Search (208 results, page 1 of 11)

  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  1. Broekstra, J.; Kampman, A.; Harmelen, F. van: Sesame: a generic architecture for storing and querying RDF and RDF schema (2004) 0.08 
    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
  2. Priss, U.: Description logic and faceted knowledge representation (1999) 0.06 
    0.06057233 = product of:
  0.12114466 = sum of:
    0.10090631 = weight(_text_:description in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10090631 = score(doc=2655,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.43587846 = fieldWeight in 2655, 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=2655)
    0.020238347 = product of:
      0.040476695 = sum of:
        0.040476695 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040476695 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The term "facet" was introduced into the field of library classification systems by Ranganathan in the 1930's [Ranganathan, 1962]. A facet is a viewpoint or aspect. In contrast to traditional classification systems, faceted systems are modular in that a domain is analyzed in terms of baseline facets which are then synthesized. In this paper, the term "facet" is used in a broader meaning. Facets can describe different aspects on the same level of abstraction or the same aspect on different levels of abstraction. The notion of facets is related to database views, multicontexts and conceptual scaling in formal concept analysis [Ganter and Wille, 1999], polymorphism in object-oriented design, aspect-oriented programming, views and contexts in description logic and semantic networks. This paper presents a definition of facets in terms of faceted knowledge representation that incorporates the traditional narrower notion of facets and potentially facilitates translation between different knowledge representation formalisms. A goal of this approach is a modular, machine-aided knowledge base design mechanism. A possible application is faceted thesaurus construction for information retrieval and data mining. Reasoning complexity depends on the size of the modules (facets). A more general analysis of complexity will be left for future research.
    Date
    22. 1.2016 17:30:31
  3. Davies, J.; Duke, A.; Stonkus, A.: OntoShare: evolving ontologies in a knowledge sharing system (2004) 0.06 
    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
  4. Xu, G.; Cao, Y.; Ren, Y.; Li, X.; Feng, Z.: Network security situation awareness based on semantic ontology and user-defined rules for Internet of Things (2017) 0.06 
    0.05572748 = product of:
  0.11145496 = sum of:
    0.08408859 = weight(_text_:description in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08408859 = score(doc=306,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.36323205 = fieldWeight in 306, 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=306)
    0.027366372 = product of:
      0.054732744 = sum of:
        0.054732744 = weight(_text_:access in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054732744 = score(doc=306,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.3243113 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Internet of Things (IoT) brings the third development wave of the global information industry which makes users, network and perception devices cooperate more closely. However, if IoT has security problems, it may cause a variety of damage and even threaten human lives and properties. To improve the abilities of monitoring, providing emergency response and predicting the development trend of IoT security, a new paradigm called network security situation awareness (NSSA) is proposed. However, it is limited by its ability to mine and evaluate security situation elements from multi-source heterogeneous network security information. To solve this problem, this paper proposes an IoT network security situation awareness model using situation reasoning method based on semantic ontology and user-defined rules. Ontology technology can provide a unified and formalized description to solve the problem of semantic heterogeneity in the IoT security domain. In this paper, four key sub-domains are proposed to reflect an IoT security situation: context, attack, vulnerability and network flow. Further, user-defined rules can compensate for the limited description ability of ontology, and hence can enhance the reasoning ability of our proposed ontology model. The examples in real IoT scenarios show that the ability of the network security situation awareness that adopts our situation reasoning method is more comprehensive and more powerful reasoning abilities than the traditional NSSA methods. [http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7999187/]
    Content
    DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2734681.
    Source
    IEEE Access. 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2734681, 5, (21046-21056) [http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=7999187]
  5. Sure, Y.; Erdmann, M.; Studer, R.: OntoEdit: collaborative engineering of ontologies (2004) 0.05 
    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
  6. Schmitz-Esser, W.: Language of general communication and concept compatibility (1996) 0.05 
    0.05117034 = product of:
  0.10234068 = sum of:
    0.0686101 = weight(_text_:26 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0686101 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3901819 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
    0.03373058 = product of:
      0.06746116 = sum of:
        0.06746116 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06746116 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, 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=6089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    7. 1.1997 17:39:26
    Pages
    S.11-22
  7. Stojanovic, N.: Ontology-based Information Retrieval : methods and tools for cooperative query answering (2005) 0.05 
    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.
  8. Soergel, D.: Digital libraries and knowledge organization (2009) 0.05 
    0.04688233 = product of:
  0.09376466 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=672,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 672, 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=672)
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=672,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 672, 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=672)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This chapter describes not so much what digital libraries are but what digital libraries with semantic support could and should be. It discusses the nature of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) and how KOS can support digital library users. It projects a vision for designers to make and for users to demand better digital libraries. What is a digital library? The term \Digital Library" (DL) is used to refer to a range of systems, from digital object and metadata repositories, reference-linking systems, archives, and content management systems to complex systems that integrate advanced digital library services and support for research and practice communities. A DL may offer many technology-enabled functions and services that support users, both as information producers and as information users. Many of these functions appear in information systems that would not normally be considered digital libraries, making boundaries even more blurry. Instead of pursuing the hopeless quest of coming up with the definition of digital library, we present a framework that allows a clear and somewhat standardized description of any information system so that users can select the system(s) that best meet their requirements. Section 2 gives a broad outline for more detail see the DELOS DL Reference Model.
    Date
    26. 7.2000 20:00:49
  9. Handbook on ontologies (2004) 0.05 
    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
  10. Schutz, A.; Buitelaar, P.: RelExt: a tool for relation extraction from text in ontology extension (2005) 0.05 
    0.04688233 = product of:
  0.09376466 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 1078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=1078,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 1078, 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=1078)
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 1078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=1078,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 1078, 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=1078)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Domain ontologies very rarely model verbs as relations holding between concepts. However, the role of the verb as a central connecting element between concepts is undeniable. Verbs specify the interaction between the participants of some action or event by expressing relations between them. In parallel, it can be argued from an ontology engineering point of view that verbs express a relation between two classes that specify domain and range. The work described here is concerned with relation extraction for ontology extension along these lines. We describe a system (RelExt) that is capable of automatically identifying highly relevant triples (pairs of concepts connected by a relation) over concepts from an existing ontology. RelExt works by extracting relevant verbs and their grammatical arguments (i.e. terms) from a domain-specific text collection and computing corresponding relations through a combination of linguistic and statistical processing. The paper includes a detailed description of the system architecture and evaluation results on a constructed benchmark. RelExt has been developed in the context of the SmartWeb project, which aims at providing intelligent information services via mobile broadband devices on the FIFA World Cup that will be hosted in Germany in 2006. Such services include location based navigational information as well as question answering in the football domain.
    Date
    26. 9.2013 19:34:07
  11. Prud'hommeaux, E.; Gayo, E.: RDF ventures to boldly meet your most pedestrian needs (2015) 0.05 
    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
  12. Widhalm, R.; Mueck, T.A.: Merging topics in well-formed XML topic maps (2003) 0.05 
    0.045155756 = product of:
  0.09031151 = sum of:
    0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 2186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071351536 = score(doc=2186,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 2186, 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=2186)
    0.018959979 = product of:
      0.037919957 = sum of:
        0.037919957 = weight(_text_:access in 2186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037919957 = score(doc=2186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 2186, 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=2186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Topic Maps are a standardized modelling approach for the semantic annotation and description of WWW resources. They enable an improved search and navigational access on information objects stored in semi-structured information spaces like the WWW. However, the according standards ISO 13250 and XTM (XML Topic Maps) lack formal semantics, several questions concerning e.g. subclassing, inheritance or merging of topics are left open. The proposed TMUML meta model, directly derived from the well known UML meta model, is a meta model for Topic Maps which enables semantic constraints to be formulated in OCL (object constraint language) in order to answer such open questions and overcome possible inconsistencies in Topic Map repositories. We will examine the XTM merging conditions and show, in several examples, how the TMUML meta model enables semantic constraints for Topic Map merging to be formulated in OCL. Finally, we will show how the TM validation process, i.e., checking if a Topic Map is well formed, includes our merging conditions.
  13. Soergel, D.: Towards a relation ontology for the Semantic Web (2011) 0.05 
    0.045155756 = product of:
  0.09031151 = sum of:
    0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 4342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071351536 = score(doc=4342,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 4342, 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=4342)
    0.018959979 = product of:
      0.037919957 = sum of:
        0.037919957 = weight(_text_:access in 4342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037919957 = score(doc=4342,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 4342, 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=4342)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The Semantic Web consists of data structured for use by computer programs, such as data sets made available under the Linked Open Data initiative. Much of this data is structured following the entity-relationship model encoded in RDF for syntactic interoperability. For semantic interoperability, the semantics of the relationships used in any given dataset needs to be made explicit. Ultimately this requires an inventory of these relationships structured around a relation ontology. This talk will outline a blueprint for such an inventory, including a format for the description/definition of binary and n-ary relations, drawing on ideas put forth in the classification and thesaurus community over the last 60 years, upper level ontologies, systems like FrameNet, the Buffalo Relation Ontology, and an analysis of linked data sets.
    Source
    Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero
  14. Sperber, W.; Ion, P.D.F.: Content analysis and classification in mathematics (2011) 0.05 
    0.045155756 = product of:
  0.09031151 = sum of:
    0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 4818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071351536 = score(doc=4818,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 4818, 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=4818)
    0.018959979 = product of:
      0.037919957 = sum of:
        0.037919957 = weight(_text_:access in 4818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037919957 = score(doc=4818,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 4818, 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=4818)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The number of publications in mathematics increases faster each year. Presently far more than 100,000 mathematically relevant journal articles and books are published annually. Efficient and high-quality content analysis of this material is important for mathematical bibliographic services such as ZBMath or MathSciNet. Content analysis has different facets and levels: classification, keywords, abstracts and reviews, and (in the future) formula analysis. It is the opinion of the authors that the different levels have to be enhanced and combined using the methods and technology of the Semantic Web. In the presentation, the problems and deficits of the existing methods and tools, the state of the art and current activities are discussed. As a first step, the Mathematical Subject Classification Scheme (MSC), has been encoded with Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) and Resource Description Framework (RDF) at its recent revision to MSC2010. The use of SKOS principally opens new possibilities for the enrichment and wider deployment of this classification scheme and for machine-based content analysis of mathematical publications.
    Source
    Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero
  15. Synak, M.; Dabrowski, M.; Kruk, S.R.: Semantic Web and ontologies (2009) 0.04 
    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
  16. Marcondes, C.H.; Costa, L.C da.: ¬A model to represent and process scientific knowledge in biomedical articles with semantic Web technologies (2016) 0.04 
    0.03816245 = product of:
  0.0763249 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 2829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=2829,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 2829, 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=2829)
    0.01686529 = product of:
      0.03373058 = sum of:
        0.03373058 = weight(_text_:22 in 2829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03373058 = score(doc=2829,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2829, 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=2829)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Knowledge organization faces the challenge of managing the amount of knowledge available on the Web. Published literature in biomedical sciences is a huge source of knowledge, which can only efficiently be managed through automatic methods. The conventional channel for reporting scientific results is Web electronic publishing. Despite its advances, scientific articles are still published in print formats such as portable document format (PDF). Semantic Web and Linked Data technologies provides new opportunities for communicating, sharing, and integrating scientific knowledge that can overcome the limitations of the current print format. Here is proposed a semantic model of scholarly electronic articles in biomedical sciences that can overcome the limitations of traditional flat records formats. Scientific knowledge consists of claims made throughout article texts, especially when semantic elements such as questions, hypotheses and conclusions are stated. These elements, although having different roles, express relationships between phenomena. Once such knowledge units are extracted and represented with technologies such as RDF (Resource Description Framework) and linked data, they may be integrated in reasoning chains. Thereby, the results of scientific research can be published and shared in structured formats, enabling crawling by software agents, semantic retrieval, knowledge reuse, validation of scientific results, and identification of traces of scientific discoveries.
    Date
    12. 3.2016 13:17:22
  17. Pankowski, T.: Ontological databases with faceted queries (2022) 0.04 
    0.037629798 = product of:
  0.075259596 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 666, 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=666)
    0.015799982 = product of:
      0.031599965 = sum of:
        0.031599965 = weight(_text_:access in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031599965 = score(doc=666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 666, 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=666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The success of the use of ontology-based systems depends on efficient and user-friendly methods of formulating queries against the ontology. We propose a method to query a class of ontologies, called facet ontologies ( fac-ontologies ), using a faceted human-oriented approach. A fac-ontology has two important features: (a) a hierarchical view of it can be defined as a nested facet over this ontology and the view can be used as a faceted interface to create queries and to explore the ontology; (b) the ontology can be converted into an ontological database , the ABox of which is stored in a database, and the faceted queries are evaluated against this database. We show that the proposed faceted interface makes it possible to formulate queries that are semantically equivalent to $${\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{Fac}$$ SROIQ Fac , a limited version of the $${\mathcal {SROIQ}}$$ SROIQ description logic. The TBox of a fac-ontology is divided into a set of rules defining intensional predicates and a set of constraint rules to be satisfied by the database. We identify a class of so-called reflexive weak cycles in a set of constraint rules and propose a method to deal with them in the chase procedure. The considerations are illustrated with solutions implemented in the DAFO system ( data access based on faceted queries over ontologies ).
  18. Haslhofer, B.; Knezevié, P.: ¬The BRICKS digital library infrastructure (2009) 0.03 
    0.034817442 = product of:
  0.069634885 = sum of:
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=3384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 3384, 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=3384)
    0.035329834 = product of:
      0.07065967 = sum of:
        0.07065967 = weight(_text_:access in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07065967 = score(doc=3384,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.41868407 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Service-oriented architectures, and the wider acceptance of decentralized peer-to-peer architectures enable the transition from integrated, centrally controlled systems to federated and dynamic configurable systems. The benefits for the individual service providers and users are robustness of the system, independence of central authorities and flexibility in the usage of services. This chapter provides details of the European project BRICKS, which aims at enabling integrated access to distributed resources in the Cultural Heritage domain. The target audience is broad and heterogeneous and involves cultural heritage and educational institutions, the research community, industry, and the general public. The project idea is motivated by the fact that the amount of digital information and digitized content is continuously increasing but still much effort has to be expended to discover and access it. The reasons for such a situation are heterogeneous data formats, restricted access, proprietary access interfaces, etc. Typical usage scenarios are integrated queries among several knowledge resource, e.g. to discover all Italian artifacts from the Renaissance in European museums. Another example is to follow the life cycle of historic documents, whose physical copies are distributed all over Europe. A standard method for integrated access is to place all available content and metadata in a central place. Unfortunately, such a solution requires a quite powerful and costly infrastructure if the volume of data is large. Considerations of cost optimization are highly important for Cultural Heritage institutions, especially if they are funded from public money. Therefore, better usage of the existing resources, i.e. a decentralized/P2P approach promises to deliver a significantly less costly system,and does not mean sacrificing too much on the performance side.
    Date
    26. 7.2000 20:00:49
  19. RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0 : RDF Schema (2004) 0.03 
    0.033635437 = product of:
  0.13454175 = sum of:
    0.13454175 = weight(_text_:description in 3057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13454175 = score(doc=3057,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.5811713 = fieldWeight in 3057, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3057)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a general-purpose language for representing information in the Web. This specification describes how to use RDF to describe RDF vocabularies. This specification defines a vocabulary for this purpose and defines other built-in RDF vocabulary initially specified in the RDF Model and Syntax Specification.
  20. Resource Description Framework (RDF) (2004) 0.03 
    0.033635437 = product of:
  0.13454175 = sum of:
    0.13454175 = weight(_text_:description in 3063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13454175 = score(doc=3063,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.5811713 = fieldWeight in 3063, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3063)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The Resource Description Framework (RDF) integrates a variety of applications from library catalogs and world-wide directories to syndication and aggregation of news, software, and content to personal collections of music, photos, and events using XML as an interchange syntax. The RDF specifications provide a lightweight ontology system to support the exchange of knowledge on the Web. The W3C Semantic Web Activity Statement explains W3C's plans for RDF, including the RDF Core WG, Web Ontology and the RDF Interest Group.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 181
  • d 23
  • f 1
  • pt 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 143
  • el 55
  • m 20
  • x 10
  • s 8
  • n 6
  • p 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications