Search (94 results, page 1 of 5)

0.06604756 = product of:
  0.09907133 = sum of:
    0.07850707 = weight(_text_:reference in 1652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07850707 = score(doc=1652,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.38140965 = fieldWeight in 1652, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1652)
    0.020564256 = product of:
      0.041128512 = sum of:
        0.041128512 = weight(_text_:22 in 1652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041128512 = score(doc=1652,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1652, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

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

Date

6. 8.2010 14:22:28

0.055039626 = product of:
  0.08255944 = sum of:
    0.06542256 = weight(_text_:reference in 2589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06542256 = score(doc=2589,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.31784135 = fieldWeight in 2589, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2589)
    0.017136881 = product of:
      0.034273762 = sum of:
        0.034273762 = weight(_text_:22 in 2589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034273762 = score(doc=2589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2589, 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=2589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose Ontologies are used to formally describe the concepts within a domain in a machine-understandable way. Matching of heterogeneous ontologies is often essential for many applications like semantic annotation, query answering or ontology integration. Some ontologies may include a large number of entities which make the ontology matching process very complex in terms of the search space and execution time requirements. The purpose of this paper is to present a technique for finding degree of similarity between ontologies that trims down the search space by eliminating the ontology concepts that have less likelihood of being matched. Design/methodology/approach Algorithms are written for finding key concepts, concept matching and relationship matching. WordNet is used for solving synonym problems during the matching process. The technique is evaluated using the reference alignments between ontologies from ontology alignment evaluation initiative benchmark in terms of degree of similarity, Pearson's correlation coefficient and IR measures precision, recall and F-measure. Findings Positive correlation between the degree of similarity and degree of similarity (reference alignment) and computed values of precision, recall and F-measure showed that if only key concepts of ontologies are compared, a time and search space efficient ontology matching system can be developed. Originality/value On the basis of the present novel approach for ontology matching, it is concluded that using key concepts for ontology matching gives comparable results in reduced time and space.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.05071809 = product of:
  0.07607713 = sum of:
    0.055512875 = weight(_text_:reference in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055512875 = score(doc=4011,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
    0.020564256 = product of:
      0.041128512 = sum of:
        0.041128512 = weight(_text_:22 in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041128512 = score(doc=4011,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4011, 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=4011)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Das CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM) ist eine Ontologie für den Bereich des Kulturellen Erbes, die als ISO 21127 standardisiert ist. Inzwischen liegen auch OWL-DL-Implementationen des CRM vor, die ihren Einsatz auch im Semantic Web ermöglicht. OWL-DL ist eine entscheidbare Untermenge der Web Ontology Language, die vom W3C spezifiziert wurde. Lokale Anwendungsontologien, die ebenfalls in OWL-DL modelliert werden, können über Subklassenbeziehungen mit dem CRM als Referenzontologie verbunden werden. Dadurch wird es automatischen Prozessen ermöglicht, autonom heterogene Daten semantisch zu validieren, zueinander in Bezug zu setzen und Anfragen über verschiedene Datenbestände innerhalb der Wissensdomäne zu verarbeiten und zu beantworten.

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.04226508 = product of:
  0.063397616 = sum of:
    0.046260733 = weight(_text_:reference in 3403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046260733 = score(doc=3403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 3403, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3403)
    0.017136881 = product of:
      0.034273762 = sum of:
        0.034273762 = weight(_text_:22 in 3403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034273762 = score(doc=3403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3403, 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=3403)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

What is knowledge representation and reasoning (KR&R)? Alas, a thorough account would require a book, or at least a dedicated, full-length paper, but here we shall have to make do with something simpler. Since most readers are likely to have an intuitive grasp of the essence of KR&R, our simple account should suffice. The interesting thing is that this simple account itself makes reference to some of the foundational distinctions in the field of philosophy. These distinctions also play a central role in artificial intelligence (AI) and computer science. To begin with, the first distinction in KR&R is that we identify knowledge with knowledge that such-and-such holds (possibly to a degree), rather than knowing how. If you ask an expert tennis player how he manages to serve a ball at 130 miles per hour on his first serve, and then serve a safer, topspin serve on his second should the first be out, you may well receive a confession that, if truth be told, this athlete can't really tell you. He just does it; he does something he has been doing since his youth. Yet, there is no denying that he knows how to serve. In contrast, the knowledge in KR&R must be expressible in declarative statements. For example, our tennis player knows that if his first serve lands outside the service box, it's not in play. He thus knows a proposition, conditional in form.

Date

9. 2.2017 19:22:14

0.03381206 = product of:
  0.05071809 = sum of:
    0.037008587 = weight(_text_:reference in 1436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037008587 = score(doc=1436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.17979822 = fieldWeight in 1436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1436)
    0.013709505 = product of:
      0.02741901 = sum of:
        0.02741901 = weight(_text_:22 in 1436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02741901 = score(doc=1436,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1436, 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=1436)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The development of complex projects in the aerospace industry is based on the collaboration of geographically distributed teams and companies. In this context, the need of sharing different types of data and information is a key factor to assure the successful execution of the projects. In the case of European projects, the ECSS standards provide a normative framework that specifies, among other requirements, the different document types, information items and artifacts that need to be generated. The specification of the characteristics of these information items are usually incorporated as annex to the different ECSS standards, and they provide the intended purpose, scope, and structure of the documents and information items. In these standards, documents or deliverables should not be considered as independent items, but as the results of packaging different information artifacts for their delivery between the involved parties. Successful information integration and knowledge exchange cannot be based exclusively on the conceptual definition of information types. It also requires the definition of methods and techniques for serializing and exchanging these documents and artifacts. This area is not covered by ECSS standards, and the definition of these data schemas would improve the opportunity for improving collaboration processes among companies. This paper describes the development of an OWL-based ontology to manage the different artifacts and information items requested in the European Space Agency (ESA) ECSS standards for SW development. The ECSS set of standards is the main reference in aerospace projects in Europe, and in addition to engineering and managerial requirements they provide a set of DRD (Document Requirements Documents) with the structure of the different documents and records necessary to manage projects and describe intermediate information products and final deliverables. Information integration is a must-have in aerospace projects, where different players need to collaborate and share data during the life cycle of the products about requirements, design elements, problems, etc. The proposed ontology provides the basis for building advanced information systems where the information coming from different companies and institutions can be integrated into a coherent set of related data. It also provides a conceptual framework to enable the development of interfaces and gateways between the different tools and information systems used by the different players in aerospace projects.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.03381206 = product of:
  0.05071809 = sum of:
    0.037008587 = weight(_text_:reference in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037008587 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.17979822 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
    0.013709505 = product of:
      0.02741901 = sum of:
        0.02741901 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02741901 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1634, 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=1634)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - Ontologies are prone to wide semantic variability due to subjective points of view of their composers. The purpose of this paper is to propose a new approach for maximal unification of diverse ontologies for controversial domains by their relations. Design/methodology/approach - Effective matching or unification of multiple ontologies for a specific domain is crucial for the success of many semantic web applications, such as semantic information retrieval and organization, document tagging, summarization and search. To this end, numerous automatic and semi-automatic techniques were proposed in the past decade that attempt to identify similar entities, mostly classes, in diverse ontologies for similar domains. Apparently, matching individual entities cannot result in full integration of ontologies' semantics without matching their inter-relations with all other-related classes (and instances). However, semantic matching of ontological relations still constitutes a major research challenge. Therefore, in this paper the authors propose a new paradigm for assessment of maximal possible matching and unification of ontological relations. To this end, several unification rules for ontological relations were devised based on ontological reference rules, and lexical and textual entailment. These rules were semi-automatically implemented to extend a given ontology with semantically matching relations from another ontology for a similar domain. Then, the ontologies were unified through these similar pairs of relations. The authors observe that these rules can be also facilitated to reveal the contradictory relations in different ontologies. Findings - To assess the feasibility of the approach two experiments were conducted with different sets of multiple personal ontologies on controversial domains constructed by trained subjects. The results for about 50 distinct ontology pairs demonstrate a good potential of the methodology for increasing inter-ontology agreement. Furthermore, the authors show that the presented methodology can lead to a complete unification of multiple semantically heterogeneous ontologies. Research limitations/implications - This is a conceptual study that presents a new approach for semantic unification of ontologies by a devised set of rules along with the initial experimental evidence of its feasibility and effectiveness. However, this methodology has to be fully automatically implemented and tested on a larger dataset in future research. Practical implications - This result has implication for semantic search, since a richer ontology, comprised of multiple aspects and viewpoints of the domain of knowledge, enhances discoverability and improves search results. Originality/value - To the best of the knowledge, this is the first study to examine and assess the maximal level of semantic relation-based ontology unification.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.03197872 = product of:
  0.09593615 = sum of:
    0.09593615 = sum of:
      0.054807637 = weight(_text_:database in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054807637 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050593734 = queryNorm
          0.26797873 = fieldWeight in 2230, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2230)
      0.041128512 = weight(_text_:22 in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041128512 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050593734 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2230, 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=2230)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We present a deductive data model for concept-based query expansion. It is based on three abstraction levels: the conceptual, linguistic and occurrence levels. Concepts and relationships among them are represented at the conceptual level. The expression level represents natural language expressions for concepts. Each expression has one or more matching models at the occurrence level. Each model specifies the matching of the expression in database indices built in varying ways. The data model supports a concept-based query expansion and formulation tool, the ExpansionTool, for environments providing heterogeneous IR systems. Expansion is controlled by adjustable matching reliability.

Source

Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (ACM SIGIR '96), Zürich, Switzerland, August 18-22, 1996. Eds.: H.P. Frei et al

0.03197872 = product of:
  0.09593615 = sum of:
    0.09593615 = sum of:
      0.054807637 = weight(_text_:database in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054807637 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050593734 = queryNorm
          0.26797873 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
      0.041128512 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041128512 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050593734 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.030530527 = product of:
  0.09159158 = sum of:
    0.09159158 = weight(_text_:reference in 4684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09159158 = score(doc=4684,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.4449779 = fieldWeight in 4684, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4684)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Web Ontology Language OWL is a semantic markup language for publishing and sharing ontologies on the World Wide Web. OWL is developed as a vocabulary extension of RDF (the Resource Description Framework) and is derived from the DAML+OIL Web Ontology Language. This document contains a structured informal description of the full set of OWL language constructs and is meant to serve as a reference for OWL users who want to construct OWL ontologies.

0.026785422 = product of:
  0.08035626 = sum of:
    0.08035626 = product of:
      0.24106878 = sum of:
        0.24106878 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24106878 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42893425 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

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

0.02664893 = product of:
  0.079946786 = sum of:
    0.079946786 = sum of:
      0.045673028 = weight(_text_:database in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045673028 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050593734 = queryNorm
          0.2233156 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
      0.034273762 = weight(_text_:22 in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034273762 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050593734 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 633, 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=633)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Considering the characteristics of hypertext systems and problems such as cognitive overload and the disorientation of users, this project studies subject hypertext documents that have undergone conceptual structuring using facets for content representation and improvement of information retrieval during navigation. The main objective was to assess the possibility of the application of topic map technology for automating the compatibilization process of these structures. For this purpose, two dissertations from the UFMG Information Science Post-Graduation Program were adopted as samples. Both dissertations had been duly analyzed and structured on the MHTX (Hypertextual Map) prototype database. The faceted structures of both dissertations, which had been represented in conceptual maps, were then converted into topic maps. It was then possible to use the merge property of the topic maps to promote the semantic interrelationship between the maps and, consequently, between the hypertextual information resources proper. The merge results were then analyzed in the light of theories dealing with the compatibilization of languages developed within the realm of information technology and librarianship from the 1960s on. The main goals accomplished were: (a) the detailed conceptualization of the merge process of the topic maps, considering the possible compatibilization levels and the applicability of this technology in the integration of faceted structures; and (b) the production of a detailed sequence of steps that may be used in the implementation of topic maps based on faceted structures.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:39:23

0.026169024 = product of:
  0.07850707 = sum of:
    0.07850707 = weight(_text_:reference in 3150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07850707 = score(doc=3150,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.38140965 = fieldWeight in 3150, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3150)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records (FRSAR) Working Group was formed in 2005 as the third IFLA working group of the FRBR family to address subject authority data issues and to investigate the direct and indirect uses of subject authority data by a wide range of users. This paper introduces the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD), the model developed by the FRSAR Working Group, and discusses it in the context of other related conceptual models defined in the specifications during recent years, including the British Standard BS8723-5: Structured vocabularies for information retrieval - Guide Part 5: Exchange formats and protocols for interoperability, W3C's SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference, and OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. These models enable the consideration of the functions of subject authority data and concept schemes at a higher level that is independent of any implementation, system, or specific context, while allowing us to focus on the semantics, structures, and interoperability of subject authority data.

0.026169024 = product of:
  0.07850707 = sum of:
    0.07850707 = weight(_text_:reference in 3741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07850707 = score(doc=3741,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.38140965 = fieldWeight in 3741, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3741)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Mit dieser Publikation veröffentlicht das Institut für Museumskunde die bisherigen Arbeitsergebnisse der Arbeitsgruppe "Datenaustausch" in der Fachgruppe Dokumentation des Deutschen Museumsbunds (DMB). Kolleginnen und Kollegen verschiedener Interessenschwerpunkte aus Museen und Informatik-Einrichtungen haben seit dem Jahre 2000 die Entwicklung des CIDOC-CRM (das "Conceptual Reference Model" des Dokumentationskomitees von ICOM, dem Internationalen Museumsrat) zu einem Arbeitsinstrument begleitet, das derzeit auf dem Wege ist, als Norm ISO 21 127 Anerkennung zu finden. Die Arbeitsgruppe hat sich intensiv damit beschäftigt, zunächst das komplexe Modell zu verstehen, und sie hat diskutiert, inwieweit es eine Hilfestellung für die Arbeit von Museen miteinander und für einen Datenaustausch zwischen ihnen bietet. Die Ergebnisse der Überlegungen werden hier vorgestellt in der Hoffnung, dass dadurch viele Kolleginnen und Kollegen mit dem Modell bekannt werden, ihnen das Verständnis des CRM erleichtert wird und das Modell auch in Deutschland für die Konzeption von Informationssystemen und die Vermittlung zwischen unterschiedlichen Dokumentationen genutzt werden kann.

0.026169024 = product of:
  0.07850707 = sum of:
    0.07850707 = weight(_text_:reference in 4688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07850707 = score(doc=4688,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.38140965 = fieldWeight in 4688, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4688)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/

0.02180752 = product of:
  0.06542256 = sum of:
    0.06542256 = weight(_text_:reference in 672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06542256 = score(doc=672,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.31784135 = fieldWeight in 672, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=672)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.02158834 = product of:
  0.06476502 = sum of:
    0.06476502 = weight(_text_:reference in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06476502 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.31464687 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The recent experiences in the building, maintenance and reuse of ontologies has shown that the most efficient approach is the collaborative one. However, communication between collaborators such as IT professionals, librarians, web designers and subject matter experts is difficult and time consuming. This is because there are different reasoning strategies, different logics and different kinds of knowledge representation in the applications of Semantic Web. This article intends to be a reference scheme. It uses concise and simple explanations that can be used in common by specialists of different backgrounds working together in an application of Semantic Web.

0.02158834 = product of:
  0.06476502 = sum of:
    0.06476502 = weight(_text_:reference in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06476502 = score(doc=604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.31464687 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

iQvoc is a new open source SKOS-XL vocabulary management tool developed by the Federal Environment Agency, Germany, and innoQ Deutschland GmbH. Its immediate purpose is maintaining and publishing reference vocabularies in the upcoming Linked Data cloud of environmental information, but it may be easily adapted to host any SKOS- XL compliant vocabulary. iQvoc is implemented as a Ruby on Rails application running on top of JRuby - the Java implementation of the Ruby Programming Language. To increase the user experience when editing content, iQvoc uses heavily the JavaScript library jQuery.

0.02136692 = product of:
  0.06410076 = sum of:
    0.06410076 = weight(_text_:reference in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06410076 = score(doc=549,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.31141967 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

LCSH is known as such since 1975. It always has created headings to serve the LC collections instead of a theoretical basis. It started to replace cross reference codes by thesaural codes in 1986, in a mechanical fashion. It was in no way transformed into a thesaurus. Its encyclopedic coverage, its pre-coordinate concepts make it substantially distinct, considering that thesauri usually map a restricted field of knowledge and use uniterms. The questions raised are whether the new symbols comply with thesaurus standards and if they are true to one or to several models. Explanations and definitions from other lists of subject headings and thesauri, literature in the field of classification and subject indexing will provide some answers. For instance, see refers from a subject heading not used to another or others used. Exceptionally it will lead from a specific term to a more general one. Some equate a see reference with the equivalence relationship. Such relationships are pointed by USE in LCSH. See also references are made from the broader subject to narrower parts of it and also between associated subjects. They suggest lateral or vertical connexions as well as reciprocal relationships. They serve a coordination purpose for some, lay down a methodical search itinerary for others. Since their inception in the 1950's thesauri have been devised for indexing and retrieving information in the fields of science and technology. Eventually they attended to a number of social sciences and humanities. Research derived from thesauri was voluminous. Numerous guidelines are designed. They did not discriminate between the "hard" sciences and the social sciences. RT relationships are widely but diversely used in numerous controlled vocabularies. LCSH's aim is to achieve a list almost free of RT and SA references. It thus restricts relationships to BT/NT, USE and UF. This raises the question as to whether all fields of knowledge can "fit" in the Procrustean bed of RT/NT, i.e., genus/species relationships. Standard codes were devised. It was soon realized that BT/NT, well suited to the genus/species couple could not signal a whole-part relationship. In LCSH, BT and NT function as reciprocals, the whole-part relationship is taken into account by ISO. It is amply elaborated upon by authors. The part-whole connexion is sometimes studied apart. The decision to replace cross reference codes was an improvement. Relations can now be distinguished through the distinct needs of numerous fields of knowledge are not attended to. Topic inclusion, and topic-subtopic, could provide the missing link where genus/species or whole/part are inadequate. Distinct codes, BT/NT and whole/part, should be provided. Sorting relationships with mechanical means can only lead to confusion.

0.018504292 = product of:
  0.055512875 = sum of:
    0.055512875 = weight(_text_:reference in 5448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055512875 = score(doc=5448,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 5448, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5448)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this paper the possibility to develop a richer relational structure for thesauri is explored and described. The development of a new environmental thesaurus - EARTh (Environmental Applications Reference Thesaurus) - is serving as a case study for exploring the refinement of thesaurus relational structure by specialising standard relationships into different subtypes. Together with benefits and opportunities, implications and possible challenges that an expanded set of thesaurus relations may cause are evaluated.

0.018504292 = product of:
  0.055512875 = sum of:
    0.055512875 = weight(_text_:reference in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055512875 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Innerhalb der Gedächtnisinstitutionen Bibliothek, Museum und Archiv gibt es je eigene Beschreibungsmodelle der beherbergten Objekte und Materialien. Für eine genauere bibliografische Erschließung wurde im Bibliotheksbereich das von Benutzerbedürfnissen ausgehende, statische Modell "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records" (FRBR) geschaffen, dessen ungenauer »Werk«-Begriff ebenso thematisiert wird wie die schwer zu realisierende Übertragbarkeit des Modells auf Nicht-Buchmaterialien. Die Museumswelt orientiert die Darstellung ihrer Bestände am CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM), das sich hinsichtlich der Beschreibung heterogener Museumsobjekte, also Artefakten künstlerischer und intellektueller Gestaltung, als hilfreich erwiesen hat. In gegenseitigem Austausch zwischen IFLA und ICOM wurde FRBR mit CRM harmonisiert. Das Ergebnis, FRBRoo (objektorientiertes FRBR), zeigt seine Vorzüge zum einen in einer strengeren Interpretation der Entitäten der Gruppe 1 des FRBR-Modells und zum anderen in einer genaueren Abbildung von Prozessen bzw. Ereignissen. Beispiele zum Anwendungsbezug von FRBRoo zeigen dessen Zugewinn für die wissenschaftliche Erschließung hand-, druck- und online-schriftlicher Quellen, Werken der Darstellenden Kunst, Landkarten und Musikalien innerhalb einer CRM-basierten Datenbank.