Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.056422316 = product of:
  0.11284463 = sum of:
    0.091187045 = weight(_text_:digital in 4728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.091187045 = score(doc=4728,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4612238 = fieldWeight in 4728, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4728)
    0.021657582 = weight(_text_:library in 4728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021657582 = score(doc=4728,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.16433616 = fieldWeight in 4728, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4728)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The amount and complexity of information available in a digital form is already huge and new information is being produced every day. Retrieving information relevant to address a particular need becomes a significant issue. This work utilizes knowledge organization systems (KOS), such as thesauri and ontologies and applies information extraction (IE) and computational linguistics (CL) techniques to organize, manage and retrieve information stored in digital collections in the agricultural domain. Two real world applications of the approach have been developed and are available and actively used by the public. An ontology is used to manage the Water Conservation Digital Library holding a dynamic collection of various types of digital resources in the domain of urban water conservation in Florida, USA. The ontology based back-end powers a fully operational web interface, available at http://library.conservefloridawater.org. The system has demonstrated numerous benefits of the ontology application, including accurate retrieval of resources, information sharing and reuse, and has proved to effectively facilitate information management. The major difficulty encountered with the approach is that large and dynamic number of concepts makes it difficult to keep the ontology consistent and to accurately catalog resources manually. To address the aforementioned issues, a combination of IE and CL techniques, such as Vector Space Model and probabilistic parsing, with the use of Agricultural Thesaurus were adapted to automatically extract concepts important for each of the texts in the Best Management Practices (BMP) Publication Library--a collection of documents in the domain of agricultural BMPs in Florida available at http://lyra.ifas.ufl.edu/LIB. A new approach of domain-specific concept discovery with the use of Internet search engine was developed. Initial evaluation of the results indicates significant improvement in precision of information extraction. The approach presented in this work focuses on problems unique to agriculture and natural resources domain, such as domain specific concepts and vocabularies, but should be applicable to any collection of texts in digital format. It may be of potential interest for anyone who needs to effectively manage a collection of digital resources.

0.043557227 = product of:
  0.08711445 = sum of:
    0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 5496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060314562 = score(doc=5496,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 5496, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5496)
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 5496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=5496,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 5496, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5496)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Footnote

Master thesis Library and Information Science, Fakultät für Informations- und Kommunikationswissenschaften, Technische Hochschule Köln. Schön auch: Bei Google Scholar unter 'Eva, S.' nachgewiesen.

0.013267696 = product of:
  0.053070784 = sum of:
    0.053070784 = product of:
      0.15921235 = sum of:
        0.15921235 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15921235 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42493033 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.013267696 = product of:
  0.053070784 = sum of:
    0.053070784 = product of:
      0.15921235 = sum of:
        0.15921235 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15921235 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42493033 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

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

0.008488459 = product of:
  0.033953834 = sum of:
    0.033953834 = product of:
      0.06790767 = sum of:
        0.06790767 = weight(_text_:22 in 3406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06790767 = score(doc=3406,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3406, 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=3406)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

30. 5.2010 16:22:35

0.006976548 = product of:
  0.027906192 = sum of:
    0.027906192 = product of:
      0.055812385 = sum of:
        0.055812385 = weight(_text_:project in 4569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055812385 = score(doc=4569,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.26381132 = fieldWeight in 4569, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4569)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The results of this thesis are intended to support the information architect in designing a solution for improved search in a corporate environment. Specifically we have examined the type of search problems that require a domain model to enhance the search process. There are several approaches to modeling a domain. We have considered 3 different types of domain modeling schemes; taxonomy, thesaurus and ontology. The intention is to support the information architect in making an informed choice between one or more of these schemes. In our opinion the main criteria for this choice are the modeling characteristics of a scheme and the suitability for application in the search process. The second chapter is a discussion of modeling characteristics of each scheme, followed by a comparison between them. This should give an information architect an idea of which aspects of a domain can be modeled with each scheme. What is missing here is an indication of the effort required to model a domain with each scheme. There are too many factors that influence the amount of required effort, ranging from measurable factors like domain size and resource characteristics to cultural matters such as the willingness to share knowledge and the existence of a project champion in the team to keep the project running. The third chapter shows what role domain models can play in each part of the search process. This gives an idea of the problems that domain models can solve. We have split the search process into individual parts to show that domain models can be applied very differently in the process. The fourth chapter makes recommendations about the suitability of each individualdomain modeling scheme for improving search. Each scheme has particular characteristics that make it especially suitable for a domain or a search problem. In the appendix each case study is described in detail. These descriptions are intended to serve as a benchmark. The current problem of the enterprise can be compared to those described to see which case study is most similar, which solution was chosen, which problems arose and how they were dealt with. An important issue that we have not touched upon in this thesis is that of maintenance. The real problems of a domain model are revealed when it is applied in a search system and its deficits and wrong assumptions become clear. Adaptation and maintenance are always required. Unfortunately we have not been able to glean sufficient information about maintenance issues from our case studies to draw any meaningful conclusions.

0.0043081827 = product of:
  0.017232731 = sum of:
    0.017232731 = weight(_text_:digital in 4472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017232731 = score(doc=4472,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.087163106 = fieldWeight in 4472, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=4472)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Since its appearance in the early 90's, the World Wide Web (WWW or Web) has provided universal access to knowledge and the world of information has been primarily witness to a great revolution (the digital revolution). It quickly became very popular, making it the largest and most comprehensive database and knowledge base thanks to the amount and diversity of data it contains. However, the considerable increase and evolution of these data raises important problems for users, in particular for accessing the documents most relevant to their search queries. In order to cope with this exponential explosion of data volume and facilitate their access by users, various models are offered by information retrieval systems (IRS) for the representation and retrieval of web documents. Traditional SRIs use simple keywords that are not semantically linked to index and retrieve these documents. This creates limitations in terms of the relevance and ease of exploration of results. To overcome these limitations, existing techniques enrich documents by integrating external keywords from different sources. However, these systems still suffer from limitations that are related to the exploitation techniques of these sources of enrichment. When the different sources are used so that they cannot be distinguished by the system, this limits the flexibility of the exploration models that can be applied to the results returned by this system. Users then feel lost to these results, and find themselves forced to filter them manually to select the relevant information. If they want to go further, they must reformulate and target their search queries even more until they reach the documents that best meet their expectations. In this way, even if the systems manage to find more relevant results, their presentation remains problematic. In order to target research to more user-specific information needs and improve the relevance and exploration of its research findings, advanced SRIs adopt different data personalization techniques that assume that current research of user is directly related to his profile and / or previous browsing / search experiences.

0.0042442293 = product of:
  0.016976917 = sum of:
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1670, 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=1670)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26. 9.2006 21:00:22

0.0033953832 = product of:
  0.013581533 = sum of:
    0.013581533 = product of:
      0.027163066 = sum of:
        0.027163066 = weight(_text_:22 in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027163066 = score(doc=4399,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4399, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4399)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22