Search (82 results, page 1 of 5)

0.22546577 = product of:
  0.45093155 = sum of:
    0.06441879 = product of:
      0.19325636 = sum of:
        0.19325636 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19325636 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3438615 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040559217 = 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)
    0.19325636 = weight(_text_:2f in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19325636 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3438615 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = 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)
    0.19325636 = weight(_text_:2f in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19325636 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3438615 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = 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(3/6)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.20367678 = product of:
  0.40735355 = sum of:
    0.042945858 = product of:
      0.12883757 = sum of:
        0.12883757 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12883757 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3438615 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040559217 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.18220384 = weight(_text_:2f in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18220384 = score(doc=5820,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.3438615 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.5298757 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
    0.18220384 = weight(_text_:2f in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18220384 = score(doc=5820,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.3438615 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.5298757 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Content

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Information Technologies. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.cmu.edu%2F~cx%2Fpapers%2Fknowledge_based_text_representation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0SaTSvhWLTh__Uz_HtOtl3.

0.1503105 = product of:
  0.300621 = sum of:
    0.042945858 = product of:
      0.12883757 = sum of:
        0.12883757 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12883757 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3438615 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040559217 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.12883757 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12883757 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3438615 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = 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)
    0.12883757 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12883757 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3438615 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

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.

0.039477527 = product of:
  0.11843258 = sum of:
    0.101946935 = weight(_text_:documentation in 1652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.101946935 = score(doc=1652,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.57727855 = fieldWeight in 1652, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1652)
    0.016485643 = product of:
      0.032971285 = sum of:
        0.032971285 = weight(_text_:22 in 1652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032971285 = score(doc=1652,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14203148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040559217 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1652, 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=1652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This document is the formal definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model ("CRM"), a formal ontology intended to facilitate the integration, mediation and interchange of heterogeneous cultural heritage information. The CRM is the culmination of more than a decade of standards development work by the International Committee for Documentation (CIDOC) of the International Council of Museums (ICOM). Work on the CRM itself began in 1996 under the auspices of the ICOM-CIDOC Documentation Standards Working Group. Since 2000, development of the CRM has been officially delegated by ICOM-CIDOC to the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group, which collaborates with the ISO working group ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 to bring the CRM to the form and status of an International Standard.

Date

6. 8.2010 14:22:28

Editor

ICOM/CIDOC Documentation Standards Group

Issue

Version 3.4.9 - 30.11.2003. Produced by the ICOM/CIDOC Documentation Standards Group, continued by the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group.

0.039268717 = product of:
  0.23561229 = sum of:
    0.23561229 = weight(_text_:great in 1115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23561229 = score(doc=1115,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.22838 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        1.0316678 = fieldWeight in 1115, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1115)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Great Sites are closely related to the residents' life, urban and rural development. In the process of rapid urbanization in China, the protection and utilization of Great Sites are facing unprecedented pressure. Effective knowl­edge organization with ontology and linked data of Great Sites is a prerequisite for their protection and utilization. In this paper, an interview is conducted to understand the users' awareness towards Great Sites to build the user-centered ontology. As for designing the Great Site ontology, firstly, the scope of Great Sites is determined. Secondly, CIDOC- CRM and OWL-Time Ontology are reused combining the results of literature research and user interviews. Thirdly, the top-level structure and the specific instances are determined to extract knowl­edge concepts of Great Sites. Fourthly, they are transformed into classes, data properties and object properties of the Great Site ontology. Later, based on the linked data technology, taking the Great Sites in Xi'an Area as an example, this paper uses D2RQ to publish the linked data set of the knowl­edge of the Great Sites and realize its opening and sharing. Semantic services such as semantic annotation, semantic retrieval and reasoning are provided based on the ontology.

0.022607416 = product of:
  0.06782225 = sum of:
    0.05683182 = weight(_text_:great in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05683182 = score(doc=4399,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22838 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 4399, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4399)
    0.010990429 = product of:
      0.021980857 = sum of:
        0.021980857 = weight(_text_:22 in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021980857 = score(doc=4399,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14203148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040559217 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4399, 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=4399)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Indexing plays a vital role in Information Retrieval. With the availability of huge volume of information, it has become necessary to index the information in such a way to make easier for the end users to find the information they want efficiently and accurately. Keyword-based indexing uses words as indexing terms. It is not capable of capturing the implicit relation among terms or the semantics of the words in the document. To eliminate this limitation, ontology-based indexing came into existence, which allows semantic based indexing to solve complex and indirect user queries. Ontologies are used for document indexing which allows semantic based information retrieval. Existing ontologies or the ones constructed from scratch are used presently for indexing. Constructing ontologies from scratch is a labor-intensive task and requires extensive domain knowledge whereas use of an existing ontology may leave some important concepts in documents un-annotated. Using multiple ontologies can overcome the problem of missing out concepts to a great extent, but it is difficult to manage (changes in ontologies over time by their developers) multiple ontologies and ontology heterogeneity also arises due to ontologies constructed by different ontology developers. One possible solution to managing multiple ontologies and build from scratch is to use modular ontologies for indexing.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.022607416 = product of:
  0.06782225 = sum of:
    0.05683182 = weight(_text_:great in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05683182 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22838 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 179, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=179)
    0.010990429 = product of:
      0.021980857 = sum of:
        0.021980857 = weight(_text_:22 in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021980857 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14203148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040559217 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 179, 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=179)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose The open science movement calls for transparent and retraceable research processes. While infrastructures to support these practices in qualitative research are lacking, the design needs to consider different approaches and workflows. The paper bases on the definition of ontologies as shared conceptualizations of knowledge (Borst, 1999). The authors argue that participatory design is a good way to create these shared conceptualizations by giving domain experts and future users a voice in the design process via interviews, workshops and observations. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a novel approach for creating ontologies in the field of open science using participatory design. As a case study the creation of an ontology for qualitative coding schemas is presented. Coding schemas are an important result of qualitative research, and reuse can yield great potential for open science making qualitative research more transparent, enhance sharing of coding schemas and teaching of qualitative methods. The participatory design process consisted of three parts: a requirement analysis using interviews and an observation, a design phase accompanied by interviews and an evaluation phase based on user tests as well as interviews. Findings The research showed several positive outcomes due to participatory design: higher commitment of users, mutual learning, high quality feedback and better quality of the ontology. However, there are two obstacles in this approach: First, contradictive answers by the interviewees, which needs to be balanced; second, this approach takes more time due to interview planning and analysis. Practical implications The implication of the paper is in the long run to decentralize the design of open science infrastructures and to involve parties affected on several levels. Originality/value In ontology design, several methods exist by using user-centered design or participatory design doing workshops. In this paper, the authors outline the potentials for participatory design using mainly interviews in creating an ontology for open science. The authors focus on close contact to researchers in order to build the ontology upon the expert's knowledge.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.02002427 = product of:
  0.12014562 = sum of:
    0.12014562 = weight(_text_:documentation in 6070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12014562 = score(doc=6070,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.6803293 = fieldWeight in 6070, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6070)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This standard provides the basic terms and their definitions in the field of information and documentation for the purpose of promoting and facilitating knowledge sharing and information exchange. This International Standard presents terms and definitions of selected concepts relevant to the field of information and documentation. If a definition is from other standards, the priority of selection is TC46 technical standards, then technical standards in relevant field, and then terminology related standards. The scope of this International Standard corresponds to that of ISO/TC46, Standardization of practices relating to libraries, documentation and information centres, publishing, archives, records management, museum documentation, indexing and abstracting services, and information science. ISO 5127 was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and Documentation, WG4, Terminology of information and documentation. This second edition cancels and replaces the first edition (ISO 5127:2001), which has been technically revised to overcome problems in the practical application of ISO 5127:2001 and to take account of the new developments in the field of information and documentation.

0.018738642 = product of:
  0.056215927 = sum of:
    0.04247789 = weight(_text_:documentation in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04247789 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.24053274 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
    0.013738036 = product of:
      0.027476072 = sum of:
        0.027476072 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027476072 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14203148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040559217 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

22. 1.2021 14:24:32

Source

Journal of documentation. 77(2021) no.1, S.93-105

0.01657595 = product of:
  0.09945569 = sum of:
    0.09945569 = weight(_text_:great in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09945569 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22838 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This document describes in brief how to express the content and structure of a classification scheme, and metadata about a classification scheme, in RDF using the SKOS vocabulary. RDF allows data to be linked to and/or merged with other RDF data by semantic web applications. The Semantic Web, which is based on the Resource Description Framework (RDF), provides a common framework that allows data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries. Publishing classifications schemes in SKOS will unify the great many of existing classification efforts in the framework of the Semantic Web.

0.01657595 = product of:
  0.09945569 = sum of:
    0.09945569 = weight(_text_:great in 439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09945569 = score(doc=439,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22838 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 439, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=439)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This contribution presents the principal features of ontologies, drawing special attention to the comparison between ontologies and the different kinds of know­ledge organization systems (KOS). The focus is on the semantic richness exhibited by ontologies, which allows the creation of a great number of relationships between terms. That establishes ontologies as the most evolved type of KOS. The concepts of "conceptualization" and "formalization" and the key components of ontologies are described and discussed, along with upper and domain ontologies and special typologies, such as bibliographical ontologies and biomedical ontologies. The use of ontologies in the digital libraries environment, where they have replaced thesauri for query expansion in searching, and the role they are playing in the Semantic Web, especially for semantic interoperability, are sketched.

0.014207955 = product of:
  0.08524773 = sum of:
    0.08524773 = weight(_text_:great in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08524773 = score(doc=5876,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22838 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Mining product reviews and sentiment analysis are of great significance, whether for academic research purposes or optimizing business strategies. We propose a feature-level sentiment analysis framework based on rules parsing and fine-grained domain ontology for Chinese reviews. Fine-grained ontology is used to describe synonymous expressions of product features, which are reflected in word changes in online reviews. First, a semiautomatic construction method is developed by using Word2Vec for fine-grained ontology. Then, featurelevel sentiment analysis that combines rules parsing and the fine-grained domain ontology is conducted to extract explicit and implicit features from product reviews. Finally, the domain sentiment dictionary and context sentiment dictionary are established to identify sentiment polarities for the extracted feature-sentiment combinations. An experiment is conducted on the basis of product reviews crawled from Chinese e-commerce websites. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.

0.011839963 = product of:
  0.07103977 = sum of:
    0.07103977 = weight(_text_:great in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07103977 = score(doc=2861,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22838 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Today's conventional search engines hardly do provide the essential content relevant to the user's search query. This is because the context and semantics of the request made by the user is not analyzed to the full extent. So here the need for a semantic web search arises. SWS is upcoming in the area of web search which combines Natural Language Processing and Artificial Intelligence. The objective of the work done here is to design, develop and implement a semantic search engine- SIEU(Semantic Information Extraction in University Domain) confined to the university domain. SIEU uses ontology as a knowledge base for the information retrieval process. It is not just a mere keyword search. It is one layer above what Google or any other search engines retrieve by analyzing just the keywords. Here the query is analyzed both syntactically and semantically. The developed system retrieves the web results more relevant to the user query through keyword expansion. The results obtained here will be accurate enough to satisfy the request made by the user. The level of accuracy will be enhanced since the query is analyzed semantically. The system will be of great use to the developers and researchers who work on web. The Google results are re-ranked and optimized for providing the relevant links. For ranking an algorithm has been applied which fetches more apt results for the user query.

0.00980985 = product of:
  0.0588591 = sum of:
    0.0588591 = weight(_text_:documentation in 5819) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0588591 = score(doc=5819,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.33329198 = fieldWeight in 5819, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5819)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Industries have adopted a standardized set of practices for developing their products. In the automotive domain, the provision of safety-compliant systems is guided by ISO 26262, a standard that specifies a set of requirements and recommendations for developing automotive safety-critical systems. For being in compliance with ISO 26262, the safety lifecycle proposed by the standard must be included in the development process of a vehicle. Besides, a safety case that shows that the system is acceptably safe has to be provided. The provision of a safety case implies the execution of a precise documentation process. This process makes sure that the work products are available and traceable. Further, the documentation management is defined in the standard as a mandatory activity and guidelines are proposed/imposed for its elaboration. It would be appropriate to point out that a well-documented safety lifecycle will provide the necessary inputs for the generation of an ISO 26262-compliant safety case. The OSLC (Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration) standard and the maturing stack of semantic web technologies represent a promising integration platform for enabling semantic interoperability between the tools involved in the safety lifecycle. Tools for requirements, architecture, development management, among others, are expected to interact and shared data with the help of domains specifications created in OSLC. This thesis proposes the creation of an OSLC tool-chain infrastructure for sharing safety-related information, where fragments of safety information can be generated. The steps carried out during the elaboration of this master thesis consist in the identification, representation, and shaping of the RDF resources needed for the creation of a safety case. The focus of the thesis is limited to a tiny portion of the ISO 26262 left-hand side of the V-model, more exactly part 6 clause 8 of the standard: Software unit design and implementation. Regardless of the use of a restricted portion of the standard during the execution of this thesis, the findings can be extended to other parts, and the conclusions can be generalize. This master thesis is considered one of the first steps towards the provision of an OSLC-based and ISO 26262-compliant methodological approach for representing and shaping the work products resulting from the execution of the safety lifecycle, documentation required in the conformation of an ISO-compliant safety case.

0.009471971 = product of:
  0.05683182 = sum of:
    0.05683182 = weight(_text_:great in 694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05683182 = score(doc=694,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22838 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 694, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=694)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

More and more information is available on-line every day. The greater the amount of on-line information, the greater the demand for tools that process and disseminate this information. Processing electronic information in the form of text and answering users' queries about that information intelligently is one of the great challenges in natural language processing and information retrieval. The research presented in this talk is centered on the latter of these two tasks: intelligent information retrieval. In order for information to be retrieved, it first needs to be formalized in a database or knowledge base. The ontology for this formalization and assumptions it is based on are crucial to successful intelligent information retrieval. We have concentrated our effort on developing an ontology for representing knowledge in the domains of experimental sciences, molecular biology in particular. We show that existing ontological models cannot be readily applied to represent this domain adequately. For example, the fundamental notion of ontology design that every "real" object is defined as an instance of a category seems incompatible with the universe where objects can change their category as a result of experimental procedures. Another important problem is representing complex structures such as DNA, mixtures, populations of molecules, etc., that are very common in molecular biology. We present extensions that need to be made to an ontology to cover these issues: the representation of transformations that change the structure and/or category of their participants, and the component relations and spatial structures of complex objects. We demonstrate examples of how the proposed representations can be used to improve the quality and completeness of answers to user queries; discuss techniques for evaluating ontologies and show a prototype of an Information Retrieval System that we developed.

0.009471971 = product of:
  0.05683182 = sum of:
    0.05683182 = weight(_text_:great in 1485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05683182 = score(doc=1485,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22838 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 1485, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1485)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Product family design is one of the prevailing approaches in realizing mass customization. With the increasing number of product offerings targeted at different market segments, the issue of information management in product family design, that is related to an efficient and effective storage, sharing and timely retrieval of design information, has become more complicated and challenging. Product family modelling schema reported in the literature generally stress the component aspects of a product family and its analysis, with a limited capability to model complex inter-relations between physical components and other required information in different semantic orientations, such as manufacturing, material and marketing wise. To tackle this problem, ontology-based representation has been identified as a promising solution to redesign product platforms especially in a semantically rich environment. However, ontology development in design engineering demands a great deal of time commitment and human effort to process complex information. When a large variety of products are available, particularly in the consumer market, a more efficient method for building a product family ontology with the incorporation of multi-faceted semantic information is therefore highly desirable. In this study, we propose a methodology for building a semantically annotated multi-faceted ontology for product family modelling that is able to automatically suggest semantically-related annotations based on the design and manufacturing repository. The six steps of building such ontology: formation of product family taxonomy; extraction of entities; faceted unit generation and concept identification; facet modelling and semantic annotation; formation of a semantically annotated multi-faceted product family ontology (MFPFO); and ontology validation and evaluation are discussed in detail. Using a family of laptop computers as an illustrative example, we demonstrate how our methodology can be deployed step by step to create a semantically annotated MFPFO. Finally, we briefly discuss future research issues as well as interesting applications that can be further pursued based on the MFPFO developed.

0.008495579 = product of:
  0.050973468 = sum of:
    0.050973468 = weight(_text_:documentation in 4043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050973468 = score(doc=4043,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.28863928 = fieldWeight in 4043, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4043)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper presents a clustered approach to designing an overall ontological model together with a general rule-based component that serves as a mapping device. By observational criteria, a multi-lingual team of experts excerpts concepts from general communication in the media. The team, then, finds equivalent expressions in English, German, French, and Spanish. On the basis of a set of ontological and lexical relations, a conceptual network is built up. Concepts are thought to be universal. Objects unique in time and space are identified by names and will be explained by the universals as their instances. Our approach relies on multi-relational descriptions of concepts. It provides a powerful tool for documentation and conceptual language learning. First and foremost, our multi-lingual, polyhierarchical ontology fills the gap of semantically-based information retrieval by generating enhanced and improved queries for internet search

0.008495579 = product of:
  0.050973468 = sum of:
    0.050973468 = weight(_text_:documentation in 2141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050973468 = score(doc=2141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.28863928 = fieldWeight in 2141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2141)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of documentation. 71(2015) no.4, S.775-794

0.008495579 = product of:
  0.050973468 = sum of:
    0.050973468 = weight(_text_:documentation in 5993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050973468 = score(doc=5993,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.28863928 = fieldWeight in 5993, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5993)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The lack of standardization in the production, organization and dissemination of information in documentation centers and institutions alike, as a result from the digitization of collections and their availability on the internet has called for integration efforts. The sheer availability of multimedia content has fostered the development of many distinct and, most of the time, independent metadata standards for its description. This study aims at presenting and comparing the existing standards of metadata, vocabularies and ontologies for multimedia annotation and also tries to offer a synthetic overview of its main strengths and weaknesses, aiding efforts for semantic integration and enhancing the findability of available multimedia resources on the web. We also aim at unveiling the characteristics that could, should and are perhaps not being highlighted in the characterization of multimedia resources.

0.008287975 = product of:
  0.049727846 = sum of:
    0.049727846 = weight(_text_:great in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049727846 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22838 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.21774168 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The paper analysed here is a kind of position paper. In order to get a better under-standing of the reported work I used the retrieval interface of the thesaurus, the so-called NCI DTS Browser accessible via the Web3, and I perused the cited OWL file4 with numerous "Find" and "Find next" string searches. In addition the file was im-ported into Protégé 2000, Release 2.0, with OWL Plugin 1.0 and Racer Plugin 1.7.14. At the end of the paper's introduction the authors say: "In the following sections, this paper will describe the terminology development process at NCI, and the issues associated with converting a description logic based nomenclature to a semantically rich OWL ontology." While I will not deal with the first part, i.e. the terminology development process at NCI, I do not see the thesaurus as a description logic based nomenclature, or its cur-rent state and conversion already result in a "rich" OWL ontology. What does "rich" mean here? According to my view there is a great quantity of concepts and links but a very poor description logic structure which enables inferences. And what does the fol-lowing really mean, which is said a few lines previously: "Although editors have defined a number of named ontologic relations to support the description-logic based structure of the Thesaurus, additional relation-ships are considered for inclusion as required to support dependent applications."