13681729 = sum of:
    0.13681729 = weight(_text_:social in 2864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13681729 = score(doc=2864,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.747671 = fieldWeight in 2864, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2864)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Der vorliegende Artikel beleuchtet und bewertet Social Tagging als aktuelles Phänomen des Web 2.0 im Kontext bekannter Techniken der semantischen Datenorganisation. Tagging wird in einen Raum verwandter Ordnungs- und Strukturierungsansätze eingeordnet, um die fundamentalen Grundlagen des Social Tagging zu identifizieren und zuzuweisen. Dabei wird Tagging anhand des Inclusive Universal Access Paradigmas bewertet, das technische als auch menschlich-soziale Kriterien für die inklusive und barrierefreie Bereitstellung und Nutzung von Diensten definiert. Anhand dieser Bewertung werden fundamentale Prinzipien des "Inclusive Social Tagging" hergeleitet, die der Charakterisierung und Bewertung gängiger Tagging-Funktionalitäten in verbreiteten Web-2.0-Diensten dienen. Aus der Bewertung werden insbesondere Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten von Social Tagging und unterstützenden Diensten erkennbar.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  11. Renear, A.H.; Wickett, K.M.; Urban, R.J.; Dubin, D.; Shreeves, S.L.: Collection/item metadata relationships (2008) 0.03 
    0.026809895 = product of:
  0.06702474 = sum of:
    0.04837222 = weight(_text_:social in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04837222 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
    0.01865252 = product of:
      0.03730504 = sum of:
        0.03730504 = weight(_text_:22 in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03730504 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2623, 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=2623)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  12. ¬The Semantic Web - ISWC 2010 : 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, Shanghai, China, November 7-11, 2010, Revised Selected Papers, Part 2. (2010) 0.03 
    0.026482118 = product of:
  0.06620529 = sum of:
    0.04031018 = weight(_text_:social in 4706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04031018 = score(doc=4706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 4706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4706)
    0.025895113 = product of:
      0.051790226 = sum of:
        0.051790226 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051790226 = score(doc=4706,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20741826 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 4706, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4706)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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.
  13. Rolland-Thomas, P.: Thesaural codes : an appraisal of their use in the Library of Congress Subject Headings (1993) 0.03 
    0.025438596 = product of:
  0.06359649 = sum of:
    0.017990718 = weight(_text_:technology in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017990718 = score(doc=549,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
    0.045605768 = weight(_text_:social in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045605768 = score(doc=549,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.24922368 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    LCSH is known as such since 1975. It always has created headings to serve the LC collections instead of a theoretical basis. It started to replace cross reference codes by thesaural codes in 1986, in a mechanical fashion. It was in no way transformed into a thesaurus. Its encyclopedic coverage, its pre-coordinate concepts make it substantially distinct, considering that thesauri usually map a restricted field of knowledge and use uniterms. The questions raised are whether the new symbols comply with thesaurus standards and if they are true to one or to several models. Explanations and definitions from other lists of subject headings and thesauri, literature in the field of classification and subject indexing will provide some answers. For instance, see refers from a subject heading not used to another or others used. Exceptionally it will lead from a specific term to a more general one. Some equate a see reference with the equivalence relationship. Such relationships are pointed by USE in LCSH. See also references are made from the broader subject to narrower parts of it and also between associated subjects. They suggest lateral or vertical connexions as well as reciprocal relationships. They serve a coordination purpose for some, lay down a methodical search itinerary for others. Since their inception in the 1950's thesauri have been devised for indexing and retrieving information in the fields of science and technology. Eventually they attended to a number of social sciences and humanities. Research derived from thesauri was voluminous. Numerous guidelines are designed. They did not discriminate between the "hard" sciences and the social sciences. RT relationships are widely but diversely used in numerous controlled vocabularies. LCSH's aim is to achieve a list almost free of RT and SA references. It thus restricts relationships to BT/NT, USE and UF. This raises the question as to whether all fields of knowledge can "fit" in the Procrustean bed of RT/NT, i.e., genus/species relationships. Standard codes were devised. It was soon realized that BT/NT, well suited to the genus/species couple could not signal a whole-part relationship. In LCSH, BT and NT function as reciprocals, the whole-part relationship is taken into account by ISO. It is amply elaborated upon by authors. The part-whole connexion is sometimes studied apart. The decision to replace cross reference codes was an improvement. Relations can now be distinguished through the distinct needs of numerous fields of knowledge are not attended to. Topic inclusion, and topic-subtopic, could provide the missing link where genus/species or whole/part are inadequate. Distinct codes, BT/NT and whole/part, should be provided. Sorting relationships with mechanical means can only lead to confusion.
  14. Zeng, M.L.; Fan, W.; Lin, X.: SKOS for an integrated vocabulary structure (2008) 0.03 
    0.025276614 = product of:
  0.06319153 = sum of:
    0.045605768 = weight(_text_:social in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045605768 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.24922368 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
    0.017585764 = product of:
      0.035171527 = sum of:
        0.035171527 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035171527 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.21886435 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In order to transfer the Chinese Classified Thesaurus (CCT) into a machine-processable format and provide CCT-based Web services, a pilot study has been conducted in which a variety of selected CCT classes and mapped thesaurus entries are encoded with SKOS. OWL and RDFS are also used to encode the same contents for the purposes of feasibility and cost-benefit comparison. CCT is a collected effort led by the National Library of China. It is an integration of the national standards Chinese Library Classification (CLC) 4th edition and Chinese Thesaurus (CT). As a manually created mapping product, CCT provides for each of the classes the corresponding thesaurus terms, and vice versa. The coverage of CCT includes four major clusters: philosophy, social sciences and humanities, natural sciences and technologies, and general works. There are 22 main-classes, 52,992 sub-classes and divisions, 110,837 preferred thesaurus terms, 35,690 entry terms (non-preferred terms), and 59,738 pre-coordinated headings (Chinese Classified Thesaurus, 2005) Major challenges of encoding this large vocabulary comes from its integrated structure. CCT is a result of the combination of two structures (illustrated in Figure 1): a thesaurus that uses ISO-2788 standardized structure and a classification scheme that is basically enumerative, but provides some flexibility for several kinds of synthetic mechanisms Other challenges include the complex relationships caused by differences of granularities of two original schemes and their presentation with various levels of SKOS elements; as well as the diverse coordination of entries due to the use of auxiliary tables and pre-coordinated headings derived from combining classes, subdivisions, and thesaurus terms, which do not correspond to existing unique identifiers. The poster reports the progress, shares the sample SKOS entries, and summarizes problems identified during the SKOS encoding process. Although OWL Lite and OWL Full provide richer expressiveness, the cost-benefit issues and the final purposes of encoding CCT raise questions of using such approaches.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  15. Stock, W.G.: Concepts and semantic relations in information science (2010) 0.03 
    0.02511943 = product of:
  0.062798575 = sum of:
    0.022488397 = weight(_text_:technology in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022488397 = score(doc=4008,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
    0.04031018 = weight(_text_:social in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04031018 = score(doc=4008,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Concept-based information retrieval and knowledge representation are in need of a theory of concepts and semantic relations. Guidelines for the construction and maintenance of knowledge organization systems (KOS) (such as ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 in the U.S.A. or DIN 2331:1980 in Germany) do not consider results of concept theory and theory of relations to the full extent. They are not able to unify the currently different worlds of traditional controlled vocabularies, of the social web (tagging and folksonomies) and of the semantic web (ontologies). Concept definitions as well as semantic relations are based on epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, hermeneutics, pragmatism, and critical theory). A concept is determined via its intension and extension as well as by definition. We will meet the problem of vagueness by introducing prototypes. Some important definitions are concept explanations (after Aristotle) and the definition of family resemblances (in the sense of Wittgenstein). We will model concepts as frames (according to Barsalou). The most important paradigmatic relation in KOS is hierarchy, which must be arranged into different classes: Hyponymy consists of taxonomy and simple hyponymy, meronymy consists of many different part-whole-relations. For practical application purposes, the transitivity of the given relation is very important. Unspecific associative relations are of little help to our focused applications and should be replaced by generalizable and domain-specific relations. We will discuss the reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity of paradigmatic relations as well as the appearance of specific semantic relations in the different kinds of KOS (folksonomies, nomenclatures, classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies). Finally, we will pick out KOS as a central theme of the Semantic Web.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.10, S.1951-1969
  16. Jansen, L.: Four rules for classifying social entities (2014) 0.02 
    0.02418611 = product of:
  0.120930545 = sum of:
    0.120930545 = weight(_text_:social in 3409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120930545 = score(doc=3409,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.66085404 = fieldWeight in 3409, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3409)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Many top-level ontologies like Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) have been developed as a framework for ontologies in the natural sciences. The aim of the present essay is to extend the account of BFO to a very special layer of reality, the world of social entities. While natural entities like bacteria, thunderstorms or temperatures exist independently from human action and thought, social entities like countries, hospitals or money come into being only through human collective intentions and collective actions. Recently, the regional ontology of the social world has attracted considerable research interest in philosophy - witness, e.g., the pioneering work by Gilbert, Tuomela and Searle. There is a considerable class of phenomena that require the participation of more than one human agent: nobody can tango alone, play tennis against oneself, or set up a parliamentary democracy for oneself. Through cooperation and coordination of their wills and actions, agents can act together - they can perform social actions and group actions. An important kind of social action is the establishment of an institution (e.g. a hospital, a research agency or a marriage) through mutual promise or (social) contract. Another important kind of social action is the imposition of a social status on certain entities. For example, a society can impose the status of being a 20 Euro note on certain pieces of paper or the status of being an approved medication to a certain chemical substance.
  17. Kless, D.; Milton, S.: Comparison of thesauri and ontologies from a semiotic perspective (2010) 0.02 
    0.023224084 = product of:
  0.05806021 = sum of:
    0.026986076 = weight(_text_:technology in 756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026986076 = score(doc=756,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 756, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=756)
    0.031074135 = product of:
      0.06214827 = sum of:
        0.06214827 = weight(_text_:aspects in 756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06214827 = score(doc=756,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20741826 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 756, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=756)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Thesauri are frequently stated or indirectly treated as subtype of ontologies or vice versa while other definitions explicitly distinguish them. To encounter the lack of clarity this paper provides an in-depth comparison of these types of models. The comparison followed a semiotic approach and considered syntactic, semantic and pragmatic differences between ontologies and thesauri. For the comparison data models of thesauri and ontologies were produced that - in contrast to existing meta- and datamodels - are comparable with each other. The analysis revealed significant differences in the semiotic aspects of thesauri and ontologies. This finding challenges the treatment of ontologies and thesauri as type of one another. The comparison presented in this paper shall also provide input for standardization efforts in clarifying the relatedness of thesauri and ontologies.
    Footnote
    Preprint. To be published as Vol 122 in the Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology Series by the Australian Computer Society Inc. http://crpit.com/.
  18. Zhou, H.; Guns, R.; Engels, T.C.E.: Towards indicating interdisciplinarity : characterizing interdisciplinary knowledge flow (2023) 0.02 
    0.023224084 = product of:
  0.05806021 = sum of:
    0.026986076 = weight(_text_:technology in 1072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026986076 = score(doc=1072,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 1072, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1072)
    0.031074135 = product of:
      0.06214827 = sum of:
        0.06214827 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06214827 = score(doc=1072,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20741826 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 1072, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1072)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This study contributes to the recent discussions on indicating interdisciplinarity, that is, going beyond catch-all metrics of interdisciplinarity. We propose a contextual framework to improve the granularity and usability of the existing methodology for interdisciplinary knowledge flow (IKF) in which scientific disciplines import and export knowledge from/to other disciplines. To characterize the knowledge exchange between disciplines, we recognize three aspects of IKF under this framework, namely broadness, intensity, and homogeneity. We show how to utilize them to uncover different forms of interdisciplinarity, especially between disciplines with the largest volume of IKF. We apply this framework in two use cases, one at the level of disciplines and one at the level of journals, to show how it can offer a more holistic and detailed viewpoint on the interdisciplinarity of scientific entities than aggregated and context-unaware indicators. We further compare our proposed framework, an indicating process, with established indicators and discuss how such information tools on interdisciplinarity can assist science policy practices such as performance-based research funding systems and panel-based peer review processes.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.11, S.1325-1340
  19. Priss, U.: Faceted information representation (2000) 0.02 
    0.023205772 = product of:
  0.11602886 = sum of:
    0.11602886 = sum of:
      0.072506316 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.072506316 = score(doc=5095,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20741826 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04589033 = queryNorm
          0.3495657 = fieldWeight in 5095, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5095)
      0.043522544 = weight(_text_:22 in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043522544 = score(doc=5095,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04589033 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5095, 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=5095)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This paper presents an abstract formalization of the notion of "facets". Facets are relational structures of units, relations and other facets selected for a certain purpose. Facets can be used to structure large knowledge representation systems into a hierarchical arrangement of consistent and independent subsystems (facets) that facilitate flexibility and combinations of different viewpoints or aspects. This paper describes the basic notions, facet characteristics and construction mechanisms. It then explicates the theory in an example of a faceted information retrieval system (FaIR)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 17:47:06
  20. Weller, K.: Anforderungen an die Wissensrepräsentation im Social Semantic Web (2010) 0.02 
    0.022573702 = product of:
  0.11286851 = sum of:
    0.11286851 = weight(_text_:social in 4061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11286851 = score(doc=4061,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.6167971 = fieldWeight in 4061, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4061)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Dieser Artikel gibt einen Einblick in die aktuelle Verschmelzung von Web 2.0-und Semantic Web-Ansätzen, die als Social Semantic Web beschrieben werden kann. Die Grundidee des Social Semantic Web wird beschrieben und einzelne erste Anwendungsbeispiele vorgestellt. Ein wesentlicher Schwerpunkt dieser Entwicklung besteht in der Umsetzung neuer Methoden und Herangehensweisen im Bereich der Wissensrepräsentation. Dieser Artikel stellt vier Schwerpunkte vor, in denen sich die Wissensrepräsentationsmethoden im Social Semantic Web weiterentwickeln müssen und geht dabei jeweils auf den aktuellen Stand ein.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 168
  • d 19
  • f 1
  • pt 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 147
  • el 38
  • m 11
  • x 10
  • s 5
  • n 3
  • r 2
  • p 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications