Search (182 results, page 1 of 10)

0.06704275 = product of:
  0.1340855 = sum of:
    0.1340855 = product of:
      0.4022565 = sum of:
        0.4022565 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4022565 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4294415 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.053634197 = product of:
  0.10726839 = sum of:
    0.10726839 = product of:
      0.32180518 = sum of:
        0.32180518 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.32180518 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4294415 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H

0.049857154 = product of:
  0.09971431 = sum of:
    0.09971431 = sum of:
      0.053676847 = weight(_text_:class in 1752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053676847 = score(doc=1752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05065357 = queryNorm
          0.18741383 = fieldWeight in 1752, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1752)
      0.046037465 = weight(_text_:22 in 1752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046037465 = score(doc=1752,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.17738017 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05065357 = queryNorm
          0.2595412 = fieldWeight in 1752, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1752)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Some examples of identifiers for concepts follow: <http://dewey.info/concept/338.4/en/edn/22/> This identifier is used to retrieve or identify the 338.4 concept in the English-language version of Edition 22. <http://dewey.info/concept/338.4/de/edn/22/> This identifier is used to retrieve or identify the 338.4 concept in the German-language version of Edition 22. <http://dewey.info/concept/333.7-333.9/> This identifier is used to retrieve or identify the 333.7-333.9 concept across all editions and language versions. <http://dewey.info/concept/333.7-333.9/about.skos> This identifier is used to retrieve a SKOS representation of the 333.7-333.9 concept (using the "resource" element). There are several open issues at this preliminary stage of development: Use cases: URIs need to represent the range of statements or questions that could be submitted to a Dewey web service. Therefore, it seems that some general questions have to be answered first: What information does an agent have when coming to a Dewey web service? What kind of questions will such an agent ask? Placement of the {locale} component: It is still an open question if the {locale} component should be placed after the {version} component instead (<http://dewey.info/concept/338.4/edn/22/en>) to emphasize that the most important instantiation of a Dewey class is its edition, not its language version. From a services point of view, however, it could make more sense to keep the current arrangement, because users are more likely to come to the service with a present understanding of the language version they are seeking without knowing the specifics of a certain edition in which they are trying to find topics. Identification of other Dewey entities: The goal is to create a locator that does not answer all, but a lot of questions that could be asked about the DDC. Which entities are missing but should be surfaced for services or user agents? How will those services or agents interact with them? Should some entities be rendered in a different way as presented? For example, (how) should the DDC Summaries be retrievable? Would it be necessary to make the DDC Manual accessible through this identifier structure?"

0.049510285 = product of:
  0.09902057 = sum of:
    0.09902057 = sum of:
      0.07156913 = weight(_text_:class in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07156913 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05065357 = queryNorm
          0.2498851 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
      0.027451439 = weight(_text_:22 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027451439 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17738017 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05065357 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Dublin Core is often presented as a modern form of catalog card -- a set of elements (and now qualifiers) that describe resources in a complete package. Sometimes it is proposed as an exchange format for sharing records among multiple collections. The founding principle that "every element is optional and repeatable" reinforces the notion that a Dublin Core description is to be taken as a whole. This paper, in contrast, is based on a much different premise: Dublin Core is a language. More precisely, it is a small language for making a particular class of statements about resources. Like natural languages, it has a vocabulary of word-like terms, the two classes of which -- elements and qualifiers -- function within statements like nouns and adjectives; and it has a syntax for arranging elements and qualifiers into statements according to a simple pattern. Whenever tourists order a meal or ask directions in an unfamiliar language, considerate native speakers will spontaneously limit themselves to basic words and simple sentence patterns along the lines of "I am so-and-so" or "This is such-and-such". Linguists call this pidginization. In such situations, a small phrase book or translated menu can be most helpful. By analogy, today's Web has been called an Internet Commons where users and information providers from a wide range of scientific, commercial, and social domains present their information in a variety of incompatible data models and description languages. In this context, Dublin Core presents itself as a metadata pidgin for digital tourists who must find their way in this linguistically diverse landscape. Its vocabulary is small enough to learn quickly, and its basic pattern is easily grasped. It is well-suited to serve as an auxiliary language for digital libraries. This grammar starts by defining terms. It then follows a 200-year-old tradition of English grammar teaching by focusing on the structure of single statements. It concludes by looking at the growing dictionary of Dublin Core vocabulary terms -- its registry, and at how statements can be used to build the metadata equivalent of paragraphs and compositions -- the application profile.

Date

26.12.2011 14:01:22

0.044730708 = product of:
  0.089461416 = sum of:
    0.089461416 = product of:
      0.17892283 = sum of:
        0.17892283 = weight(_text_:class in 554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17892283 = score(doc=554,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.62471277 = fieldWeight in 554, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=554)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Over 45 years ago it was decided to move the class 4 for language to the section 8 together with literature. Since then class 4 has not been used. A recent masters thesis at the school of librarianship in Boras , "UDC, A Proposal to Basic Class 4" by Fredrik Hultqvist, (Magisteruppsats; 2006:39) proved the possibility of moving Medicine from the section 61 to the empty class 4. This is not a new idea, but has never been implemented. There are now new reasons that can facilitate the change. Medicine has been subjected to readjustments and proposals of change presented over recent years and this work is more or less completed. The change of notation 61 to notation 4 does not make the work done for the revision of Medicine obsolete; on the contrary it facilitates the change in libraries as they anyway need to change the notations of the entire discipline. The change to 4 makes medicine a digit shorter in all the subdivisions. This is an opportunity which will not come again for years. This is the practical reason. The theoretical reason can be found by analysing other classification systems. It seems that only the Dewey system, and therefore the UDC, has Medicine together with other practical disciplines in the same division. Most systems have Medicine as a main discipline with a division of its own.

0.044730708 = product of:
  0.089461416 = sum of:
    0.089461416 = product of:
      0.17892283 = sum of:
        0.17892283 = weight(_text_:class in 3861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17892283 = score(doc=3861,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.62471277 = fieldWeight in 3861, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3861)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We surveyed the classes on women's studies in different editions in the LCC (from the 1980 to the 2010 edition) to determine what the main classes consisted of and how they changed over that period. We broke down the main subtopics on women's studies, doing a statistical analysis at the class and subclass level, and then selected several typical examples for in-depth examination. The goal was to show the relationship between the disciplinary development of women's studies and classes on this topic in the LCC. We found that studies about women historically interweaved with family and marriage, but its development should have its own avenue. We found six patterns in the revising of classes associated with women's studies: synthesis, analysis, new creation, expansion, class name change, and removal. Through the comparison and analysis of classes with the additions and revisions to LCCs, supplemented by the bibliographic records from the LC online catalog, we determined that: historic revisions of a certain class show its disciplinary development; synthesis, analysis, comparison, and deduction played important roles in revisions and reflected the discipline's self - understanding on a subject; and a threshold, in terms of number of titles (or "sub-sub topics"), can be established for the creation of a new class . We concluded that a well-systematized classification system facilitates predictions concerning new directions in a discipline. Also, revisions of classification, based on the development of a discipline, will influence that discipline's future development.

0.03873793 = product of:
  0.07747586 = sum of:
    0.07747586 = product of:
      0.15495172 = sum of:
        0.15495172 = weight(_text_:class in 3370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15495172 = score(doc=3370,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.5410171 = fieldWeight in 3370, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3370)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Last week, I received an email from Yulia Skora in Ukraine who is working on the mapping between UDC Summary and BBK (Bibliographic Library Classification) Summary. It reminded me of yet another challenging area of work. When responding to Yulia I realised that the issues with mapping, for instance, UDC Summary to Dewey Summaries [pdf] are often made more difficult because we have to deal with classification summaries in both systems and we cannot use a known exactMatch in many situations. In 2008, following advice received from colleagues in the HILT project, two of our colleagues quickly mapped 1000 classes of Dewey Summaries to UDC Master Reference File as a whole. This appeared to be relatively simple. The mapping in this case is simply an answer to a question "and how would you say e.g. Art metal work in UDC?" But when in 2009 we realised that we were going to release 2000 classes of UDC Summary as linked data, we decided to wait until we had our UDC Summary set defined and completed to be able to publish it mapped to the Dewey Summaries. As we arrived at this stage, little did we realise how much more complex the reversed mapping of UDC Summary to Dewey Summaries would turn out to be. Mapping the Dewey Summaries to UDC highlighted situations in which the logic and structure of two systems do not agree. Especially because Dewey tends to enumerate combinations of subject and attributes that do not always logically belong together. For instance, 850 Literatures of Italian, Sardinian, Dalmatian, Romanian, Rhaeto-Romanic languages Italian literature. This class mixes languages from three different subgroups of Romance languages. Italian and Sardinian belong to Italo Romance sub-family; Romanian and Dalmatian are Balkan Romance languages and Rhaeto Romance is the third subgroup that includes Friulian Ladin and Romanch. As UDC literature is based on a strict classification of language families, Dewey class 850 has to be mapped to 3 narrower UDC classes 821.131 Literature of Italo-Romance Languages , 821.132 Literature of Rhaeto-Romance languages and 821.135 Literature of Balkan-Romance Languages, or to a broader class 821.13 Literature of Romance languages. Hence we have to be sure that we have all these classes listed in the UDC Summary to be able to express UDC-DDC many-to-one, specific-to-broader relationships.
Another challenge appears when, e.g., mapping Dewey class 890 Literatures of other specific languages and language families, which does not make sense in UDC in which all languages and literatures have equal status. Standard UDC schedules do not have a selection of preferred literatures and other literatures. In principle, UDC does not allow classes entitled 'others' which do not have defined semantic content. If entities are subdivided and there is no provision for an item outside the listed subclasses then this item is subsumed to a top class or a broader class where all unspecifiied or general members of that class may be expected. If specification is needed this can be divised by adding an alphabetical extension to the broader class. Here we have to find and list in the UDC Summary all literatures that are 'unpreferred' i.e. lumped in the 890 classes and map them again as many-to-one specific-to-broader match. The example below illustrates another interesting case. Classes Dewey 061 and UDC 06 cover roughy the same semantic field but in the subdivision the Dewey Summaries lists a combination of subject and place and as an enumerative classification, provides ready made numbers for combinations of place that are most common in an average (American?) library. This is a frequent approach in the schemes created with the physical book arrangement, i.e. library schelves, in mind. UDC, designed as an indexing language for information retrieval, keeps subject and place in separate tables and allows for any concept of place such as, e.g. (7) North America to be used in combination with any subject as these may coincide in documents. Thus combinations such as Newspapers in North America, or Organizations in North America would not be offered as ready made combinations. There is no selection of 'preferred' or 'most needed countries' or languages or cultures in the standard UDC edition: <Tabelle>
If we map the Dewey Summaries to UDC in general and do not have to worry about a reverse relationship the situation is very simple as shown above. Mapping of UDC Summary to Dewey Summaries requires more thought. Firstly, UDC class (7) North America (common auxiliary of place) which simply represents the place has to be mapped to all occurences in which this place is 'built in' to the Dewey subjects: 063 Organization of North America 073 Journalism of North America 917 Geography of North America 970 History of North America 277 Christianity in North America 317 General Statistics in North America 557 Earth Sciences of North America The type of mapping from what is a general UDC concept of place (7) North America to a specific subject is clearly a broader-to-narrow match. Mapping of, for instance , UDC class 07 Newspapers. The press (includes journalism) to DDC class of 073 Journalim of North America is again broad-to-narrow match.
Precombined subjects, such as those shown above from Dewey, may be expressed in UDC Summary as examples of combination within various records. To express an exact match UDC class 07 has to contain example of combination 07(7) Journals. The Press - North America. In some cases we have, therefore, added examples to UDC Summary that represent exact match to Dewey Summaries. It is unfortunate that DDC has so many classes on the top level that deal with a selection of countries or languages that are given a preferred status in the scheme, and repeating these preferences in examples of combinations of UDC emulates an unwelcome cultural bias which we have to balance out somehow. This brings us to another challenge.. UDC 913(7) Regional Geography - North America [contains 2 concepts each of which has its URI] is an exact match to Dewey 917 [represented as one concept, 1 URI]. It seems that, because they represent an exact match to Dewey numbers, these UDC examples of combinations may also need a separate URIs so that they can be published as SKOS data. Albeit challenging, mapping proves to be a very useful exercise and I am looking forward to future work here especially in relation to our plans to map UDC Summary to Colon Classification. We are discussing this project with colleagues from DRTC in Bangalore (India)."

0.033521377 = product of:
  0.06704275 = sum of:
    0.06704275 = product of:
      0.20112824 = sum of:
        0.20112824 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20112824 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4294415 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

0.033521377 = product of:
  0.06704275 = sum of:
    0.06704275 = product of:
      0.20112824 = sum of:
        0.20112824 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20112824 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4294415 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.031629387 = product of:
  0.063258775 = sum of:
    0.063258775 = product of:
      0.12651755 = sum of:
        0.12651755 = weight(_text_:class in 3869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12651755 = score(doc=3869,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.44173864 = fieldWeight in 3869, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The changes in KO systems induced by sociocultural influences may include those in both classificatory principles and cultural features. The proposed study will examine the Korean Decimal Classification (KDC)'s adaptation of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) by comparing the two systems. This case manifests the sociocultural influences on KOSs in a cross-cultural context. Therefore, the study aims at an in-depth investigation of sociocultural influences by situating a KOS in a cross-cultural environment and examining the dynamics between two classification systems designed to organize information resources in two distinct sociocultural contexts. As a preceding stage of the comparison, the analysis was conducted on the changes that result from the meeting of different sociocultural feature in a descriptive method. The analysis aims to identify variations between the two schemes in comparison of the knowledge structures of the two classifications, in terms of the quantity of class numbers that represent concepts and their relationships in each of the individual main classes. The most effective analytic strategy to show the patterns of the comparison was visualizations of similarities and differences between the two systems. Increasing or decreasing tendencies in the class through various editions were analyzed. Comparing the compositions of the main classes and distributions of concepts in the KDC and DDC discloses the differences in their knowledge structures empirically. This phase of quantitative analysis and visualizing techniques generates empirical evidence leading to interpretation.

0.031629387 = product of:
  0.063258775 = sum of:
    0.063258775 = product of:
      0.12651755 = sum of:
        0.12651755 = weight(_text_:class in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12651755 = score(doc=666,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.44173864 = fieldWeight in 666, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The success of the use of ontology-based systems depends on efficient and user-friendly methods of formulating queries against the ontology. We propose a method to query a class of ontologies, called facet ontologies ( fac-ontologies ), using a faceted human-oriented approach. A fac-ontology has two important features: (a) a hierarchical view of it can be defined as a nested facet over this ontology and the view can be used as a faceted interface to create queries and to explore the ontology; (b) the ontology can be converted into an ontological database , the ABox of which is stored in a database, and the faceted queries are evaluated against this database. We show that the proposed faceted interface makes it possible to formulate queries that are semantically equivalent to $${\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{Fac}$$ SROIQ Fac , a limited version of the $${\mathcal {SROIQ}}$$ SROIQ description logic. The TBox of a fac-ontology is divided into a set of rules defining intensional predicates and a set of constraint rules to be satisfied by the database. We identify a class of so-called reflexive weak cycles in a set of constraint rules and propose a method to deal with them in the chase procedure. The considerations are illustrated with solutions implemented in the DAFO system ( data access based on faceted queries over ontologies ).

0.031311493 = product of:
  0.06262299 = sum of:
    0.06262299 = product of:
      0.12524597 = sum of:
        0.12524597 = weight(_text_:class in 5896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12524597 = score(doc=5896,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.43729892 = fieldWeight in 5896, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5896)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper proposes the use of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) as a language for modelling ontologies for Web resources and the knowledge contained within them. To provide a mechanism for serialising and processing object diagrams representing knowledge, a pair of XSI-T stylesheets have been developed to map from XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) encodings of class diagrams to corresponding RDF schemas and to Java classes representing the concepts in the ontologies. The Java code includes methods for marshalling and unmarshalling object-oriented information between in-memory data structures and RDF serialisations of that information. This provides a convenient mechanism for Java applications to share knowledge on the Web

0.031311493 = product of:
  0.06262299 = sum of:
    0.06262299 = product of:
      0.12524597 = sum of:
        0.12524597 = weight(_text_:class in 1574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12524597 = score(doc=1574,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.43729892 = fieldWeight in 1574, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1574)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper describes an approach to SKOS vocabulary mapping that takes into account the context in which vocabulary terms are used in annotations. The standard vocabulary mapping properties in SKOS only allow for binary mappings between concepts. In the BestMap ontology, annotated resources are the contexts in which annotations coincide and allow for a more fine grained control over when mappings hold. A mapping between two vocabularies is defined as a class that groups descriptions of a resource. We use the OWL 2 features for property chains, disjoint properties, union, intersection and negation together with careful use of equivalence and subsumption to specify these mappings.

0.031311493 = product of:
  0.06262299 = sum of:
    0.06262299 = product of:
      0.12524597 = sum of:
        0.12524597 = weight(_text_:class in 3922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12524597 = score(doc=3922,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.43729892 = fieldWeight in 3922, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3922)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

WordHoard defines a multiword unit as a special type of collocate in which the component words comprise a meaningful phrase. For example, "Knight of the Round Table" is a meaningful multiword unit or phrase. WordHoard uses the notion of a pseudo-bigram to generalize the computation of bigram (two word) statistical measures to phrases (n-grams) longer than two words, and to allow comparisons of these measures for phrases with different word counts. WordHoard applies the localmaxs algorithm of Silva et al. to the pseudo-bigrams to identify potential compositional phrases that "stand out" in a text. WordHoard can also filter two and three word phrases using the word class filters suggested by Justeson and Katz.

0.031311493 = product of:
  0.06262299 = sum of:
    0.06262299 = product of:
      0.12524597 = sum of:
        0.12524597 = weight(_text_:class in 4842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12524597 = score(doc=4842,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.43729892 = fieldWeight in 4842, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4842)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A tolerance is a reflexive and symmetric, but not necessarily transitive, binary relation. Contrary what happens with equivalence relations, when dealing with tolerances one must distinguish between blocks (maximal subsets where the tolerance is a total relation) and classes (the class of an element is the set of those elements tolerable with it). Both blocks and classes of a tolerance on a set define coverings of this set, but not every covering of a set is defined in this way. The characterization of those coverings that are families of blocks of some tolerance has been known for more than a decade now. In this paper we give a characterization of those coverings of a finite set that are families of classes of some tolerance.

0.031311493 = product of:
  0.06262299 = sum of:
    0.06262299 = product of:
      0.12524597 = sum of:
        0.12524597 = weight(_text_:class in 1123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12524597 = score(doc=1123,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28640816 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.43729892 = fieldWeight in 1123, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1123)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

WordHoard defines a multiword unit as a special type of collocate in which the component words comprise a meaningful phrase. For example, "Knight of the Round Table" is a meaningful multiword unit or phrase. WordHoard uses the notion of a pseudo-bigram to generalize the computation of bigram (two word) statistical measures to phrases (n-grams) longer than two words, and to allow comparisons of these measures for phrases with different word counts. WordHoard applies the localmaxs algorithm of Silva et al. to the pseudo-bigrams to identify potential compositional phrases that "stand out" in a text. WordHoard can also filter two and three word phrases using the word class filters suggested by Justeson and Katz.

0.027451439 = product of:
  0.054902878 = sum of:
    0.054902878 = product of:
      0.109805755 = sum of:
        0.109805755 = weight(_text_:22 in 5449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109805755 = score(doc=5449,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17738017 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5449, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5449)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.1997 19:26:34

0.027451439 = product of:
  0.054902878 = sum of:
    0.054902878 = product of:
      0.109805755 = sum of:
        0.109805755 = weight(_text_:22 in 5837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109805755 = score(doc=5837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17738017 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5837, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30.11.1996 13:22:37

0.027451439 = product of:
  0.054902878 = sum of:
    0.054902878 = product of:
      0.109805755 = sum of:
        0.109805755 = weight(_text_:22 in 4085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109805755 = score(doc=4085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17738017 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4085, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4085)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7.11.1999 18:22:39

0.026855187 = product of:
  0.053710375 = sum of:
    0.053710375 = product of:
      0.10742075 = sum of:
        0.10742075 = weight(_text_:22 in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10742075 = score(doc=1936,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17738017 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05065357 = queryNorm
            0.6055961 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index, Edition 22 (DDC 22) will be issued simultaneously in print and web versions in July 2003. The new edition is the first full print update to the Dewey Decimal Classification system in seven years-it includes several significant updates and many new numbers and topics. DDC 22 also features some fundamental structural changes that have been introduced with the goals of promoting classifier efficiency and improving the DDC for use in a variety of applications in the web environment. Most importantly, the content of the new edition has been shaped by the needs and recommendations of Dewey users around the world. The worldwide user community has an important role in shaping the future of the DDC.

Object

DDC-22