Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.013828207 = product of:
  0.08296924 = sum of:
    0.08296924 = weight(_text_:web in 4067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08296924 = score(doc=4067,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.57238775 = fieldWeight in 4067, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4067)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Controlled terminologies such as classification schemes, name authorities, and thesauri have long been the domain of the library and information science community. Although historically there have been initiatives towards library style classification of web resources, there remain significant problems with searching and quality judgement of online content. Terminology services can play a key role in opening up access to these valuable resources. By exposing controlled terminologies via a web service, organisations maintain data integrity and version control, whilst motivating external users to design innovative ways to present and utilise their data. We introduce terminology web services and review work in the area. We describe the approaches taken in establishing application programming interfaces (API) and discuss the comparative benefits of a dedicated terminology web service versus general purpose programming languages. We discuss experiences at Glamorgan in creating terminology web services and associated client interface components, in particular for the archaeology domain in the STAR (Semantic Technologies for Archaeological Resources) Project.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.008028265 = product of:
  0.04816959 = sum of:
    0.04816959 = weight(_text_:wide in 2205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04816959 = score(doc=2205,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 2205, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2205)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The concept of Linked Data has been an emerging theme within the computing and digital heritage areas in recent years. The growth and scale of Linked Data has underlined the need for greater commonality in concept referencing, to avoid local redefinition and duplication of reference resources. Achieving domain-wide agreement on common vocabularies would be an unreasonable expectation; however, datasets often already have local vocabulary resources defined, and so the prospects for large-scale interoperability can be substantially improved by creating alignment links from these local vocabularies out to common external reference resources. The ARIADNE project is undertaking large-scale integration of archaeology dataset metadata records, to create a cross-searchable research repository resource. Key to enabling this cross search will be the 'subject' metadata originating from multiple data providers, containing terms from multiple multilingual controlled vocabularies. This paper discusses various aspects of vocabulary mapping. Experience from the previous SENESCHAL project in the publication of controlled vocabularies as Linked Open Data is discussed, emphasizing the importance of unique URI identifiers for vocabulary concepts. There is a need to align legacy indexing data to the uniquely defined concepts and examples are discussed of SENESCHAL data alignment work. A case study for the ARIADNE project presents work on mapping between vocabularies, based on the Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus as a central hub and employing an interactive vocabulary mapping tool developed for the project, which generates SKOS mapping relationships in JSON and other formats. The potential use of such vocabulary mappings to assist cross search over archaeological datasets from different countries is illustrated in a pilot experiment. The results demonstrate the enhanced opportunities for interoperability and cross searching that the approach offers.

0.006159573 = product of:
  0.036957435 = sum of:
    0.036957435 = weight(_text_:web in 2250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036957435 = score(doc=2250,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2250, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2250)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Semantic Enrichment Enabling Sustainability of Archaeological Links (SENESCHAL) was a project coordinated by the Hypermedia Research Unit at the University of South Wales. The project aims included widening access to key vocabulary resources. National cultural heritage thesauri and vocabularies are used by both national organizations and local authority Historic Environment Records and could potentially act as vocabulary hubs for the Web of Data. Following completion, a set of prominent UK archaeological thesauri and vocabularies is now freely available as Linked Open Data (LOD) via http://www.heritagedata.org - together with open source web services and user interface controls. This presentation will reflect on work done to date for the ARIADNE FP7 infrastructure project (http://www.ariadne-infrastructure.eu) mapping between archaeological vocabularies in different languages and the utility of a hub architecture. The poly-hierarchical structure of the Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) was extracted for use as an example mediating structure to interconnect various multilingual vocabularies originating from ARIADNE data providers. Vocabulary resources were first converted to a common concept-based format (SKOS) and the concepts were then manually mapped to nodes of the extracted AAT structure using some judgement on the meaning of terms and scope notes. Results are presented along with reflections on the wider application to existing European archaeological vocabularies and associated online datasets.

0.005461648 = product of:
  0.03276989 = sum of:
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 3311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=3311,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 3311, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3311)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Tools for automatic subject assignment help deal with scale and sustainability in creating and enriching metadata, establishing more connections across and between resources and enhancing consistency. Although some software vendors and experimental researchers claim the tools can replace manual subject indexing, hard scientific evidence of their performance in operating information environments is scarce. A major reason for this is that research is usually conducted in laboratory conditions, excluding the complexities of real-life systems and situations. The article reviews and discusses issues with existing evaluation approaches such as problems of aboutness and relevance assessments, implying the need to use more than a single "gold standard" method when evaluating indexing and retrieval, and proposes a comprehensive evaluation framework. The framework is informed by a systematic review of the literature on evaluation approaches: evaluating indexing quality directly through assessment by an evaluator or through comparison with a gold standard, evaluating the quality of computer-assisted indexing directly in the context of an indexing workflow, and evaluating indexing quality indirectly through analyzing retrieval performance.

0.0052265706 = product of:
  0.031359423 = sum of:
    0.031359423 = weight(_text_:web in 2908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031359423 = score(doc=2908,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2908, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2908)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The recent ISKO-UK conference considered the question of whether the traditional thesaurus has any place in modern information retrieval. This note is intended to continue in the spirit of that good-natured debate, arguing that there is indeed a role today and highlighting some recent work showing the continued relevance of the thesaurus, particularly in the linked data area. Key functionality that a thesaurus makes possible is discussed. A brief outline is provided of prominent work hat employs thesauri in three key areas of infrastructure underpinning advanced retrieval functionality today: metadata enrichment,vocabulary mapping and web services.

0.0034843804 = product of:
  0.020906283 = sum of:
    0.020906283 = weight(_text_:web in 2320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020906283 = score(doc=2320,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2320, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2320)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to describe a new approach to a well-known problem for digital libraries, how to search across multiple unrelated libraries with a single query. Design/methodology/approach - The approach involves creating new Dewey Decimal Classification terms and numbers from existing Dublin Core records. In total, 263,550 records were harvested from three digital libraries. Weighted key terms were extracted from the title, description and subject fields of each record. Ranked DDC classes were automatically generated from these key terms by considering DDC hierarchies via a series of filtering and aggregation stages. A mean reciprocal ranking evaluation compared a sample of 49 generated classes against DDC classes created by a trained librarian for the same records. Findings - The best results combined weighted key terms from the title, description and subject fields. Performance declines with increased specificity of DDC level. The results compare favorably with similar studies. Research limitations/implications - The metadata harvest required manual intervention and the evaluation was resource intensive. Future research will look at evaluation methodologies that take account of issues of consistency and ecological validity. Practical implications - The method does not require training data and is easily scalable. The pipeline can be customized for individual use cases, for example, recall or precision enhancing. Social implications - The approach can provide centralized access to information from multiple domains currently provided by individual digital libraries. Originality/value - The approach addresses metadata normalization in the context of web resources. The automatic classification approach accounts for matches within hierarchies, aggregating lower level matches to broader parents and thus approximates the practices of a human cataloger.

0.0030088935 = product of:
  0.01805336 = sum of:
    0.01805336 = product of:
      0.03610672 = sum of:
        0.03610672 = weight(_text_:22 in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610672 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1347, 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=1347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 8.2014 17:12:54