Search (108 results, page 1 of 6)

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

0.067464456 = product of:
  0.16866113 = sum of:
    0.11995316 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11995316 = score(doc=4792,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.50543046 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
    0.048707973 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048707973 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

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.

0.0481889 = product of:
  0.120472245 = sum of:
    0.085680835 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085680835 = score(doc=1670,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.36102176 = fieldWeight in 1670, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1670)
    0.03479141 = weight(_text_:22 in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03479141 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Das Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit ist es, ein Modell für ein Informationssystems zu erstellen und die Voraussetzungen und Aspekte zu betrachten, die notwendig sind, um Einsichten in die begrifflichen Zusammenhänge des Gegenstandsbereiches Luftfahrt zu erlangen. Der Ansatz, der hier erläutert wird, plädiert für die Konstruktion einer begrifflichen Wissensstruktur in Form eines semantischen Netzes. Ausgangspunkt dieser Überlegungen ist die Auffassung, daß zwar das kontrollierte Vokabular eines Thesaurus mit seiner Verweisstruktur vielfältiges Wissen enthält, das aber aufgrund der drei klassischen Standardrelationen nur unzureichend repräsentiert und damit auch nur beschränkt zugänglich ist. Es wird erläutert, welche Vorteile eine Erweiterung der drei Thesaurusrelationen erbringen kann und in welcher Funktion die Relationen bei der Formulierung der Suchanfrage unterstützend sein können. Gezeigt wird, wie die Begriffstrukturen eines semantischen Netzes deutlicher hervortreten, wenn bei der Erstellung einer Wissensstruktur eines Gegenstandsbereiches Kategorien zugrunde gelegt werden und welche Gestaltungsprinzipien den Suchprozeß unterstützen können. Dazu werden die Voraussetzungen erörtert, die garantieren, daß komplexe Suchanfragen (erfolgreich) geleistet werden können und zu präzisen Treffermengen führen.

Date

26. 9.2006 21:00:22

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.047981266 = product of:
  0.23990633 = sum of:
    0.23990633 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 6051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23990633 = score(doc=6051,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        1.0108609 = fieldWeight in 6051, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6051)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

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

0.03392788 = product of:
  0.1696394 = sum of:
    0.1696394 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 7636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1696394 = score(doc=7636,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.7147866 = fieldWeight in 7636, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7636)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.03392788 = product of:
  0.1696394 = sum of:
    0.1696394 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1696394 = score(doc=2311,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.7147866 = fieldWeight in 2311, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2311)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14540519 = score(doc=105,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.61267424 = fieldWeight in 105, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=105)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Semantic Web - Taxonomie und Thesaurus - SKOS - Historie - Klassen und Eigenschaften - Beispiele - Generierung - automatisiert - per Folksonomie - Fazit und Ausblick