Search (81 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. 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) 0.15 
    0.147153 = product of:
  0.294306 = sum of:
    0.0735765 = product of:
      0.2207295 = sum of:
        0.2207295 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2207295 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3927445 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
    0.2207295 = weight(_text_:2f in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2207295 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3927445 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Content
    Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.
  2. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.07 
    0.06921949 = product of:
  0.13843898 = sum of:
    0.119609766 = weight(_text_:social in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.119609766 = score(doc=3387,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = 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)
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  3. Held, C.; Cress, U.: Social Tagging aus kognitionspsychologischer Sicht (2008) 0.04 
    0.04272667 = product of:
  0.17090668 = sum of:
    0.17090668 = weight(_text_:social in 2885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17090668 = score(doc=2885,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  4. Voß, J.: Vom Social Tagging zum Semantic Tagging (2008) 0.03 
    0.03488618 = product of:
  0.13954473 = sum of:
    0.13954473 = weight(_text_:social in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13954473 = score(doc=2884,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  5. Derntl, M.; Hampel, T.; Motschnig, R.; Pitner, T.: Social Tagging und Inclusive Universal Access (2008) 0.03 
    0.034528363 = product of:
  0.13811345 = sum of:
    0.13811345 = weight(_text_:social in 2864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13811345 = score(doc=2864,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  6. Renear, A.H.; Wickett, K.M.; Urban, R.J.; Dubin, D.; Shreeves, S.L.: Collection/item metadata relationships (2008) 0.03 
    0.033829853 = product of:
  0.067659706 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = 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)
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  7. Zeng, M.L.; Fan, W.; Lin, X.: SKOS for an integrated vocabulary structure (2008) 0.03 
    0.03189509 = product of:
  0.06379018 = sum of:
    0.04603782 = weight(_text_:social in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04603782 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = 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)
    0.017752362 = product of:
      0.035504725 = sum of:
        0.035504725 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035504725 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  8. Jansen, L.: Four rules for classifying social entities (2014) 0.03 
    0.03051905 = product of:
  0.1220762 = sum of:
    0.1220762 = weight(_text_:social in 3409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1220762 = score(doc=3409,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  9. Priss, U.: Faceted information representation (2000) 0.03 
    0.029282015 = product of:
  0.11712806 = sum of:
    0.11712806 = sum of:
      0.07319321 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07319321 = score(doc=5095,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = 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)
      0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043934856 = score(doc=5095,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  10. Weller, K.: Anforderungen an die Wissensrepräsentation im Social Semantic Web (2010) 0.03 
    0.028484445 = product of:
  0.11393778 = sum of:
    0.11393778 = weight(_text_:social in 4061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11393778 = score(doc=4061,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  11. Grzonkowski, S.; Kruk, S.R.; Gzella, A.; Demczuk, J.; McDaniel, B.: Community-aware ontologies (2009) 0.03 
    0.028192293 = product of:
  0.11276917 = sum of:
    0.11276917 = weight(_text_:social in 3382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11276917 = score(doc=3382,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.6104709 = fieldWeight in 3382, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3382)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The term "social network" was first mentioned in 1954 by J.A. Barnes. The social network is a structure that consists of nodes; the nodes represent individual people or organizations. Such a structure depicts the ways in which people are connected through diverse social familiarities like acquaintance, friendship or close familiar bonds.
  12. Coladangelo, L.P.: Organizing controversy : toward cultural hospitality in controlled vocabularies through semantic annotation (2021) 0.03 
    0.026733 = product of:
  0.053466 = sum of:
    0.032553654 = weight(_text_:social in 578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032553654 = score(doc=578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 578, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=578)
    0.020912344 = product of:
      0.041824687 = sum of:
        0.041824687 = weight(_text_:aspects in 578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041824687 = score(doc=578,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19975184 = fieldWeight in 578, 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=578)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This research explores current controversies within country dance communities and the implications of cultural and ethical issues related to representation of gender and race in a KOS for an ICH, while investigating the importance of context and the applicability of semantic approaches in the implementation of synonym rings. During development of a controlled vocabulary to represent dance concepts for country dance choreography, this study encountered and considered the importance of history and culture regarding synonymous and near-synonymous terms used to describe dance roles and choreographic elements. A subset of names for the same choreographic concepts across four subdomains of country dance (English country dance, Scottish country dance, contra dance, and modern western square dance) were used as a case study. These concepts included traditionally gendered dance roles and choreographic terms with a racially pejorative history. Through the lens of existing research on ethical knowl­edge organization, this study focused on principles and methods of transparency, multivocality, cultural warrant, cultural hospitality, and intersectionality to conduct a domain analysis of country dance resources. The analysis revealed differing levels of engagement and distinction among dance practitioners and communities for their preferences to use different terms for the same concept. Various lexical, grammatical, affective, social, political, and cultural aspects also emerged as important contextual factors for the use and assignment of terms. As a result, this study proposes the use of semantic annotation to represent those contextual factors and to allow mechanisms of user choice in the design of a country dance knowl­edge organization system. Future research arising from this study would focus on expanding examination to other country dance genres and continued exploration of the use of semantic approaches to represent contextual factors in controlled vocabulary development.
  13. Almeida Campos, M.L. de; Machado Campos, M.L.; Dávila, A.M.R.; Espanha Gomes, H.; Campos, L.M.; Lira e Oliveira, L. de: Information sciences methodological aspects applied to ontology reuse tools : a study based on genomic annotations in the domain of trypanosomatides (2013) 0.03 
    0.026329588 = product of:
  0.10531835 = sum of:
    0.10531835 = sum of:
      0.073936306 = weight(_text_:aspects in 635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.073936306 = score(doc=635,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.35311472 = fieldWeight in 635, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=635)
      0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031382043 = score(doc=635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 635, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=635)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Despite the dissemination of modeling languages and tools for representation and construction of ontologies, their underlying methodologies can still be improved. As a consequence, ontology tools can be enhanced accordingly, in order to support users through the ontology construction process. This paper proposes suggestions for ontology tools' improvement based on a case study within the domain of bioinformatics, applying a reuse method ology. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were carried out on a subset of 28 terms of Gene Ontology on a semi-automatic alignment with other biomedical ontologies. As a result, a report is presented containing suggestions for enhancing ontology reuse tools, which is a product derived from difficulties that we had in reusing a set of OBO ontologies. For the reuse process, a set of steps closely related to those of Pinto and Martin's methodology was used. In each step, it was observed that the experiment would have been significantly improved if ontology manipulation tools had provided certain features. Accordingly, problematic aspects in ontology tools are presented and suggestions are made aiming at getting better results in ontology reuse.
    Date
    22. 2.2013 12:03:53
  14. Priss, U.: Description logic and faceted knowledge representation (1999) 0.03 
    0.025098871 = product of:
  0.100395486 = sum of:
    0.100395486 = sum of:
      0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06273703 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 2655, 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=2655)
      0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03765845 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  15. Braun, S.; Schmidt, A.; Walter, A.; Zacharias, V.: Von Tags zu semantischen Beziehungen : kollaborative Ontologiereifung (2008) 0.02 
    0.02441524 = product of:
  0.09766096 = sum of:
    0.09766096 = weight(_text_:social in 2896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09766096 = score(doc=2896,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.52868325 = fieldWeight in 2896, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2896)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Die Popularität von Tagging-Ansätzen hat gezeigt, dass dieses Ordnungsprinzip für Nutzer insbesondere auf kollaborativen Plattformen deutlich zugänglicher ist als strukturierte und kontrollierte Vokabulare. Allerdings stoßen Tagging-Ansätze oft an ihre Grenzen, wo sie keine ausreichende semantische Präzision ausbilden können. Umgekehrt können ontologiebasierte Ansätze zwar die semantische Präzision erreichen, werden jedoch (besonders aufgrund der schwerfälligen Pflegeprozesse) von den Nutzern kaum akzeptiert. Wir schlagen eine Verbindung beider Welten vor, die auf einer neuen Sichtweise auf die Entstehung von Ontologien fußt: die Ontologiereifung. Anhand zweier Werkzeuge aus dem Bereich des Social Semantic Bookmarking und der semantischen Bildsuche zeigen wir, wie Anwendungen aussehen können, die eine solche Ontologiereifung (in die jeweiligen Nutzungsprozesse integriert) ermöglichen und fördern.
    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
  16. Kruk, S.R.; Cygan, M.; Gzella, A.; Woroniecki, T.; Dabrowski, M.: JeromeDL: the social semantic digital library (2009) 0.02 
    0.02441524 = product of:
  0.09766096 = sum of:
    0.09766096 = weight(_text_:social in 3383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09766096 = score(doc=3383,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.52868325 = fieldWeight in 3383, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3383)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The initial research on semantic digital libraries resulted in the design and implementation of JeromeDL; current research on online social networking and information discovery delivered new sets of features that were implemented in JeromeDL. Eventually, this digital library has been redesigned to follow the architecture of a social semantic digital library. JeromeDL describes each resource using three types of metadata: structure, bibliographic and community. It delivers services leveraging each of these information types. Annotations based on the structure and legacy metadata, and bibliographic ontology are rendered to the users in one, mixed, representation of library resources. Community annotations are managed by separate services, such as social semantic collaborative filtering or blogging component
  17. Wang, Y.; Tai, Y.; Yang, Y.: Determination of semantic types of tags in social tagging systems (2018) 0.02 
    0.02441524 = product of:
  0.09766096 = sum of:
    0.09766096 = weight(_text_:social in 4648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09766096 = score(doc=4648,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.52868325 = fieldWeight in 4648, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4648)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this paper is to determine semantic types for tags in social tagging systems. In social tagging systems, the determination of the semantic type of tags plays an important role in tag classification, increasing the semantic information of tags and establishing mapping relations between tagged resources and a normed ontology. The research reported in this paper constructs the semantic type library that is needed based on the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) and FrameNet and determines the semantic type of selected tags that have been pretreated via direct matching using the Semantic Navigator tool, the Semantic Type Word Sense Disambiguation (STWSD) tools in UMLS, and artificial matching. And finally, we verify the feasibility of the determination of semantic type for tags by empirical analysis.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  18. Bertola, F.; Patti, V.: Ontology-based affective models to organize artworks in the social semantic web (2016) 0.02 
    0.022747558 = product of:
  0.09099023 = sum of:
    0.09099023 = weight(_text_:social in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09099023 = score(doc=2669,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.49257156 = fieldWeight in 2669, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2669)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In this paper, we focus on applying sentiment analysis to resources from online art collections, by exploiting, as information source, tags intended as textual traces that visitors leave to comment artworks on social platforms. We present a framework where methods and tools from a set of disciplines, ranging from Semantic and Social Web to Natural Language Processing, provide us the building blocks for creating a semantic social space to organize artworks according to an ontology of emotions. The ontology is inspired by the Plutchik's circumplex model, a well-founded psychological model of human emotions. Users can be involved in the creation of the emotional space, through a graphical interactive interface. The development of such semantic space enables new ways of accessing and exploring art collections. The affective categorization model and the emotion detection output are encoded into W3C ontology languages. This gives us the twofold advantage to enable tractable reasoning on detected emotions and related artworks, and to foster the interoperability and integration of tools developed in the Semantic Web and Linked Data community. The proposal has been evaluated against a real-word case study, a dataset of tagged multimedia artworks from the ArsMeteo Italian online collection, and validated through a user study.
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Emotion and sentiment in social and expressive media"
  19. Aparecida Moura, M.: Emerging discursive formations, folksonomy and social semantic information spaces (SSIS) : the contributions of the theory of integrative levels in the studies carried out by the Classification Research Group (CRG) (2014) 0.02 
    0.017620182 = product of:
  0.07048073 = sum of:
    0.07048073 = weight(_text_:social in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07048073 = score(doc=1395,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3815443 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper focuses on the discursive formations emerging from the Social Semantic Information Spaces (SSIS) in light of the concept of emergence in the theory of integrative levels. The study aims to identify the opportunities and challenges of incorporating epistemological considerations in the act of acquiring knowledge into the consolidation of knowledge organization and mediation processes and devices in the emergence of phenomena. The goal was to analyze the effects of that concept on the actions of a sample of researchers registered in an emerging research domain in SSIS in order to understand this type of indexing done by the users and communities as a classification of integrating levels. The methodology was established by triangulation through social network analysis, consensus analysis and archaeology of knowledge. It was possible to conclude that there is a collective effort to settle a semantic interoperability model for the labeling of contents based on best practices regarding the description of the objects shared in SSIS.
  20. Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M.; Bar-Ilan, J.: Towards maximal unification of semantically diverse ontologies for controversial domains (2014) 0.02 
    0.016732581 = product of:
  0.066930324 = sum of:
    0.066930324 = sum of:
      0.041824687 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041824687 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.19975184 = fieldWeight in 1634, 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=1634)
      0.025105633 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025105633 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Ontologies are prone to wide semantic variability due to subjective points of view of their composers. The purpose of this paper is to propose a new approach for maximal unification of diverse ontologies for controversial domains by their relations. Design/methodology/approach - Effective matching or unification of multiple ontologies for a specific domain is crucial for the success of many semantic web applications, such as semantic information retrieval and organization, document tagging, summarization and search. To this end, numerous automatic and semi-automatic techniques were proposed in the past decade that attempt to identify similar entities, mostly classes, in diverse ontologies for similar domains. Apparently, matching individual entities cannot result in full integration of ontologies' semantics without matching their inter-relations with all other-related classes (and instances). However, semantic matching of ontological relations still constitutes a major research challenge. Therefore, in this paper the authors propose a new paradigm for assessment of maximal possible matching and unification of ontological relations. To this end, several unification rules for ontological relations were devised based on ontological reference rules, and lexical and textual entailment. These rules were semi-automatically implemented to extend a given ontology with semantically matching relations from another ontology for a similar domain. Then, the ontologies were unified through these similar pairs of relations. The authors observe that these rules can be also facilitated to reveal the contradictory relations in different ontologies. Findings - To assess the feasibility of the approach two experiments were conducted with different sets of multiple personal ontologies on controversial domains constructed by trained subjects. The results for about 50 distinct ontology pairs demonstrate a good potential of the methodology for increasing inter-ontology agreement. Furthermore, the authors show that the presented methodology can lead to a complete unification of multiple semantically heterogeneous ontologies. Research limitations/implications - This is a conceptual study that presents a new approach for semantic unification of ontologies by a devised set of rules along with the initial experimental evidence of its feasibility and effectiveness. However, this methodology has to be fully automatically implemented and tested on a larger dataset in future research. Practical implications - This result has implication for semantic search, since a richer ontology, comprised of multiple aspects and viewpoints of the domain of knowledge, enhances discoverability and improves search results. Originality/value - To the best of the knowledge, this is the first study to examine and assess the maximal level of semantic relation-based ontology unification.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 67
  • d 14

Themes