Search (1 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Fischer, D.H."
  • × theme_ss:"Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus"
  1. Fischer, D.H.: Converting a thesaurus to OWL : Notes on the paper "The National Cancer Institute's Thesaurus and Ontology" (2004) 0.01
    0.008207256 = product of:
      0.016414512 = sum of:
        0.016414512 = product of:
          0.032829024 = sum of:
            0.032829024 = weight(_text_:2000 in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.032829024 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051695216 = queryNorm
                0.1567077 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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."