Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01676173 = product of:
  0.06704692 = sum of:
    0.06704692 = weight(_text_:data in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06704692 = score(doc=255,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.55459267 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A basic distinction in agent-based data-driven Database Semantics (DBS) is between language and nonlanguage cognition. Language cognition transfers content between agents by means of raw data. Nonlanguage cognition maps between content and raw data inside the focus agent. {\it Recognition} applies a concept type to raw data, resulting in a concept token. In language recognition, the focus agent (hearer) takes raw language-data (surfaces) produced by another agent (speaker) as input, while nonlanguage recognition takes raw nonlanguage-data as input. In either case, the output is a content which is stored in the agent's onboard short term memory. {\it Action} adapts a concept type to a purpose, resulting in a token. In language action, the focus agent (speaker) produces language-dependent surfaces for another agent (hearer), while nonlanguage action produces intentions for a nonlanguage purpose. In either case, the output is raw action data. As long as the procedural implementation of place holder values works properly, it is compatible with the DBS requirement of input-output equivalence between the natural prototype and the artificial reconstruction.

0.014782455 = product of:
  0.05912982 = sum of:
    0.05912982 = weight(_text_:data in 3147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05912982 = score(doc=3147,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 3147, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3147)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.014630836 = product of:
  0.058523346 = sum of:
    0.058523346 = weight(_text_:data in 2568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058523346 = score(doc=2568,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.48408815 = fieldWeight in 2568, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2568)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Im Zuge der immer größeren Verfügbarkeit von Daten (Big Data) und rasanter Fortschritte im Daten-basierten maschinellen Lernen haben wir in den letzten Jahren Durchbrüche in der künstlichen Intelligenz erlebt. Dieser Vortrag beleuchtet diese Entwicklungen insbesondere im Hinblick auf die automatische Analyse von Textdaten. Anhand einfacher Beispiele illustrieren wir, wie moderne Textanalyse abläuft und zeigen wiederum anhand von Beispielen, welche praktischen Anwendungsmöglichkeiten sich heutzutage in Branchen wie dem Verlagswesen, der Finanzindustrie oder dem Consulting ergeben.

Source

https://login.mailingwork.de/public/a_5668_LVrTK/file/data/1125_Textanalyse_Christian-Bauckhage.pdf

Theme

Data Mining

0.014166246 = product of:
  0.056664985 = sum of:
    0.056664985 = weight(_text_:data in 39) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056664985 = score(doc=39,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.46871632 = fieldWeight in 39, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=39)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Digital cultural heritage resources are widely available on the web through the digital libraries of heritage institutions. To address the difficulties of discoverability in cultural heritage, the common practice is metadata aggregation, where centralized efforts like Europeana facilitate discoverability by collecting the resources' metadata. We present the results of the linked data aggregation task conducted within the Europeana Common Culture project, which attempted an innovative approach to aggregation based on linked data made available by cultural heritage institutions. This task ran for one year with participation of eleven organizations, involving the three member roles of the Europeana network: data providers, intermediary aggregators, and the central aggregation hub, Europeana. We report on the challenges that were faced by data providers, the standards and specifications applied, and the resulting aggregated metadata.

0.012670675 = product of:
  0.0506827 = sum of:
    0.0506827 = weight(_text_:data in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0506827 = score(doc=566,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.4192326 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.010988469 = product of:
  0.043953877 = sum of:
    0.043953877 = product of:
      0.087907754 = sum of:
        0.087907754 = weight(_text_:22 in 3227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.087907754 = score(doc=3227,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13388468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03823278 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 3227, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

7. 2.1996 22:38:41

Pages

22 S

0.009144273 = product of:
  0.03657709 = sum of:
    0.03657709 = weight(_text_:data in 111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03657709 = score(doc=111,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.30255508 = fieldWeight in 111, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=111)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Mathematics Subject Classification (MSC), maintained by the American Mathematical Society's Mathematical Reviews (MR) and FIZ Karlsruhe's Zentralblatt für Mathematik (Zbl), is a scheme for classifying publications in mathematics according to their subjects. While it is widely used, its traditional, idiosyncratic conceptualization and representation requires custom implementations of search, query and annotation support. This did not encourage people to create and explore connections of mathematics to subjects of related domains (e.g. science), and it made the scheme hard to maintain. We have reimplemented the current version of MSC2010 as a Linked Open Dataset using SKOS and our focus is concentrated on turning it into the new MSC authority. This paper explains the motivation, and details of our design considerations and how we realized them in the implementation. We present in-the-field use cases and point out how e-science applications can take advantage of the MSC LOD set. We conclude with a roadmap for bootstrapping the presence of mathematical and mathematics-based science, technology, and engineering knowledge on the Web of Data, where it has been noticeably underrepresented so far, starting from MSC/SKOS as a seed.

Footnote

Vgl. auch den publizierten Beitrag u.d.T.: Bringing mathematics towards the Web of Data: the case of the Mathematics Subject Classification

0.009108569 = product of:
  0.036434274 = sum of:
    0.036434274 = product of:
      0.18217137 = sum of:
        0.18217137 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18217137 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32413796 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03823278 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

0.0064750174 = product of:
  0.02590007 = sum of:
    0.02590007 = product of:
      0.05180014 = sum of:
        0.05180014 = weight(_text_:22 in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05180014 = score(doc=3161,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13388468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03823278 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3161, 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=3161)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

2. 2.1996 15:40:22

0.0052794483 = product of:
  0.021117793 = sum of:
    0.021117793 = weight(_text_:data in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021117793 = score(doc=5787,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 5787, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5787)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study considers the expressiveness (that is the expressive power or expressivity) of different types of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) and discusses its potential to be machine-processable in the context of the Semantic Web. For this purpose, the theoretical foundations of KOS are reviewed based on conceptualizations introduced by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) and the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS); natural language processing techniques are also implemented. Applying a comparative analysis, the dataset comprises a thesaurus (Eurovoc), a subject headings system (LCSH) and a classification scheme (DDC). These are compared with an ontology (CIDOC-CRM) by focusing on how they define and handle concepts and relations. It was observed that LCSH and DDC focus on the formalism of character strings (nomens) rather than on the modelling of semantics; their definition of what constitutes a concept is quite fuzzy, and they comprise a large number of complex concepts. By contrast, thesauri have a coherent definition of what constitutes a concept, and apply a systematic approach to the modelling of relations. Ontologies explicitly define diverse types of relations, and are by their nature machine-processable. The paper concludes that the potential of both the expressiveness and machine processability of each KOS is extensively regulated by its structural rules. It is harder to represent subject headings and classification schemes as semantic networks with nodes and arcs, while thesauri are more suitable for such a representation. In addition, a paradigm shift is revealed which focuses on the modelling of relations between concepts, rather than the concepts themselves.

0.0032375087 = product of:
  0.012950035 = sum of:
    0.012950035 = product of:
      0.02590007 = sum of:
        0.02590007 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02590007 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13388468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03823278 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1171, 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=1171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

23.11.2023 19:07:22