Search (133 results, page 1 of 7)

0.100329794 = sum of:
  0.08280347 = product of:
    0.2484104 = sum of:
      0.2484104 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2484104 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.4419972 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = 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)
  0.01752632 = product of:
    0.03505264 = sum of:
      0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03505264 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

On a scientific concept hierarchy, a parent concept may have a few attributes, each of which has multiple values being a group of child concepts. We call these attributes facets: classification has a few facets such as application (e.g., face recognition), model (e.g., svm, knn), and metric (e.g., precision). In this work, we aim at building faceted concept hierarchies from scientific literature. Hierarchy construction methods heavily rely on hypernym detection, however, the faceted relations are parent-to-child links but the hypernym relation is a multi-hop, i.e., ancestor-to-descendent link with a specific facet "type-of". We use information extraction techniques to find synonyms, sibling concepts, and ancestor-descendent relations from a data science corpus. And we propose a hierarchy growth algorithm to infer the parent-child links from the three types of relationships. It resolves conflicts by maintaining the acyclic structure of a hierarchy.

Content

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

0.04597649 = product of:
  0.09195298 = sum of:
    0.09195298 = sum of:
      0.049571916 = weight(_text_:classification in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049571916 = score(doc=2655,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
      0.04238106 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04238106 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.04516966 = product of:
  0.09033932 = sum of:
    0.09033932 = sum of:
      0.040894743 = weight(_text_:classification in 1437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040894743 = score(doc=1437,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1437, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1437)
      0.04944457 = weight(_text_:22 in 1437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04944457 = score(doc=1437,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1437, 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=1437)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper describes to construct faceted ontologies for domain modeling. Building upon the faceted theory of S.R. Ranganathan (1967), the paper intends to address the faceted classification approach applied to build domain ontologies. As classificatory ontologies are employed to represent the relationships of entities and objects on the web, the faceted approach helps to analyze domain representation in an effective way for modeling. Based on this perspective, an ontology of the music domain has been analyzed that would serve as a case study.

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

0.03831374 = product of:
  0.07662748 = sum of:
    0.07662748 = sum of:
      0.04130993 = weight(_text_:classification in 1434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04130993 = score(doc=1434,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 1434, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1434)
      0.03531755 = weight(_text_:22 in 1434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03531755 = score(doc=1434,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.036502596 = product of:
  0.07300519 = sum of:
    0.07300519 = sum of:
      0.033047944 = weight(_text_:classification in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033047944 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.19904417 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
      0.039957248 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039957248 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.027601156 = product of:
  0.055202313 = sum of:
    0.055202313 = product of:
      0.16560693 = sum of:
        0.16560693 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16560693 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4419972 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.027601156 = product of:
  0.055202313 = sum of:
    0.055202313 = product of:
      0.16560693 = sum of:
        0.16560693 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16560693 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4419972 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.025297062 = product of:
  0.050594125 = sum of:
    0.050594125 = product of:
      0.10118825 = sum of:
        0.10118825 = weight(_text_:classification in 2836) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10118825 = score(doc=2836,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.6094458 = fieldWeight in 2836, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2836)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Faceted classification, at its core, implies orthogonality - that every facet axis exists at right angles to (i.e., independently of) every other facet axis. That's why a faceted classification is sometimes represented with a chart. This set of desserts has been classified by their confection types and, orthogonally, by their flavors.

0.023368426 = product of:
  0.04673685 = sum of:
    0.04673685 = product of:
      0.0934737 = sum of:
        0.0934737 = weight(_text_:classification in 3130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0934737 = score(doc=3130,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 3130, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3130)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Based on the research on three general classification schemes, this paper discusses issues encountered when expressing classification schemes in SKOS and explores opportunities of resolving major issues using OWL 2 Web Ontology Language.

0.021907898 = product of:
  0.043815795 = sum of:
    0.043815795 = product of:
      0.08763159 = sum of:
        0.08763159 = weight(_text_:classification in 4817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08763159 = score(doc=4817,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.5277955 = fieldWeight in 4817, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4817)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The chemistry schedule in the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) is badly in need of revision. In many places it is enumerative rather than synthetic (giving rules for constructing numbers for any compound required). In principle, chemistry should be the ideal subject for a synthetic classification but many common compounds have complex formulae and a synthetic system becomes unwieldy. Also, all compounds belong to several hierarchies, e.g. chloroquin is a heterocycle, an aromatic compound, amine, antimalarial drug, etc. and rules need to be drawn up as to which ones take precedence and which ones should be taken into account in classifying a compound. There are obvious similarities between a classification and an ontology. This paper looks at existing ontologies for chemistry, especially ChEBI which is one of the largest, to examine how a classification and an ontology might draw on each other and what the problem areas are. An ontology might help in creating an index to a classification (for chemicals not listed or to provide access by facets not used in the classification) and a classification could provide a hierarchy to use in an ontology.

Source

Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero

0.020447372 = product of:
  0.040894743 = sum of:
    0.040894743 = product of:
      0.081789486 = sum of:
        0.081789486 = weight(_text_:classification in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081789486 = score(doc=3061,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This document describes in brief how to express the content and structure of a classification scheme, and metadata about a classification scheme, in RDF using the SKOS vocabulary. 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. Publishing classifications schemes in SKOS will unify the great many of existing classification efforts in the framework of the Semantic Web.

0.020447372 = product of:
  0.040894743 = sum of:
    0.040894743 = product of:
      0.081789486 = sum of:
        0.081789486 = weight(_text_:classification in 3717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081789486 = score(doc=3717,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 3717, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3717)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Representing classification systems on the web for publication and exchange continues to be a challenge within the SKOS framework. This paper focuses on the differences between classification schemes and other families of KOS (knowledge organization systems) that make it difficult to express classifications without sacrificing a large amount of their semantic richness. Issues resulting from the specific set of relationships between classes and topics that defines the basic nature of any classification system are discussed. Where possible, different solutions within the frameworks of SKOS and OWL are proposed and examined.

0.019595021 = product of:
  0.039190043 = sum of:
    0.039190043 = product of:
      0.078380086 = sum of:
        0.078380086 = weight(_text_:classification in 4690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.078380086 = score(doc=4690,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 4690, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Classification schemes, such as the DMoZ web directory, provide a convenient and intuitive way for humans to access classified contents. While being easy to be dealt with for humans, classification schemes remain hard to be reasoned about by automated software agents. Among other things, this hardness is conditioned by the ambiguous na- ture of the natural language used to describe classification categories. In this paper we describe how classification schemes can be converted into OWL ontologies, thus enabling reasoning on them by Semantic Web applications. The proposed solution is based on a two phase approach in which category names are first encoded in a concept language and then, together with the structure of the classification scheme, are converted into an OWL ontology. We demonstrate the practical applicability of our approach by showing how the results of reasoning on these OWL ontologies can help improve the organization and use of web directories.

0.019595021 = product of:
  0.039190043 = sum of:
    0.039190043 = product of:
      0.078380086 = sum of:
        0.078380086 = weight(_text_:classification in 4818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.078380086 = score(doc=4818,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 4818, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4818)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The number of publications in mathematics increases faster each year. Presently far more than 100,000 mathematically relevant journal articles and books are published annually. Efficient and high-quality content analysis of this material is important for mathematical bibliographic services such as ZBMath or MathSciNet. Content analysis has different facets and levels: classification, keywords, abstracts and reviews, and (in the future) formula analysis. It is the opinion of the authors that the different levels have to be enhanced and combined using the methods and technology of the Semantic Web. In the presentation, the problems and deficits of the existing methods and tools, the state of the art and current activities are discussed. As a first step, the Mathematical Subject Classification Scheme (MSC), has been encoded with Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) and Resource Description Framework (RDF) at its recent revision to MSC2010. The use of SKOS principally opens new possibilities for the enrichment and wider deployment of this classification scheme and for machine-based content analysis of mathematical publications.

Source

Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero

0.018474363 = product of:
  0.036948726 = sum of:
    0.036948726 = product of:
      0.07389745 = sum of:
        0.07389745 = weight(_text_:classification in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07389745 = score(doc=311,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.4450763 = fieldWeight in 311, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=311)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper looks at Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) to investigate how a faceted classification can be expressed in RDF and shared on the Semantic Web. Statement of the Problem Faceted classification outlines facets as well as subfacets and facet values. Hierarchical relationships and associative relationships are established in a faceted classification. RDF is used to describe how a specific URI has a relationship to a facet value. Not only does RDF decompose "information into pieces," but by incorporating facet values RDF also given the URI the hierarchical and associative relationships expressed in the faceted classification. Combining faceted classification and RDF creates more knowledge than if the two stood alone. An application understands the subjectpredicate-object relationship in RDF and can display hierarchical and associative relationships based on the object (facet) value. This paper continues to investigate if the above idea is indeed useful, used, and applicable. If so, how can a faceted classification be expressed in RDF? What would this expression look like? Literature Review This paper used the same articles as the paper A Survey of Faceted Classification: History, Uses, Drawbacks and the Semantic Web (Putkey, 2010). In that paper, appropriate resources were discovered by searching in various databases for "faceted classification" and "faceted search," either in the descriptor or title fields. Citations were also followed to find more articles as well as searching the Internet for the same terms. To retrieve the documents about RDF, searches combined "faceted classification" and "RDF, " looking for these words in either the descriptor or title.

0.017887725 = product of:
  0.03577545 = sum of:
    0.03577545 = product of:
      0.0715509 = sum of:
        0.0715509 = weight(_text_:classification in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0715509 = score(doc=4823,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As part of a larger assessment of relationships in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system, this study investigates the semantic nature of relationships in the DDC notational hierarchy. The semantic relationship between each of a set of randomly selected classes and its parent class in the notational hierarchy is examined against a set of relationship types (specialization, class-instance, several flavours of whole-part).The analysis addresses the prevalence of specific relationship types, their lexical expression, difficulties encountered in assigning relationship types, compatibility of relationships found in the DDC with those found in other knowledge organization systems (KOS), and compatibility of relationships found in the DDC with those in a shared formalism like the Web Ontology Language (OWL). Since notational hierarchy is an organizational mechanism shared across most classification schemes and is often considered to provide an easy solution for ontological transformation of a classification system, the findings of the study are likely to generalize across classification schemes with respect to difficulties that might be encountered in such a transformation process.

Source

Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero

0.017887725 = product of:
  0.03577545 = sum of:
    0.03577545 = product of:
      0.0715509 = sum of:
        0.0715509 = weight(_text_:classification in 2798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0715509 = score(doc=2798,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 2798, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2798)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Classification is the basis of knowledge organization. Ontology, a comparatively new concept used as a tool for knowledge organization, establishes connections between terms and concepts enhancing the scope and usefulness of library classification. Ranganathan had invented the strong theory of the analytico-synthetic method in classification and devised Colon Classification. In this study a domain ontology on library and information science has been developed by implementing Raganathan's faceted approach of classification. The hierarchical relationships among terms have been established primarily keeping conformity with that of Ranganathan's Colon Classification (7th edition). But to accommodate new vocabularies, DDC 23rd edition and UDC Standard edition are consulted. The Protégé ontology editor has been used. The study carefully examines the steps in which the analytico-synthetic method have been followed. Ranganathan's Canon of Characteristics and its relevant Canons have been followed for defining the class-subclass hierarchy. It concludes by identifying the drawbacks as well as the merits faced while developing the ontology. This paper proves the relevance and importance of Ranganathan's philosophy in developing ontology based knowledge organization.

0.017707944 = product of:
  0.035415888 = sum of:
    0.035415888 = product of:
      0.070831776 = sum of:
        0.070831776 = weight(_text_:classification in 504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070831776 = score(doc=504,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.42661208 = fieldWeight in 504, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=504)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article introduces the Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS), a Semantic Web language for representing controlled structured vocabularies, including thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading systems and taxonomies. SKOS provides a framework for publishing thesauri, classification schemes, and subject indexes on the Web, and for applying these systems to resource collections that are part of the SemanticWeb. SemanticWeb applications may harvest and merge SKOS data, to integrate and enhances retrieval service across multiple collections (e.g. libraries). This article also describes some alternatives for integrating Semantic Web services based on the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and SKOS into a distributed enterprise architecture.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 43(2006) nos.3/4, S.69-83

0.017658776 = product of:
  0.03531755 = sum of:
    0.03531755 = product of:
      0.0706351 = sum of:
        0.0706351 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0706351 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, 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=6089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.11-22

0.017658776 = product of:
  0.03531755 = sum of:
    0.03531755 = product of:
      0.0706351 = sum of:
        0.0706351 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0706351 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5576, 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=5576)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13.12.2017 14:17:22