Search (132 results, page 1 of 7)

0.12077427 = product of:
  0.16103236 = sum of:
    0.10090631 = weight(_text_:description in 2389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10090631 = score(doc=2389,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.43587846 = fieldWeight in 2389, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2389)
    0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 2389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04116606 = score(doc=2389,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 2389, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2389)
    0.018959979 = product of:
      0.037919957 = sum of:
        0.037919957 = weight(_text_:access in 2389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037919957 = score(doc=2389,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 2389, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2389)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Considering the need for metadata standards suitable for the Semantic Web, this paper describes the RDA Element Sets and the RDA Value Vocabularies that were created from attributes and relationships defined in Resource Description and Access (RDA). First, we present the vocabularies included in RDA Element Sets: the vocabularies of classes, of properties and of properties unconstrained by FRBR entities; and then we present the RDA Value Vocabularies, which are under development. As a conclusion, we highlight that these vocabularies can be used to meet the needs of different contexts due to the unconstrained properties and to the independence of the vocabularies of properties from the vocabularies of values and vice versa.

Date

19.12.2014 19:26:51

0.11616145 = product of:
  0.15488194 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
    0.048027072 = weight(_text_:26 in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048027072 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
    0.023611406 = product of:
      0.04722281 = sum of:
        0.04722281 = weight(_text_:22 in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04722281 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

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

0.104129 = product of:
  0.208258 = sum of:
    0.18613803 = weight(_text_:description in 1998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18613803 = score(doc=1998,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.8040484 = fieldWeight in 1998, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1998)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 1998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=1998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1998, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article explores the question "What is an International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD) resource in the context of the Semantic Web, and what is the relationship of its description to the linked data?" This question is discussed against the background of the dichotomy between the description and access using the Semantic Web differentiation of the three logical layers: real-world objects, web of data, and special purpose (bibliographic) data. The representation of bibliographic data as linked data is discussed, distinguishing the description of a resource from the iconic/objective and the informational/subjective viewpoints. In the conclusion, the authors give views on possible directions of future development of the ISBD.

0.09545712 = product of:
  0.12727617 = sum of:
    0.04756769 = weight(_text_:description in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04756769 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.20547508 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
    0.02744404 = weight(_text_:26 in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02744404 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.15607277 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
    0.052264437 = sum of:
      0.025279973 = weight(_text_:access in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025279973 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.14979297 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
      0.026984464 = weight(_text_:22 in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026984464 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2656, 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=2656)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This poster explores the customization of DSpace to allow the use of the AGRIS Application Profile metadata standard and the AGROVOC thesaurus. The objective is the adaptation of DSpace, through the least invasive code changes either in the form of plug-ins or add-ons, to the specific needs of the Agricultural Sciences and Technology community. Metadata standards such as AGRIS AP, and Knowledge Organization Systems such as the AGROVOC thesaurus, provide mechanisms for sharing information in a standardized manner by recommending the use of common semantics and interoperable syntax (Subirats et al., 2007). AGRIS AP was created to enhance the description, exchange and subsequent retrieval of agricultural Document-like Information Objects (DLIOs). It is a metadata schema which draws from Metadata standards such as Dublin Core (DC), the Australian Government Locator Service Metadata (AGLS) and the Agricultural Metadata Element Set (AgMES) namespaces. It allows sharing of information across dispersed bibliographic systems (FAO, 2005). AGROVOC68 is a multilingual structured thesaurus covering agricultural and related domains. Its main role is to standardize the indexing process in order to make searching simpler and more efficient. AGROVOC is developed by FAO (Lauser et al., 2006). The customization of the DSpace is taking place in several phases. First, the AGRIS AP metadata schema was mapped onto the metadata DSpace model, with several enhancements implemented to support AGRIS AP elements. Next, AGROVOC will be integrated as a controlled vocabulary accessed through a local SKOS or OWL file. Eventually the system will be configurable to access AGROVOC through local files or remotely via webservices. Finally, spell checking and tooltips will be incorporated in the user interface to support metadata editing. Adapting DSpace to support AGRIS AP and annotation using the semantically-rich AGROVOC thesaurus transform DSpace into a powerful, domain-specific system for annotation and exchange of bibliographic metadata in the agricultural domain.

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

0.09158988 = product of:
  0.18317977 = sum of:
    0.14270307 = weight(_text_:description in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14270307 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.6164252 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
    0.040476695 = product of:
      0.08095339 = sum of:
        0.08095339 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08095339 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, 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=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.08315094 = product of:
  0.16630188 = sum of:
    0.1441819 = weight(_text_:description in 1999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1441819 = score(doc=1999,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.6228132 = fieldWeight in 1999, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1999)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 1999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=1999,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1999, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1999)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The article is an updated and expanded version of a paper presented to International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions in 2013. It describes recent work involving the representation of International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD) and UNIMARC (UNIversal MARC) in Resource Description Framework (RDF), the basis of the Semantic Web and linked data. The UNIMARC Bibliographic format is used to illustrate issues arising from the development of a bibliographic element set and its semantic alignment with ISBD. The article discusses the use of such alignments in the automated processing of linked data for interoperability, using examples from ISBD, UNIMARC, and Resource Description and Access.

0.08217348 = product of:
  0.10956465 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 4403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=4403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 4403, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4403)
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 4403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=4403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 4403, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4403)
    0.015799982 = product of:
      0.031599965 = sum of:
        0.031599965 = weight(_text_:access in 4403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031599965 = score(doc=4403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 4403, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4403)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

The resource description framework (RDF) is a W3C recommendation for the formulation of meta-data on the World Wide Web. RDF Schema (RDFS) extends this standard with the means to specify domain vocabulary and object structures. These techniques will enable the enrichment of the Web with machine-processable semantics, thus giving rise to what has been dubbed the Semantic Web. We have developed Sesame, an architecture for storage and querying of RDF and RDFS information. Sesame allows persistent storage of RDF data and schema information, and provides access methods to that information through export and querying modules. It features ways of caching information and offers support for concurrency control. This chapter is organized as follows: In Section 5.2 we discuss why a query language specifically tailored to RDF and RDFS is needed, over and above existing query languages such as XQuery. In Section 5.3 we look at Sesame's modular architecture in some detail. In Section 5.4 we give an overview of the SAIL API and a brief comparison to other RDF API approaches. Section 5.5 discusses our experiences with Sesame to date, and Section 5.6 looks into possible future developments. Finally, we provide our conclusions in Section 5.7.

Date

26. 3.2011 11:17:09

0.06537996 = product of:
  0.13075992 = sum of:
    0.09702934 = weight(_text_:26 in 2090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09702934 = score(doc=2090,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.5518006 = fieldWeight in 2090, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2090)
    0.03373058 = product of:
      0.06746116 = sum of:
        0.06746116 = weight(_text_:22 in 2090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06746116 = score(doc=2090,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2090, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2090)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

19.12.2014 19:26:51
4.12.2016 18:26:07

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

0.059933145 = product of:
  0.11986629 = sum of:
    0.10090631 = weight(_text_:description in 240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10090631 = score(doc=240,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.43587846 = fieldWeight in 240, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=240)
    0.018959979 = product of:
      0.037919957 = sum of:
        0.037919957 = weight(_text_:access in 240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037919957 = score(doc=240,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 240, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=240)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper presents several reflections on the traditional card catalogues and RDF (Resource Description Framework), which is "the" standard for creating the Semantic Web. This work grew out of discussion between the authors after Working Group on Metadata Schemes meeting held at IFLA conference in Buenos Aires (2004). The paper provides an overview of RDF from the perspective of cataloguers, catalogues and library cards. The central theme is the discussion of resource description as a discipline that could be based on RDF. RDF is explained as a very simple grammar, using metadata and ontologies to semantic search and access. RDF Knitting the Semantic Web Cataloging & Classification Quarterly Volume 43, Numbers 3/4 has the ability to enhance 21st century libraries and metadata interoperability in digital libraries, while maintaining the expressive power that was available to librarians when catalogues were physical artefacts.

0.059196822 = product of:
  0.118393645 = sum of:
    0.08408859 = weight(_text_:description in 98) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08408859 = score(doc=98,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.36323205 = fieldWeight in 98, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=98)
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 98) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=98,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 98, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=98)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The unstructured design of Web resources favors human comprehension, but makes difficult the automatic exploitation of the contents of these resources by machines. So, the Semantic Web aims at making the cooperation between human and machine possible, by giving any information a well defined meaning. The first weavings of the Semantic Web are already prepared. Machines become able to treat and understand the data that were accustomed to only visualization, by using ontologies constitute an essential element of the Semantic Web, as they serve as a form of knowledge representation, sharing, and reuse. However, the Web content is subject to imperfection, and crisp ontologies become less suitable to represent concepts with imprecise definitions. To overcome this problem, fuzzy ontologies constitute a promising research orientation. Indeed, the definition of fuzzy ontologies components constitutes an issue that needs to be well treated. It is necessary to have an appropriate methodology of building an operationalization of fuzzy ontological models. This chapter defines a fuzzy ontological model based on fuzzy description logic. This model uses a new approach for the formal description of fuzzy ontologies. This new methodology shows how all the basic components defined for fuzzy ontologies can be constructed.

Date

17. 4.2012 14:28:26

0.057521436 = product of:
  0.07669525 = sum of:
    0.04162173 = weight(_text_:description in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04162173 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.17979069 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
    0.024013536 = weight(_text_:26 in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024013536 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.13656367 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
    0.011059988 = product of:
      0.022119977 = sum of:
        0.022119977 = weight(_text_:access in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022119977 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.13106886 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

We saw in the introduction how the Semantic Web makes possible a new generation of knowledge management tools. We now turn our attention more specifically to Semantic Web based support for virtual communities of practice. The notion of communities of practice has attracted much attention in the field of knowledge management. Communities of practice are groups within (or sometimes across) organizations who share a common set of information needs or problems. They are typically not a formal organizational unit but an informal network, each sharing in part a common agenda and shared interests or issues. In one example it was found that a lot of knowledge sharing among copier engineers took place through informal exchanges, often around a water cooler. As well as local, geographically based communities, trends towards flexible working and globalisation have led to interest in supporting dispersed communities using Internet technology. The challenge for organizations is to support such communities and make them effective. Provided with an ontology meeting the needs of a particular community of practice, knowledge management tools can arrange knowledge assets into the predefined conceptual classes of the ontology, allowing more natural and intuitive access to knowledge. Knowledge management tools must give users the ability to organize information into a controllable asset. Building an intranet-based store of information is not sufficient for knowledge management; the relationships within the stored information are vital. These relationships cover such diverse issues as relative importance, context, sequence, significance, causality and association. The potential for knowledge management tools is vast; not only can they make better use of the raw information already available, but they can sift, abstract and help to share new information, and present it to users in new and compelling ways.
In this chapter, we describe the OntoShare system which facilitates and encourages the sharing of information between communities of practice within (or perhaps across) organizations and which encourages people - who may not previously have known of each other's existence in a large organization - to make contact where there are mutual concerns or interests. As users contribute information to the community, a knowledge resource annotated with meta-data is created. Ontologies defined using the resource description framework (RDF) and RDF Schema (RDFS) are used in this process. RDF is a W3C recommendation for the formulation of meta-data for WWW resources. RDF(S) extends this standard with the means to specify domain vocabulary and object structures - that is, concepts and the relationships that hold between them. In the next section, we describe in detail the way in which OntoShare can be used to share and retrieve knowledge and how that knowledge is represented in an RDF-based ontology. We then proceed to discuss in Section 10.3 how the ontologies in OntoShare evolve over time based on user interaction with the system and motivate our approach to user-based creation of RDF-annotated information resources. The way in which OntoShare can help to locate expertise within an organization is then described, followed by a discussion of the sociotechnical issues of deploying such a tool. Finally, a planned evaluation exercise and avenues for further research are outlined.

Date

26. 3.2011 11:55:03

0.05491685 = product of:
  0.1098337 = sum of:
    0.08238966 = weight(_text_:description in 4405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08238966 = score(doc=4405,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35589328 = fieldWeight in 4405, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4405)
    0.02744404 = weight(_text_:26 in 4405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02744404 = score(doc=4405,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.15607277 = fieldWeight in 4405, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4405)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Developing ontologies is central to our vision of Semantic Web-based knowledge management. The methodology described in Chapter 3 guides the development of ontologies for different applications. However, because of the size of ontologies, their complexity, their formal underpinnings and the necessity to come towards a shared understanding within a group of people when defining an ontology, ontology construction is still far from being a well-understood process. Concerning the methodology, OntoEdit focuses on three of the main steps for ontology development (the methodology is described in Chapter 3), viz. the kick off, refinement, and evaluation. We describe the steps supported by OntoEdit and focus on collaborative aspects that occur during each of the step. First, all requirements of the envisaged ontology are collected during the kick off phase. Typically for ontology engineering, ontology engineers and domain experts are joined in a team that works together on a description of the domain and the goal of the ontology, design guidelines, available knowledge sources (e.g. re-usable ontologies and thesauri, etc.), potential users and use cases and applications supported by the ontology. The output of this phase is a semiformal description of the ontology. Second, during the refinement phase, the team extends the semi-formal description in several iterations and formalizes it in an appropriate representation language like RDF(S) or, more advanced, DAML1OIL. The output of this phase is a mature ontology (the 'target ontology'). Third, the target ontology needs to be evaluated according to the requirement specifications. Typically this phase serves as a proof for the usefulness of ontologies (and ontology-based applications) and may involve the engineering team as well as end users of the targeted application. The output of this phase is an evaluated ontology, ready for roll-out into a productive environment. Support for these collaborative development steps within the ontology development methodology is crucial in order to meet the conflicting needs for ease of use and construction of complex ontology structures. We now illustrate OntoEdit's support for each of the supported steps. The examples shown are taken from the Swiss Life case study on skills management (cf. Chapter 12).

Date

26. 3.2011 11:21:19

0.05342743 = product of:
  0.10685486 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
    0.023611406 = product of:
      0.04722281 = sum of:
        0.04722281 = weight(_text_:22 in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04722281 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.052235566 = product of:
  0.10447113 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=150,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
    0.045011524 = sum of:
      0.015799982 = weight(_text_:access in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015799982 = score(doc=150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.093620606 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
      0.029211542 = weight(_text_:22 in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029211542 = score(doc=150,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.
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."

0.05014476 = product of:
  0.10028952 = sum of:
    0.052721836 = product of:
      0.1581655 = sum of:
        0.1581655 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1581655 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42213637 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = 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)
    0.04756769 = weight(_text_:description in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04756769 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.20547508 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.04688233 = product of:
  0.09376466 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=1952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 1952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1952)
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=1952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 1952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1952)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

An ontology is a description (like a formal specification of a program) of concepts and relationships that can exist for an agent or a community of agents. The concept is important for the purpose of enabling knowledge sharing and reuse. The Handbook on Ontologies provides a comprehensive overview of the current status and future prospectives of the field of ontologies. The handbook demonstrates standards that have been created recently, it surveys methods that have been developed and it shows how to bring both into practice of ontology infrastructures and applications that are the best of their kind.

Date

26. 5.1996 11:11:10

0.04579494 = product of:
  0.09158988 = sum of:
    0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071351536 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 2024, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2024)
    0.020238347 = product of:
      0.040476695 = sum of:
        0.040476695 = weight(_text_:22 in 2024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040476695 = score(doc=2024,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

Source

Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 41(2015) no.4, S.18-22

0.04576597 = product of:
  0.09153194 = sum of:
    0.067920536 = weight(_text_:26 in 3283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067920536 = score(doc=3283,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3862604 = fieldWeight in 3283, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3283)
    0.023611406 = product of:
      0.04722281 = sum of:
        0.04722281 = weight(_text_:22 in 3283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04722281 = score(doc=3283,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

Date

19.12.2014 19:26:51

0.040936273 = product of:
  0.081872545 = sum of:
    0.05488808 = weight(_text_:26 in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05488808 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.31214553 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
    0.026984464 = product of:
      0.05396893 = sum of:
        0.05396893 = weight(_text_:22 in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05396893 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

26. 7.2000 20:00:49
31. 7.2010 16:58:22

0.040902082 = product of:
  0.081804164 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 429, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=429)
    0.02234455 = product of:
      0.0446891 = sum of:
        0.0446891 = weight(_text_:access in 429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0446891 = score(doc=429,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.26479906 = fieldWeight in 429, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=429)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

We are witnessing a smooth evolution of the Web from a worldwide information space of linked documents to a global knowledge base, where resources are identified by means of uniform resource identifiers (URIs, essentially string identifiers) and are semantically described and correlated through resource description framework (RDF, a metadata data model) statements. With the size and availability of data constantly increasing (currently around 7 billion RDF triples and 150 million RDF links), a fundamental problem lies in the difficulty users face to find and retrieve the information they are interested in. In general, to access semantic data, users need to know the organization of data and the syntax of a specific query language (e.g., SPARQL or variants thereof). Clearly, this represents an obstacle to information access for nonexpert users. For this reason, keyword search-based systems are increasingly capturing the attention of researchers. Recently, many approaches to keyword-based search over structured and semistructured data have been proposed]. These approaches usually implement IR strategies on top of traditional database management systems with the goal of freeing the users from having to know data organization and query languages.