Search (145 results, page 1 of 8)

0.09533234 = product of:
  0.1429985 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 1434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=1434,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 1434, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1434)
    0.07417951 = sum of:
      0.039990224 = weight(_text_:classification in 1434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039990224 = score(doc=1434,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = 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)
      0.034189284 = weight(_text_:22 in 1434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034189284 = score(doc=1434,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.09164122 = product of:
  0.13746183 = sum of:
    0.110110395 = weight(_text_:interest in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.110110395 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.43913615 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
    0.027351426 = product of:
      0.054702852 = sum of:
        0.054702852 = weight(_text_:22 in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054702852 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This chapter presents ontologies and their role in the creation of the Semantic Web. Ontologies hold special interest, because they are very closely related to the way we understand the world. They provide common understanding, the very first step to successful communication. In following sections, we will present ontologies, how they are created and used. We will describe available tools for specifying and working with ontologies.

Date

31. 7.2010 16:58:22

0.09153552 = product of:
  0.13730328 = sum of:
    0.11678971 = weight(_text_:interest in 1652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11678971 = score(doc=1652,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.46577424 = fieldWeight in 1652, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1652)
    0.02051357 = product of:
      0.04102714 = sum of:
        0.04102714 = weight(_text_:22 in 1652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04102714 = score(doc=1652,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1652, 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=1652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This document is the formal definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model ("CRM"), a formal ontology intended to facilitate the integration, mediation and interchange of heterogeneous cultural heritage information. The CRM is the culmination of more than a decade of standards development work by the International Committee for Documentation (CIDOC) of the International Council of Museums (ICOM). Work on the CRM itself began in 1996 under the auspices of the ICOM-CIDOC Documentation Standards Working Group. Since 2000, development of the CRM has been officially delegated by ICOM-CIDOC to the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group, which collaborates with the ISO working group ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 to bring the CRM to the form and status of an International Standard.

Date

6. 8.2010 14:22:28

Issue

Version 3.4.9 - 30.11.2003. Produced by the ICOM/CIDOC Documentation Standards Group, continued by the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group.

0.089170754 = product of:
  0.13375613 = sum of:
    0.11678971 = weight(_text_:interest in 2259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11678971 = score(doc=2259,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.46577424 = fieldWeight in 2259, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2259)
    0.016966416 = product of:
      0.03393283 = sum of:
        0.03393283 = weight(_text_:classification in 2259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03393283 = score(doc=2259,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2259, 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=2259)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

An ontology is "an explicit conceptualization of a domain of discourse, and thus provides a shared and common understanding of the domain." We have been producing ontologies for millennia to understand and explain our rationale and environment. From Plato's philosophical framework to modern day classification systems, ontologies are, in most cases, the product of extensive analysis and categorization. Only recently has the process of building ontologies become a research topic of interest. Today, ontologies are built very much ad-hoc. A terminology is first developed providing a controlled vocabulary for the subject area or domain of interest, then it is organized into a taxonomy where key concepts are identified, and finally these concepts are defined and related to create an ontology. The intent of this paper is to show that domain analysis methods can be used for building ontologies. Domain analysis aims at generic models that represent groups of similar systems within an application domain. In this sense, it deals with categorization of common objects and operations, with clear, unambiguous definitions of them and with defining their relationships.

0.06474975 = product of:
  0.09712462 = sum of:
    0.080158204 = product of:
      0.2404746 = sum of:
        0.2404746 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2404746 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.427877 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = 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)
    0.016966416 = product of:
      0.03393283 = sum of:
        0.03393283 = weight(_text_:classification in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03393283 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

0.064730905 = product of:
  0.097096354 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 3462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=3462,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 3462, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3462)
    0.028277358 = product of:
      0.056554716 = sum of:
        0.056554716 = weight(_text_:classification in 3462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056554716 = score(doc=3462,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 3462, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Discovering relationships among concepts and categories is crucial in various information systems. The authors' objective was to discover such relationships among document categories. Traditionally, such relationships are represented in the form of a concept hierarchy, grouping some categories under the same parent category. Although the nature of hierarchy supports the identification of categories that may share the same parent, not all of these categories have a relationship with each other - other than sharing the same parent. However, some non-sibling relationships exist that although are related to each other are not identified as such. The authors identify and build a relationship network (relationship-net) with categories as the vertices and relationships as the edges of this network. They demonstrate that using a relationship-net, some nonobvious category relationships are detected. Their approach capitalizes on the misclassification information generated during the process of text classification to identify potential relationships among categories and automatically generate relationship-nets. Their results demonstrate a statistically significant improvement over the current approach by up to 73% on 20 News groups 20NG, up to 68% on 17 categories in the Open Directories Project (ODP17), and more than twice on ODP46 and Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval (SIGIR) data sets. Their results also indicate that using misclassification information stemming from passage classification as opposed to document classification statistically significantly improves the results on 20NG (8%), ODP17 (5%), ODP46 (73%), and SIGIR (117%) with respect to F1 measure. By assigning weights to relationships and by performing feature selection, results are further optimized.

0.059209406 = product of:
  0.08881411 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 1074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=1074,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 1074, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1074)
    0.019995112 = product of:
      0.039990224 = sum of:
        0.039990224 = weight(_text_:classification in 1074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039990224 = score(doc=1074,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 1074, 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=1074)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In the last two decades of knowledge organization (KO) research, there has been an increasing interest in the context-dependent nature of human knowledge. Contextualism maintains that knowledge is not available in a neutral and objective way, but is always interwoven with the process of knowledge production and the prerequisites of the knower. As a first step towards a systematic organization of epistemic contexts, the concept of knowledge will be considered in its ontological (WHAT) and epistemological (WHO) including methodological (HOW) dimensions. In current KO research, however, either the contextualism is not fully implemented (classification-as-ontology) or the ambition for a context-transcending universal KOS seems to have been abandoned (classification-as-epistemology). Based on a combined ontology and epistemology it will be argued that a phenomena-based approach to KO as stipulated by the León Manifesto, for example, requires a revision of the underlying phenomenon concept as a relation between the known object (WHAT) and the knowing subject (WHO), which is constituted by the application of specific methods (HOW). While traditional subject indexing of documents often relies on the organizing principle "levels of being" (WHAT), for a future context indexing, two novel principles are proposed, namely "levels of knowing" (WHO) and "integral methodological pluralism" (HOW).

0.043543693 = product of:
  0.06531554 = sum of:
    0.0481733 = weight(_text_:interest in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0481733 = score(doc=1782,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.19212207 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
    0.017142238 = product of:
      0.034284476 = sum of:
        0.034284476 = weight(_text_:classification in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034284476 = score(doc=1782,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.21330604 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Logic and the Organization of Information closely examines the historical and contemporary methodologies used to catalogue information objects-books, ebooks, journals, articles, web pages, images, emails, podcasts and more-in the digital era. This book provides an in-depth technical background for digital librarianship, and covers a broad range of theoretical and practical topics including: classification theory, topic annotation, automatic clustering, generalized synonymy and concept indexing, distributed libraries, semantic web ontologies and Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS). It also analyzes the challenges facing today's information architects, and outlines a series of techniques for overcoming them. Logic and the Organization of Information is intended for practitioners and professionals working at a design level as a reference book for digital librarianship. Advanced-level students, researchers and academics studying information science, library science, digital libraries and computer science will also find this book invaluable.

Footnote

Rez. in: J. Doc. 70(2014) no.4: "Books on the organization of information and knowledge, aimed at a library/information audience, tend to fall into two clear categories. Most are practical and pragmatic, explaining the "how" as much or more than the "why". Some are theoretical, in part or in whole, showing how the practice of classification, indexing, resource description and the like relates to philosophy, logic, and other foundational bases; the books by Langridge (1992) and by Svenonious (2000) are well-known examples this latter kind. To this category certainly belongs a recent book by Martin Frické (2012). The author takes the reader for an extended tour through a variety of aspects of information organization, including classification and taxonomy, alphabetical vocabularies and indexing, cataloguing and FRBR, and aspects of the semantic web. The emphasis throughout is on showing how practice is, or should be, underpinned by formal structures; there is a particular emphasis on first order predicate calculus. The advantages of a greater, and more explicit, use of symbolic logic is a recurring theme of the book. There is a particularly commendable historical dimension, often omitted in texts on this subject. It cannot be said that this book is entirely an easy read, although it is well written with a helpful index, and its arguments are generally well supported by clear and relevant examples. It is thorough and detailed, but thereby seems better geared to the needs of advanced students and researchers than to the practitioners who are suggested as a main market. For graduate students in library/information science and related disciplines, in particular, this will be a valuable resource. I would place it alongside Svenonious' book as the best insight into the theoretical "why" of information organization. It has evoked a good deal of interest, including a set of essay commentaries in Journal of Information Science (Gilchrist et al., 2013). Introducing these, Alan Gilchrist rightly says that Frické deserves a salute for making explicit the fundamental relationship between the ancient discipline of logic and modern information organization. If information science is to continue to develop, and make a contribution to the organization of the information environments of the future, then this book sets the groundwork for the kind of studies which will be needed." (D. Bawden)

0.04144659 = product of:
  0.06216988 = sum of:
    0.0481733 = weight(_text_:interest in 517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0481733 = score(doc=517,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.19212207 = fieldWeight in 517, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=517)
    0.013996578 = product of:
      0.027993156 = sum of:
        0.027993156 = weight(_text_:classification in 517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027993156 = score(doc=517,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.17416364 = fieldWeight in 517, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=517)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

"Textual content-based search engines for the web have a number of limitations. Firstly, many web resources have little or no textual content (images, audio or video streams etc.) Secondly, precision is low where natural language terms have overloaded meaning (e.g. 'bank', 'watch', 'chip' etc.) Thirdly, recall is incomplete where the search does not take account of synonyms or quasi-synonyms. Fourthly, there is no basis for assisting a user in modifying (expanding, refining, translating) a search based on the meaning of the original search. Fifthly, there is no basis for searching across natural languages, or framing search queries in terms of symbolic languages. The Semantic Web is a framework for creating, managing, publishing and searching semantically rich metadata for web resources. Annotating web resources with precise and meaningful statements about conceptual aspects of their content provides a basis for overcoming all of the limitations of textual content-based search engines listed above. Creating this type of metadata requires that metadata generators are able to refer to shared repositories of meaning: 'vocabularies' of concepts that are common to a community, and describe the domain of interest for that community.
This type of effort is common in the digital library community, where a group of experts will interact with a user community to create a thesaurus for a specific domain (e.g. the Art & Architecture Thesaurus AAT AAT) or an overarching classification scheme (e.g. the Dewey Decimal Classification). A similar type of activity is being undertaken more recently in a less centralised manner by web communities, producing for example the DMOZ web directory DMOZ, or the Topic Exchange for weblog topics Topic Exchange. The web, including the semantic web, provides a medium within which communities can interact and collaboratively build and use vocabularies of concepts. A simple language is required that allows these communities to express the structure and content of their vocabularies in a machine-understandable way, enabling exchange and reuse. The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is an ideal language for making statements about web resources and publishing metadata. However, RDF provides only the low level semantics required to form metadata statements. RDF vocabularies must be built on top of RDF to support the expression of more specific types of information within metadata. Ontology languages such as OWL OWL add a layer of expressive power to RDF, and provide powerful tools for defining complex conceptual structures, which can be used to generate rich metadata. However, the class-oriented, logically precise modelling required to construct useful web ontologies is demanding in terms of expertise, effort, and therefore cost. In many cases this type of modelling may be superfluous or unsuited to requirements. Therefore there is a need for a language for expressing vocabularies of concepts for use in semantically rich metadata, that is powerful enough to support semantically enhanced search, but simple enough to be undemanding in terms of the cost and expertise required to use it."

0.036703467 = product of:
  0.110110395 = sum of:
    0.110110395 = weight(_text_:interest in 3063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.110110395 = score(doc=3063,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.43913615 = fieldWeight in 3063, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3063)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Resource Description Framework (RDF) integrates a variety of applications from library catalogs and world-wide directories to syndication and aggregation of news, software, and content to personal collections of music, photos, and events using XML as an interchange syntax. The RDF specifications provide a lightweight ontology system to support the exchange of knowledge on the Web. The W3C Semantic Web Activity Statement explains W3C's plans for RDF, including the RDF Core WG, Web Ontology and the RDF Interest Group.

0.032115534 = product of:
  0.0963466 = sum of:
    0.0963466 = weight(_text_:interest in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0963466 = score(doc=2262,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.38424414 = fieldWeight in 2262, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2262)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Over the past few years, we have seen a growing interest in the potential of both peer-to-peer (P2P) computing and the use of more formal approaches to knowledge management, involving the development of ontologies. This penultimate chapter discusses possibilities that both approaches may offer for more effective and efficient knowledge management. In particular, we investigate how the two paradigms may be combined. In this chapter, we describe our vision in terms of a set of future steps that need to be taken to bring the results described in earlier chapters to their full potential.

0.029671803 = product of:
  0.08901541 = sum of:
    0.08901541 = sum of:
      0.04798827 = weight(_text_:classification in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04798827 = score(doc=2655,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = 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)
      0.04102714 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04102714 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.0291511 = product of:
  0.0874533 = sum of:
    0.0874533 = sum of:
      0.039588302 = weight(_text_:classification in 1437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039588302 = score(doc=1437,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = 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)
      0.047864996 = weight(_text_:22 in 1437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047864996 = score(doc=1437,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.027527599 = product of:
  0.082582794 = sum of:
    0.082582794 = weight(_text_:interest in 6014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.082582794 = score(doc=6014,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.3293521 = fieldWeight in 6014, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6014)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ontologies are nowadays used for many applications requiring data, services and resources in general to be interoperable and machine understandable. Such applications are for example web service discovery and composition, information integration across databases, intelligent search, etc. The general idea is that data and services are semantically described with respect to ontologies, which are formal specifications of a domain of interest, and can thus be shared and reused in a way such that the shared meaning specified by the ontology remains formally the same across different parties and applications. As the cost of creating ontologies is relatively high, different proposals have emerged for learning ontologies from structured and unstructured resources. In this article we examine the maturity of techniques for ontology learning from textual resources, addressing the question whether the state-of-the-art is mature enough to produce ontologies 'on demand'.

0.025953269 = product of:
  0.077859804 = sum of:
    0.077859804 = weight(_text_:interest in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077859804 = score(doc=2799,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.31051615 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Grounded on a strong belief that ontologies enhance the performance of information retrieval systems, there has been an upsurge of interest in ontologies. Its importance is identified in diverse research fields such as knowledge engineering, knowledge representation, qualitative modeling, language engineering, database design, information integration, object-oriented analysis, information retrieval and extraction, knowledge management and agent-based systems design (Guarino, 1998). While the role-played by ontologies, automatically lends a place of legitimacy for these tools, research in this area gains greater significance in the wake of various challenges faced in the contemporary digital environment. With the objective of overcoming various pitfalls associated with current search mechanisms, ontologies are increasingly used for developing efficient information retrieval systems. An indicator of research interest in the area of ontology is the Swoogle, a search engine for Semantic Web documents, terms and data found on the Web (Ding, Li et al, 2004). Given the complex nature of the digital content archived in digital libraries, ontologies can be employed for designing efficient forms of information retrieval in digital libraries. Knowledge representation assumes greater significance due to its crucial role in ontology development. These systems aid in developing intelligent information systems, wherein the notion of intelligence implies the ability of the system to find implicit consequences of its explicitly represented knowledge (Baader and Nutt, 2003). Knowledge representation formalisms such as 'Description Logics' are used to obtain explicit knowledge representation of the subject domain. These representations are developed into ontologies, which are used for developing intelligent information systems. Against this backdrop, the paper examines the use of Description Logics for conceptually modeling a chosen domain, which would be utilized for developing domain ontologies. The knowledge representation languages identified for this purpose are Web Ontology Language (OWL) and KArlsruhe ONtology (KAON) language. Drawing upon the various technical constructs in developing ontology-based information systems, the paper explains the working of the prototypes and also presents a comparative study of the two prototypes.

0.023557646 = product of:
  0.07067294 = sum of:
    0.07067294 = sum of:
      0.03199218 = weight(_text_:classification in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03199218 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = 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)
      0.03868076 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03868076 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.022939665 = product of:
  0.068818994 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 3406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=3406,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 3406, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3406)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The management of knowledge is considered to be one of the most important factors in economic growth today. However, the question of how to deal with knowledge in the most efficient way is still far from answered. We observe two fundamentally different approaches to the question of how we should deal with knowledge. One view sees knowledge as a kind of static object that can be gathered, compiled and distributed; the other view regards knowledge as a dynamic process. This disaccord finds a parallel in an objective-subjective distinction where the first position sees knowledge as independent of personal opinion whereas the second position regards it as interpretative. These discussions are not merely academic but crucially influence the way that knowledge management (KM) is realized, i.e. whether the focus is placed on knowledge artefacts such as documents or on subjective acts. The particular interest of the current essay concerns the question of how KM can be supported by information technology (IT) and which are the fundamental structures that must be regarded. Traditionally, IT-based approaches favour an object-oriented view of knowledge since knowledge artefacts are the objects that can be best processed by IT systems. This even leads to the view that knowledge artefacts represent the only form of knowledge. On the philosophical side this perspective is fostered by analytical investigations that emphasize the primacy of propositional knowledge that is closely related to knowledge artefacts.

0.022939665 = product of:
  0.068818994 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 3409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=3409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 3409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3409)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Many top-level ontologies like Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) have been developed as a framework for ontologies in the natural sciences. The aim of the present essay is to extend the account of BFO to a very special layer of reality, the world of social entities. While natural entities like bacteria, thunderstorms or temperatures exist independently from human action and thought, social entities like countries, hospitals or money come into being only through human collective intentions and collective actions. Recently, the regional ontology of the social world has attracted considerable research interest in philosophy - witness, e.g., the pioneering work by Gilbert, Tuomela and Searle. There is a considerable class of phenomena that require the participation of more than one human agent: nobody can tango alone, play tennis against oneself, or set up a parliamentary democracy for oneself. Through cooperation and coordination of their wills and actions, agents can act together - they can perform social actions and group actions. An important kind of social action is the establishment of an institution (e.g. a hospital, a research agency or a marriage) through mutual promise or (social) contract. Another important kind of social action is the imposition of a social status on certain entities. For example, a society can impose the status of being a 20 Euro note on certain pieces of paper or the status of being an approved medication to a certain chemical substance.

0.022939665 = product of:
  0.068818994 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 3936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=3936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 3936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3936)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Linked Data provides access to huge, continuously growing amounts of open data and ontologies in RDF format that describe entities, links and properties on those entities. Equipping Linked Data with inference paves the way to make the Semantic Web a reality. In this survey, we describe a unifying framework for RDF ontologies and databases that we call deductive RDF triplestores. It consists in equipping RDF triplestores with Datalog inference rules. This rule language allows to capture in a uniform manner OWL constraints that are useful in practice, such as property transitivity or symmetry, but also domain-specific rules with practical relevance for users in many domains of interest. The expressivity and the genericity of this framework is illustrated for modeling Linked Data applications and for developing inference algorithms. In particular, we show how it allows to model the problem of data linkage in Linked Data as a reasoning problem on possibly decentralized data. We also explain how it makes possible to efficiently extract expressive modules from Semantic Web ontologies and databases with formal guarantees, whilst effectively controlling their succinctness. Experiments conducted on real-world datasets have demonstrated the feasibility of this approach and its usefulness in practice for data integration and information extraction.

0.018351734 = product of:
  0.055055197 = sum of:
    0.055055197 = weight(_text_:interest in 4728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055055197 = score(doc=4728,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.21956807 = fieldWeight in 4728, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4728)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The amount and complexity of information available in a digital form is already huge and new information is being produced every day. Retrieving information relevant to address a particular need becomes a significant issue. This work utilizes knowledge organization systems (KOS), such as thesauri and ontologies and applies information extraction (IE) and computational linguistics (CL) techniques to organize, manage and retrieve information stored in digital collections in the agricultural domain. Two real world applications of the approach have been developed and are available and actively used by the public. An ontology is used to manage the Water Conservation Digital Library holding a dynamic collection of various types of digital resources in the domain of urban water conservation in Florida, USA. The ontology based back-end powers a fully operational web interface, available at http://library.conservefloridawater.org. The system has demonstrated numerous benefits of the ontology application, including accurate retrieval of resources, information sharing and reuse, and has proved to effectively facilitate information management. The major difficulty encountered with the approach is that large and dynamic number of concepts makes it difficult to keep the ontology consistent and to accurately catalog resources manually. To address the aforementioned issues, a combination of IE and CL techniques, such as Vector Space Model and probabilistic parsing, with the use of Agricultural Thesaurus were adapted to automatically extract concepts important for each of the texts in the Best Management Practices (BMP) Publication Library--a collection of documents in the domain of agricultural BMPs in Florida available at http://lyra.ifas.ufl.edu/LIB. A new approach of domain-specific concept discovery with the use of Internet search engine was developed. Initial evaluation of the results indicates significant improvement in precision of information extraction. The approach presented in this work focuses on problems unique to agriculture and natural resources domain, such as domain specific concepts and vocabularies, but should be applicable to any collection of texts in digital format. It may be of potential interest for anyone who needs to effectively manage a collection of digital resources.