Search (88 results, page 1 of 5)

0.07630152 = product of:
  0.1907538 = sum of:
    0.12117098 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12117098 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.5105618 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
    0.06958282 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06958282 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, 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=539)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:07

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.07058053 = product of:
  0.17645131 = sum of:
    0.13708933 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13708933 = score(doc=2654,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.5776348 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
    0.039361987 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039361987 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.21886435 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In order to transfer the Chinese Classified Thesaurus (CCT) into a machine-processable format and provide CCT-based Web services, a pilot study has been conducted in which a variety of selected CCT classes and mapped thesaurus entries are encoded with SKOS. OWL and RDFS are also used to encode the same contents for the purposes of feasibility and cost-benefit comparison. CCT is a collected effort led by the National Library of China. It is an integration of the national standards Chinese Library Classification (CLC) 4th edition and Chinese Thesaurus (CT). As a manually created mapping product, CCT provides for each of the classes the corresponding thesaurus terms, and vice versa. The coverage of CCT includes four major clusters: philosophy, social sciences and humanities, natural sciences and technologies, and general works. There are 22 main-classes, 52,992 sub-classes and divisions, 110,837 preferred thesaurus terms, 35,690 entry terms (non-preferred terms), and 59,738 pre-coordinated headings (Chinese Classified Thesaurus, 2005) Major challenges of encoding this large vocabulary comes from its integrated structure. CCT is a result of the combination of two structures (illustrated in Figure 1): a thesaurus that uses ISO-2788 standardized structure and a classification scheme that is basically enumerative, but provides some flexibility for several kinds of synthetic mechanisms Other challenges include the complex relationships caused by differences of granularities of two original schemes and their presentation with various levels of SKOS elements; as well as the diverse coordination of entries due to the use of auxiliary tables and pre-coordinated headings derived from combining classes, subdivisions, and thesaurus terms, which do not correspond to existing unique identifiers. The poster reports the progress, shares the sample SKOS entries, and summarizes problems identified during the SKOS encoding process. Although OWL Lite and OWL Full provide richer expressiveness, the cost-benefit issues and the final purposes of encoding CCT raise questions of using such approaches.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.053411067 = product of:
  0.13352767 = sum of:
    0.0848197 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0848197 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.3573933 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
    0.048707973 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048707973 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Faceted Knowledge Representation provides a formalism for implementing knowledge systems. The basic notions of faceted knowledge representation are "unit", "relation", "facet" and "interpretation". Units are atomic elements and can be abstract elements or refer to external objects in an application. Relations are sequences or matrices of 0 and 1's (binary matrices). Facets are relational structures that combine units and relations. Each facet represents an aspect or viewpoint of a knowledge system. Interpretations are mappings that can be used to translate between different representations. This paper introduces the basic notions of faceted knowledge representation. The formalism is applied here to an abstract modeling of a faceted thesaurus as used in information retrieval.

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31

0.048941944 = product of:
  0.24470972 = sum of:
    0.24470972 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24470972 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43541256 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

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

0.045780916 = product of:
  0.11445229 = sum of:
    0.072702594 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072702594 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.30633712 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
    0.04174969 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04174969 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.040187877 = product of:
  0.20093937 = sum of:
    0.20093937 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20093937 = score(doc=3536,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.8466711 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The development and changes in the field of digital information retrieval systems and information retrieval area, as well as technical advances require and offer possibilities for developing the functionality of thesauri. Enriching their structure require the development of thesaurus construction methodologies that exceed the potential of the traditional construction methods and adjust the thesaurus to the needs of specialized information environments. The present work extends the work-task oriented methodology (WOM) and involves an analysis of the domain of knowledge: the body of domain known facts, experts and paradigms. This empirical study investigated a mix set of methods and developed a prototype thesaurus to evaluate the potential of WOM for constructing more enriched thesaurus. The thesaurus was evaluated by a retrieval test in which the usability and performance of the thesaurus were investigated with a classic-type thesaurus (Agrovoc) with the conventional thesaurus structure. The results of study indicate that WOM is useful and provide valuable inspiration to the user, whether thesaurus compiler or information searcher. The work task oriented methodology allows the development of a thesaurus design that reflects the characteristics of the work domain.

0.0384706 = product of:
  0.192353 = sum of:
    0.192353 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 5448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.192353 = score(doc=5448,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.81049186 = fieldWeight in 5448, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5448)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

Object

EARTh-Thesaurus

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.03815076 = product of:
  0.0953769 = sum of:
    0.06058549 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 1434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06058549 = score(doc=1434,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.2552809 = fieldWeight in 1434, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1434)
    0.03479141 = weight(_text_:22 in 1434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03479141 = score(doc=1434,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1434, 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=1434)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Knowledge organization of large-scale content on the Web requires substantial amounts of semantic metadata that is expensive to generate manually. Recent developments in Web technologies have enabled any user to tag documents and other forms of content thereby generating metadata that could help organize knowledge. However, merely adding one or more tags to a document is highly inadequate to capture the aboutness of the document and thereby to support powerful semantic functions such as automatic classification, question answering or true semantic search and retrieval. This is true even when the tags used are labels from a well-designed classification system such as a thesaurus or taxonomy. There is a strong need to develop a semantic tagging mechanism with sufficient expressive power to capture the aboutness of each part of a document or dataset or multimedia content in order to enable applications that can benefit from knowledge organization on the Web. This article proposes a highly expressive mechanism of using ontology snippets as semantic tags that map portions of a document or a part of a dataset or a segment of a multimedia content to concepts and relations in an ontology of the domain(s) of interest.

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

0.037932523 = product of:
  0.1896626 = sum of:
    0.1896626 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 4656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1896626 = score(doc=4656,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.7991557 = fieldWeight in 4656, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4656)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This document describes in brief how to express the content and structure of a thesaurus, and metadata about a thesaurus, in RDF. Using RDF allows data to be linked to and/or merged with other RDF data by semantic web applications. The Semantic Web, which is based on the Resource Description Framework (RDF), provides a common framework that allows data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries.

Source

http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-thesaurus-pubguide-20050517/

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.032627963 = product of:
  0.1631398 = sum of:
    0.1631398 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1631398 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43541256 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.032627963 = product of:
  0.1631398 = sum of:
    0.1631398 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1631398 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43541256 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.029680712 = product of:
  0.14840356 = sum of:
    0.14840356 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14840356 = score(doc=2036,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.62530804 = fieldWeight in 2036, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2036)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Thesauri and other types of controlled vocabularies are increasingly re-engineered into ontologies described using the Web Ontology Language (OWL), particularly in the life sciences. This has led to the perception by some that thesauri are ontologies once they are described by using the syntax of OWL while others have emphasized the need to re-engineer a vocabulary to use it as ontology. This confusion is rooted in different perceptions of what ontologies are and how they differ from other types of vocabularies. In this article, we rigorously examine the structural differences and similarities between thesauri and meaning-defining ontologies described in OWL. Specifically, we conduct (a) a conceptual comparison of thesauri and ontologies, and (b) a comparison of a specific thesaurus and a specific ontology in the same subject field. Our results show that thesauri and ontologies need to be treated as 2 orthogonal kinds of models with superficially similar structures. An ontology is not a good thesaurus, nor is a thesaurus a good ontology. A thesaurus requires significant structural and other content changes to become an ontology, and vice versa.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.029680712 = product of:
  0.14840356 = sum of:
    0.14840356 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 5854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14840356 = score(doc=5854,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.62530804 = fieldWeight in 5854, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5854)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The quantitative evaluation of thesauri has been carried out much further since 1976. This type of evaluation is based on counting of special factors in thesaurus structure, some of which are counting preferred terms, non preferred terms, cross reference terms and so on. Therefore, various statistical tests have been proposed and applied for evaluation of thesauri. In this article, we try to explain some ratios in the field of unity quantitative evaluation in a thesaurus term network. Theoretical base of the ratios' indicators and indices construction, and epistemological thought in this type of quantitative evaluation, are discussed in this article. The theoretical base of quantitative evaluation is the epistemological thought of Immanuel Kant's Critique of pure reason. The cognition states of transcendental understanding are divided into three steps, the first is perception, the second combination and the third, relation making. Terms relation domains and conceptual relation domains can be analyzed with ratios. The use of quantitative evaluations in current research in the field of thesaurus construction prepares a basis for a restoration period. In modern thesaurus construction, traditional term relations are analyzed in detail in the form of new conceptual relations. Hence, the new domains of hierarchical and associative relations are constructed in the form of relations between concepts. The newly formed conceptual domains can be a suitable basis for quantitative evaluation analysis in conceptual relations.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.029382406 = product of:
  0.14691202 = sum of:
    0.14691202 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14691202 = score(doc=572,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.6190234 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

We consider use of ontological background knowledge in intelligent information systems and analyze directions of their reduction in compliance with specifics of particular user task. Such reduction is aimed at simplification of knowledge processing without loss of significant information. We propose methods of generation of task thesauri based on domain ontology that contain such subset of ontological concepts and relations that can be used in task solving. Combinatorial optimization is used for minimization of task thesaurus. In this approach, semantic similarity estimates are used for determination of concept significance for user task. Some practical examples of optimized thesauri application for semantic retrieval and competence analysis demonstrate efficiency of proposed approach.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.029081037 = product of:
  0.14540519 = sum of:
    0.14540519 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 4885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14540519 = score(doc=4885,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.61267424 = fieldWeight in 4885, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4885)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Thesauri that are "ontologized" into OWL-DL semantics are highly amenable to modeling errors resulting from falsely interpreting existential restrictions. We investigated the OWL-DL representation of the NCI Thesaurus (NCIT) in order to assess the correctness of existential restrictions. A random sample of 354 axioms using the someValuesFrom operator was taken. According to a rating performed by two domain experts, roughly half of these examples, and in consequence more than 76,000 axioms in the OWL-DL version, make incorrect assertions if interpreted according to description logics semantics. These axioms therefore constitute a huge source for unintended models, rendering most logic-based reasoning unreliable. After identifying typical error patterns we discuss some possible improvements. Our recommendation is to either amend the problematic axioms in the OWL-DL formalization or to consider some less strict representational format.

Object

NCI Thesaurus

0.027417867 = product of:
  0.13708933 = sum of:
    0.13708933 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13708933 = score(doc=4695,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.5776348 = fieldWeight in 4695, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4695)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.02709466 = product of:
  0.1354733 = sum of:
    0.1354733 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 3695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1354733 = score(doc=3695,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.5708255 = fieldWeight in 3695, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3695)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The concepts of simplicity and complexity play major roles in information storage and retrieval in knowledge organizations. This paper reports an investigation of these concepts in the structure of descriptors. The main purpose of simplicity is to decrease the number of words in the construction of descriptors as this idea affects semantic relations, recall and precision. ISO 25964 has affirmed the purpose of simplicity by requiring splitting compound terms into simpler concepts. This work aims to elaborate the standard methods of evaluation by providing a more detailed evaluation of the descriptors structure and identifying effective factors in simplicity and complexity results in the structure of thesauri descriptors. The research population is taken from the descriptors of the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Thesaurus, the Persian Cultural Thesaurus (ASFA) and the Chemical Thesaurus. This research was conducted using the statistical and content analysis method. In this research we propose a new quantitative approach as well as novel indicators and indices involving Simplicity and Factoring Ratios to evaluate the descriptors structure. The results will be useful in the verification, selection and maintenance purposes in knowledge organizations and the inquiry method can be further developed in the field of ontology evaluation.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.026822343 = product of:
  0.13411172 = sum of:
    0.13411172 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13411172 = score(doc=2362,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.56508845 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The paper analysed here is a kind of position paper. In order to get a better under-standing of the reported work I used the retrieval interface of the thesaurus, the so-called NCI DTS Browser accessible via the Web3, and I perused the cited OWL file4 with numerous "Find" and "Find next" string searches. In addition the file was im-ported into Protégé 2000, Release 2.0, with OWL Plugin 1.0 and Racer Plugin 1.7.14. At the end of the paper's introduction the authors say: "In the following sections, this paper will describe the terminology development process at NCI, and the issues associated with converting a description logic based nomenclature to a semantically rich OWL ontology." While I will not deal with the first part, i.e. the terminology development process at NCI, I do not see the thesaurus as a description logic based nomenclature, or its cur-rent state and conversion already result in a "rich" OWL ontology. What does "rich" mean here? According to my view there is a great quantity of concepts and links but a very poor description logic structure which enables inferences. And what does the fol-lowing really mean, which is said a few lines previously: "Although editors have defined a number of named ontologic relations to support the description-logic based structure of the Thesaurus, additional relation-ships are considered for inclusion as required to support dependent applications."
According to my findings several relations available in the thesaurus query interface as "roles", are not used, i.e. there are not yet any assertions with them. And those which are used do not contribute to complete concept definitions of concepts which represent thesaurus main entries. In other words: The authors claim to already have a "description logic based nomenclature", where there is not yet one which deserves that title by being much more than a thesaurus with strict subsumption and additional inheritable semantic links. In the last section of the paper the authors say: "The most time consuming process in this conversion was making a careful analysis of the Thesaurus to understand the best way to translate it into OWL." "For other conversions, these same types of distinctions and decisions must be made. The expressive power of a proprietary encoding can vary widely from that in OWL or RDF. Understanding the original semantics and engineering a solution that most closely duplicates it is critical for creating a useful and accu-rate ontology." My question is: What decisions were made and are they exemplary, can they be rec-ommended as "the best way"? I raise strong doubts with respect to that, and I miss more profound discussions of the issues at stake. The following notes are dedicated to a critical description and assessment of the results of that conversion activity. They are written in a tutorial style more or less addressing students, but myself being a learner especially in the field of medical knowledge representation I do not speak "ex cathedra".

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.025647065 = product of:
  0.12823533 = sum of:
    0.12823533 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12823533 = score(doc=4800,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.5403279 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The usefulness of online geological maps is hindered by linguistic barriers. Multilingual geoscience thesauri alleviate linguistic barriers of geological maps. However, the benefits of multilingual geoscience thesauri for online geological maps are less studied. In this regard, we developed a multilingual thesaurus of geological time scale (GTS) to alleviate linguistic barriers of GTS records among online geological maps. We extended the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) model to represent the ordinal hierarchical structure of GTS terms. We collected GTS terms in seven languages and encoded them into a thesaurus by using the extended SKOS model. We implemented methods of characteristic-oriented term retrieval in JavaScript programs for accessing Web Map Services (WMS), recognizing GTS terms, and making translations. With the developed thesaurus and programs, we set up a pilot system to test recognitions and translations of GTS terms in online geological maps. Results of this pilot system proved the accuracy of the developed thesaurus and the functionality of the developed programs. Therefore, with proper deployments, SKOS-based multilingual geoscience thesauri can be functional for alleviating linguistic barriers among online geological maps and, thus, improving their interoperability.

Content

Article Outline 1. Introduction 2. SKOS-based multilingual thesaurus of geological time scale 2.1. Addressing the insufficiency of SKOS in the context of the Semantic Web 2.2. Addressing semantics and syntax/lexicon in multilingual GTS terms 2.3. Extending SKOS model to capture GTS structure 2.4. Summary of building the SKOS-based MLTGTS 3. Recognizing and translating GTS terms retrieved from WMS 4. Pilot system, results, and evaluation 5. Discussion 6. Conclusions Vgl. unter: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_cid=271720&_user=3865853&_pii=S0098300411000744&_check=y&_origin=&_coverDate=31-Oct-2011&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlt-zSkzS&_valck=1&md5=e2c1daf53df72d034d22278212578f42&ie=/sdarticle.pdf.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.02518492 = product of:
  0.1259246 = sum of:
    0.1259246 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1259246 = score(doc=2176,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.5305915 = fieldWeight in 2176, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2176)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The ISO 2788 guidelines for monolingual thesauri contain a differentiation of "the hierarchical relationship" into "generic", "partitive", and "instance", which, for purposes of document retrieval, was deemed adequate. However, ontologies, designed as language inventories for a wider scope of knowledge representation, are based on all these and some more logical differentiations. Rereading the ISO 2788 standard and inspecting the published Cyc Upper Ontology, it is argued that the adoption of the document-retrieval definition of subsumption generally prevents the conception or use of a thesaurus as a substructure of an ontology of the new kind as constructed for AI applications. When a thesaurus is used for fact description and inference on fact descriptions, the instance-of relationship too should be reconsidered: It may also link concepts and metaconcepts, and then its distinction from subsumption is needed. The treatment of the instance-of relationship in thesauri, the Cyc Upper Ontology, and WordNet is described from this perspective

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus