Search (266 results, page 1 of 14)

  • × theme_ss:"Semantic Web"
  1. Tudhope, D.: Knowledge Organization System Services : brief review of NKOS activities and possibility of KOS registries (2007) 0.03 
    0.030438973 = product of:
  0.091316916 = sum of:
    0.091316916 = sum of:
      0.020087399 = weight(_text_:of in 100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020087399 = score(doc=100,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 100, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=100)
      0.07122952 = weight(_text_:22 in 100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07122952 = score(doc=100,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 100, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=100)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:41:14
  2. Stojanovic, N.: Ontology-based Information Retrieval : methods and tools for cooperative query answering (2005) 0.03 
    0.029507384 = product of:
  0.044261076 = sum of:
    0.034791786 = product of:
      0.13916714 = sum of:
        0.13916714 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13916714 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37143064 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.009469291 = product of:
      0.018938582 = sum of:
        0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018938582 = score(doc=701,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                32.0 = termFreq=32.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
  3. OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases (2004) 0.02 
    0.022141643 = product of:
  0.06642493 = sum of:
    0.06642493 = sum of:
      0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018938582 = score(doc=4685,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 4685, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4685)
      0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047486346 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4685, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4685)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This document contains and presents test cases for the Web Ontology Language (OWL) approved by the Web Ontology Working Group. Many of the test cases illustrate the correct usage of the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and the formal meaning of its constructs. Other test cases illustrate the resolution of issues considered by the Working Group. Conformance for OWL documents and OWL document checkers is specified.
    Date
    14. 8.2011 13:33:22
  4. Malmsten, M.: Making a library catalogue part of the Semantic Web (2008) 0.02 
    0.021157425 = product of:
  0.06347227 = sum of:
    0.06347227 = sum of:
      0.021921717 = weight(_text_:of in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021921717 = score(doc=2640,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
      0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041550554 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2640, 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=2640)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Library catalogues contain an enormous amount of structured, high-quality data, however, this data is generally not made available to semantic web applications. In this paper we describe the tools and techniques used to make the Swedish Union Catalogue (LIBRIS) part of the Semantic Web and Linked Data. The focus is on links to and between resources and the mechanisms used to make data available, rather than perfect description of the individual resources. We also present a method of creating links between records of the same work.
    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
  5. Heflin, J.; Hendler, J.: Semantic interoperability on the Web (2000) 0.02 
    0.020615373 = product of:
  0.06184612 = sum of:
    0.06184612 = sum of:
      0.020295564 = weight(_text_:of in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020295564 = score(doc=759,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
      0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041550554 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 759, 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=759)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    XML will have a profound impact on the way data is exchanged on the Internet. An important feature of this language is the separation of content from presentation, which makes it easier to select and/or reformat the data. However, due to the likelihood of numerous industry and domain specific DTDs, those who wish to integrate information will still be faced with the problem of semantic interoperability. In this paper we discuss why this problem is not solved by XML, and then discuss why the Resource Description Framework is only a partial solution. We then present the SHOE language, which we feel has many of the features necessary to enable a semantic web, and describe an existing set of tools that make it easy to use the language.
    Date
    11. 5.2013 19:22:18
  6. Hollink, L.; Assem, M. van: Estimating the relevance of search results in the Culture-Web : a study of semantic distance measures (2010) 0.02 
    0.019723108 = product of:
  0.059169322 = sum of:
    0.059169322 = sum of:
      0.023554565 = weight(_text_:of in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023554565 = score(doc=4649,freq=22.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
            4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
              22.0 = termFreq=22.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4649, 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=4649)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    More and more cultural heritage institutions publish their collections, vocabularies and metadata on the Web. The resulting Web of linked cultural data opens up exciting new possibilities for searching and browsing through these cultural heritage collections. We report on ongoing work in which we investigate the estimation of relevance in this Web of Culture. We study existing measures of semantic distance and how they apply to two use cases. The use cases relate to the structured, multilingual and multimodal nature of the Culture Web. We distinguish between measures using the Web, such as Google distance and PMI, and measures using the Linked Data Web, i.e. the semantic structure of metadata vocabularies. We perform a small study in which we compare these semantic distance measures to human judgements of relevance. Although it is too early to draw any definitive conclusions, the study provides new insights into the applicability of semantic distance measures to the Web of Culture, and clear starting points for further research.
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:40:22
  7. Hooland, S. van; Verborgh, R.; Wilde, M. De; Hercher, J.; Mannens, E.; Wa, R.Van de: Evaluating the success of vocabulary reconciliation for cultural heritage collections (2013) 0.02 
    0.019723108 = product of:
  0.059169322 = sum of:
    0.059169322 = sum of:
      0.023554565 = weight(_text_:of in 662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023554565 = score(doc=662,freq=22.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 662, product of:
            4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
              22.0 = termFreq=22.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=662)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=662,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 662, 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=662)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The concept of Linked Data has made its entrance in the cultural heritage sector due to its potential use for the integration of heterogeneous collections and deriving additional value out of existing metadata. However, practitioners and researchers alike need a better understanding of what outcome they can reasonably expect of the reconciliation process between their local metadata and established controlled vocabularies which are already a part of the Linked Data cloud. This paper offers an in-depth analysis of how a locally developed vocabulary can be successfully reconciled with the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and the Arts and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) through the help of a general-purpose tool for interactive data transformation (OpenRefine). Issues negatively affecting the reconciliation process are identified and solutions are proposed in order to derive maximum value from existing metadata and controlled vocabularies in an automated manner.
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:29:20
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.3, S.464-479
  8. Faaborg, A.; Lagoze, C.: Semantic browsing (2003) 0.02 
    0.019373938 = product of:
  0.058121815 = sum of:
    0.058121815 = sum of:
      0.01657126 = weight(_text_:of in 1026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01657126 = score(doc=1026,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 1026, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1026)
      0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 1026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041550554 = score(doc=1026,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1026, 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=1026)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    We have created software applications that allow users to both author and use Semantic Web metadata. To create and use a layer of semantic content on top of the existing Web, we have (1) implemented a user interface that expedites the task of attributing metadata to resources on the Web, and (2) augmented a Web browser to leverage this semantic metadata to provide relevant information and tasks to the user. This project provides a framework for annotating and reorganizing existing files, pages, and sites on the Web that is similar to Vannevar Bushrsquos original concepts of trail blazing and associative indexing.
    Source
    Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 7th European Conference, proceedings / ECDL 2003, Trondheim, Norway, August 17-22, 2003
  9. Synak, M.; Dabrowski, M.; Kruk, S.R.: Semantic Web and ontologies (2009) 0.02 
    0.018985212 = product of:
  0.056955636 = sum of:
    0.056955636 = sum of:
      0.009469291 = weight(_text_:of in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009469291 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
      0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047486346 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This chapter presents ontologies and their role in the creation of the Semantic Web. Ontologies hold special interest, because they are very closely related to the way we understand the world. They provide common understanding, the very first step to successful communication. In following sections, we will present ontologies, how they are created and used. We will describe available tools for specifying and working with ontologies.
    Date
    31. 7.2010 16:58:22
  10. Franklin, R.A.: Re-inventing subject access for the semantic web (2003) 0.02 
    0.018973555 = product of:
  0.056920663 = sum of:
    0.056920663 = sum of:
      0.021305902 = weight(_text_:of in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021305902 = score(doc=2556,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2556, 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=2556)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    First generation scholarly research on the Web lacked a firm system of authority control. Second generation Web research is beginning to model subject access with library science principles of bibliographic control and cataloguing. Harnessing the Web and organising the intellectual content with standards and controlled vocabulary provides precise search and retrieval capability, increasing relevance and efficient use of technology. Dublin Core metadata standards permit a full evaluation and cataloguing of Web resources appropriate to highly specific research needs and discovery. Current research points to a type of structure based on a system of faceted classification. This system allows the semantic and syntactic relationships to be defined. Controlled vocabulary, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings, can be assigned, not in a hierarchical structure, but rather as descriptive facets of relating concepts. Web design features such as this are adding value to discovery and filtering out data that lack authority. The system design allows for scalability and extensibility, two technical features that are integral to future development of the digital library and resource discovery.
    Date
    30.12.2008 18:22:46
  11. Mayfield, J.; Finin, T.: Information retrieval on the Semantic Web : integrating inference and retrieval 0.02 
    0.018633895 = product of:
  0.055901684 = sum of:
    0.055901684 = sum of:
      0.014351131 = weight(_text_:of in 4330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014351131 = score(doc=4330,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 4330, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4330)
      0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 4330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041550554 = score(doc=4330,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4330, 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=4330)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    One vision of the Semantic Web is that it will be much like the Web we know today, except that documents will be enriched by annotations in machine understandable markup. These annotations will provide metadata about the documents as well as machine interpretable statements capturing some of the meaning of document content. We discuss how the information retrieval paradigm might be recast in such an environment. We suggest that retrieval can be tightly bound to inference. Doing so makes today's Web search engines useful to Semantic Web inference engines, and causes improvements in either retrieval or inference to lead directly to improvements in the other.
    Date
    12. 2.2011 17:35:22
  12. Keyser, P. de: Indexing : from thesauri to the Semantic Web (2012) 0.02 
    0.018567387 = product of:
  0.055702157 = sum of:
    0.055702157 = sum of:
      0.020087399 = weight(_text_:of in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020087399 = score(doc=3197,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 3197, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3197)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=3197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3197, 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=3197)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Indexing consists of both novel and more traditional techniques. Cutting-edge indexing techniques, such as automatic indexing, ontologies, and topic maps, were developed independently of older techniques such as thesauri, but it is now recognized that these older methods also hold expertise. Indexing describes various traditional and novel indexing techniques, giving information professionals and students of library and information sciences a broad and comprehensible introduction to indexing. This title consists of twelve chapters: an Introduction to subject readings and theasauri; Automatic indexing versus manual indexing; Techniques applied in automatic indexing of text material; Automatic indexing of images; The black art of indexing moving images; Automatic indexing of music; Taxonomies and ontologies; Metadata formats and indexing; Tagging; Topic maps; Indexing the web; and The Semantic Web.
    Date
    24. 8.2016 14:03:22
  13. Zeng, M.L.; Fan, W.; Lin, X.: SKOS for an integrated vocabulary structure (2008) 0.02 
    0.01788844 = product of:
  0.053665318 = sum of:
    0.053665318 = sum of:
      0.020087399 = weight(_text_:of in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020087399 = score(doc=2654,freq=36.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
            6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
              36.0 = termFreq=36.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
      0.03357792 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03357792 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  14. Metadata and semantics research : 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings (2016) 0.02 
    0.016612062 = product of:
  0.049836185 = sum of:
    0.049836185 = sum of:
      0.00828563 = weight(_text_:of in 3283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00828563 = score(doc=3283,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.120940685 = fieldWeight in 3283, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3283)
      0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 3283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041550554 = score(doc=3283,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3283, 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=3283)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 10th Metadata and Semantics Research Conference, MTSR 2016, held in Göttingen, Germany, in November 2016. The 26 full papers and 6 short papers presented were carefully reviewed and selected from 67 submissions. The papers are organized in several sessions and tracks: Digital Libraries, Information Retrieval, Linked and Social Data, Metadata and Semantics for Open Repositories, Research Information Systems and Data Infrastructures, Metadata and Semantics for Agriculture, Food and Environment, Metadata and Semantics for Cultural Collections and Applications, European and National Projects.
  15. Prud'hommeaux, E.; Gayo, E.: RDF ventures to boldly meet your most pedestrian needs (2015) 0.02 
    0.016606232 = product of:
  0.049818695 = sum of:
    0.049818695 = sum of:
      0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014203937 = score(doc=2024,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2024, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2024)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2024, 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=2024)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Defined in 1999 and paired with XML, the Resource Description Framework (RDF) has been cast as an RDF Schema, producing data that is well-structured but not validated, permitting certain illogical relationships. When stakeholders convened in 2014 to consider solutions to the data validation challenge, a W3C working group proposed Resource Shapes and Shape Expressions to describe the properties expected for an RDF node. Resistance rose from concerns about data and schema reuse, key principles in RDF. Ideally data types and properties are designed for broad use, but they are increasingly adopted with local restrictions for specific purposes. Resource Shapes are commonly treated as record classes, standing in for data structures but losing flexibility for later reuse. Of various solutions to the resulting tensions, the concept of record classes may be the most reasonable basis for agreement, satisfying stakeholders' objectives while allowing for variations with constraints.
    Footnote
    Contribution to a special section "Linked data and the charm of weak semantics".
    Source
    Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 41(2015) no.4, S.18-22
  16. Metadata and semantics research : 7th Research Conference, MTSR 2013 Thessaloniki, Greece, November 19-22, 2013. Proceedings (2013) 0.02 
    0.016416308 = product of:
  0.04924892 = sum of:
    0.04924892 = sum of:
      0.019868242 = weight(_text_:of in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019868242 = score(doc=1155,freq=46.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.29000556 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
            6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
              46.0 = termFreq=46.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
      0.02938068 = weight(_text_:22 in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02938068 = score(doc=1155,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19150631 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Metadata and semantics are integral to any information system and significant to the sphere of Web data. Research focusing on metadata and semantics is crucial for advancing our understanding and knowledge of metadata; and, more profoundly for being able to effectively discover, use, archive, and repurpose information. In response to this need, researchers are actively examining methods for generating, reusing, and interchanging metadata. Integrated with these developments is research on the application of computational methods, linked data, and data analytics. A growing body of work also targets conceptual and theoretical designs providing foundational frameworks for metadata and semantic applications. There is no doubt that metadata weaves its way into nearly every aspect of our information ecosystem, and there is great motivation for advancing the current state of metadata and semantics. To this end, it is vital that scholars and practitioners convene and share their work.
    The MTSR 2013 program and the contents of these proceedings show a rich diversity of research and practices, drawing on problems from metadata and semantically focused tools and technologies, linked data, cross-language semantics, ontologies, metadata models, and semantic system and metadata standards. The general session of the conference included 18 papers covering a broad spectrum of topics, proving the interdisciplinary field of metadata, and was divided into three main themes: platforms for research data sets, system architecture and data management; metadata and ontology validation, evaluation, mapping and interoperability; and content management. Metadata as a research topic is maturing, and the conference also supported the following five tracks: Metadata and Semantics for Open Repositories, Research Information Systems and Data Infrastructures; Metadata and Semantics for Cultural Collections and Applications; Metadata and Semantics for Agriculture, Food and Environment; Big Data and Digital Libraries in Health, Science and Technology; and European and National Projects, and Project Networking. Each track had a rich selection of papers, giving broader diversity to MTSR, and enabling deeper exploration of significant topics.
    All the papers underwent a thorough and rigorous peer-review process. The review and selection this year was highly competitive and only papers containing significant research results, innovative methods, or novel and best practices were accepted for publication. Only 29 of 89 submissions were accepted as full papers, representing 32.5% of the total number of submissions. Additional contributions covering noteworthy and important results in special tracks or project reports were accepted, totaling 42 accepted contributions. This year's conference included two outstanding keynote speakers. Dr. Stefan Gradmann, a professor arts department of KU Leuven (Belgium) and director of university library, addressed semantic research drawing from his work with Europeana. The title of his presentation was, "Towards a Semantic Research Library: Digital Humanities Research, Europeana and the Linked Data Paradigm". Dr. Michail Salampasis, associate professor from our conference host institution, the Department of Informatics of the Alexander TEI of Thessaloniki, presented new potential, intersecting search and linked data. The title of his talk was, "Rethinking the Search Experience: What Could Professional Search Systems Do Better?"
    Date
    17.12.2013 12:51:22
  17. Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M.; Bar-Ilan, J.: Towards maximal unification of semantically diverse ontologies for controversial domains (2014) 0.02 
    0.015805468 = product of:
  0.0474164 = sum of:
    0.0474164 = sum of:
      0.023673227 = weight(_text_:of in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023673227 = score(doc=1634,freq=50.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
            7.071068 = tf(freq=50.0), with freq of:
              50.0 = termFreq=50.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
      0.023743173 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023743173 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 66(2014) no.5, S.494-518
  18. Monireh, E.; Sarker, M.K.; Bianchi, F.; Hitzler, P.; Doran, D.; Xie, N.: Reasoning over RDF knowledge bases using deep learning (2018) 0.01 
    0.014304235 = product of:
  0.042912703 = sum of:
    0.042912703 = sum of:
      0.013233736 = weight(_text_:of in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013233736 = score(doc=4553,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
      0.029678967 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029678967 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4553, 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=4553)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Semantic Web knowledge representation standards, and in particular RDF and OWL, often come endowed with a formal semantics which is considered to be of fundamental importance for the field. Reasoning, i.e., the drawing of logical inferences from knowledge expressed in such standards, is traditionally based on logical deductive methods and algorithms which can be proven to be sound and complete and terminating, i.e. correct in a very strong sense. For various reasons, though, in particular the scalability issues arising from the ever increasing amounts of Semantic Web data available and the inability of deductive algorithms to deal with noise in the data, it has been argued that alternative means of reasoning should be investigated which bear high promise for high scalability and better robustness. From this perspective, deductive algorithms can be considered the gold standard regarding correctness against which alternative methods need to be tested. In this paper, we show that it is possible to train a Deep Learning system on RDF knowledge graphs, such that it is able to perform reasoning over new RDF knowledge graphs, with high precision and recall compared to the deductive gold standard.
    Date
    16.11.2018 14:22:01
  19. Gendt, M. van; Isaac, I.; Meij, L. van der; Schlobach, S.: Semantic Web techniques for multiple views on heterogeneous collections : a case study (2006) 0.01 
    0.014238909 = product of:
  0.042716727 = sum of:
    0.042716727 = sum of:
      0.0071019684 = weight(_text_:of in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0071019684 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.103663445 = fieldWeight in 2418, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2418)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2418, 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=2418)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Integrated digital access to multiple collections is a prominent issue for many Cultural Heritage institutions. The metadata describing diverse collections must be interoperable, which requires aligning the controlled vocabularies that are used to annotate objects from these collections. In this paper, we present an experiment where we match the vocabularies of two collections by applying the Knowledge Representation techniques established in recent Semantic Web research. We discuss the steps that are required for such matching, namely formalising the initial resources using Semantic Web languages, and running ontology mapping tools on the resulting representations. In addition, we present a prototype that enables the user to browse the two collections using the obtained alignment while still providing her with the original vocabulary structures.
    Source
    Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006
  20. Multimedia content and the Semantic Web : methods, standards, and tools (2005) 0.01 
    0.014233928 = product of:
  0.042701785 = sum of:
    0.042701785 = sum of:
      0.016999044 = weight(_text_:of in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016999044 = score(doc=150,freq=66.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2481255 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
            8.124039 = tf(freq=66.0), with freq of:
              66.0 = termFreq=66.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
      0.025702741 = weight(_text_:22 in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025702741 = score(doc=150,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.16753313 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Classification
    006.7 22
    Date
    7. 3.2007 19:30:22
    DDC
    006.7 22
    Footnote
    Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.3, S.457-458 (A.M.A. Ahmad): "The concept of the semantic web has emerged because search engines and text-based searching are no longer adequate, as these approaches involve an extensive information retrieval process. The deployed searching and retrieving descriptors arc naturally subjective and their deployment is often restricted to the specific application domain for which the descriptors were configured. The new era of information technology imposes different kinds of requirements and challenges. Automatic extracted audiovisual features are required, as these features are more objective, domain-independent, and more native to audiovisual content. This book is a useful guide for researchers, experts, students, and practitioners; it is a very valuable reference and can lead them through their exploration and research in multimedia content and the semantic web. The book is well organized, and introduces the concept of the semantic web and multimedia content analysis to the reader through a logical sequence from standards and hypotheses through system examples, presenting relevant tools and methods. But in some chapters readers will need a good technical background to understand some of the details. Readers may attain sufficient knowledge here to start projects or research related to the book's theme; recent results and articles related to the active research area of integrating multimedia with semantic web technologies are included. This book includes full descriptions of approaches to specific problem domains such as content search, indexing, and retrieval. This book will be very useful to researchers in the multimedia content analysis field who wish to explore the benefits of emerging semantic web technologies in applying multimedia content approaches. The first part of the book covers the definition of the two basic terms multimedia content and semantic web. The Moving Picture Experts Group standards MPEG7 and MPEG21 are quoted extensively. In addition, the means of multimedia content description are elaborated upon and schematically drawn. This extensive description is introduced by authors who are actively involved in those standards and have been participating in the work of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/MPEG for many years. On the other hand, this results in bias against the ad hoc or nonstandard tools for multimedia description in favor of the standard approaches. This is a general book for multimedia content; more emphasis on the general multimedia description and extraction could be provided.
    Semantic web technologies are explained, and ontology representation is emphasized. There is an excellent summary of the fundamental theory behind applying a knowledge-engineering approach to vision problems. This summary represents the concept of the semantic web and multimedia content analysis. A definition of the fuzzy knowledge representation that can be used for realization in multimedia content applications has been provided, with a comprehensive analysis. The second part of the book introduces the multimedia content analysis approaches and applications. In addition, some examples of methods applicable to multimedia content analysis are presented. Multimedia content analysis is a very diverse field and concerns many other research fields at the same time; this creates strong diversity issues, as everything from low-level features (e.g., colors, DCT coefficients, motion vectors, etc.) up to the very high and semantic level (e.g., Object, Events, Tracks, etc.) are involved. The second part includes topics on structure identification (e.g., shot detection for video sequences), and object-based video indexing. These conventional analysis methods are supplemented by results on semantic multimedia analysis, including three detailed chapters on the development and use of knowledge models for automatic multimedia analysis. Starting from object-based indexing and continuing with machine learning, these three chapters are very logically organized. Because of the diversity of this research field, including several chapters of recent research results is not sufficient to cover the state of the art of multimedia. The editors of the book should write an introductory chapter about multimedia content analysis approaches, basic problems, and technical issues and challenges, and try to survey the state of the art of the field and thus introduce the field to the reader.
    The final part of the book discusses research in multimedia content management systems and the semantic web, and presents examples and applications for semantic multimedia analysis in search and retrieval systems. These chapters describe example systems in which current projects have been implemented, and include extensive results and real demonstrations. For example, real case scenarios such as ECommerce medical applications and Web services have been introduced. Topics in natural language, speech and image processing techniques and their application for multimedia indexing, and content-based retrieval have been elaborated upon with extensive examples and deployment methods. The editors of the book themselves provide the readers with a chapter about their latest research results on knowledge-based multimedia content indexing and retrieval. Some interesting applications for multimedia content and the semantic web are introduced. Applications that have taken advantage of the metadata provided by MPEG7 in order to realize advance-access services for multimedia content have been provided. The applications discussed in the third part of the book provide useful guidance to researchers and practitioners properly planning to implement semantic multimedia analysis techniques in new research and development projects in both academia and industry. A fourth part should be added to this book: performance measurements for integrated approaches of multimedia analysis and the semantic web. Performance of the semantic approach is a very sophisticated issue and requires extensive elaboration and effort. Measuring the semantic search is an ongoing research area; several chapters concerning performance measurement and analysis would be required to adequately cover this area and introduce it to readers."

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 243
  • d 20
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 163
  • el 78
  • m 46
  • s 20
  • n 10
  • x 6
  • r 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications