Search (65 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  1. Gams, E.; Mitterdorfer, D.: Semantische Content Management Systeme (2009) 0.05 
    0.04880413 = product of:
  0.09760826 = sum of:
    0.09760826 = product of:
      0.19521652 = sum of:
        0.19521652 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19521652 = score(doc=4865,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.66592443 = fieldWeight in 4865, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Content Management Systeme (CMS) sind in vielen Organisationen bereits seit längerer Zeit fester Bestandteil zur Verwaltung und kollaborativen Bearbeitung von Text- und Multimedia-Inhalten. Im Zuge der rasch ansteigenden Fülle an Informationen und somit auch Wissen wird die Überschaubarkeit der Datenbestände jedoch massiv eingeschränkt. Diese und zusätzliche Anforderungen, wie automatisch Datenquellen aus dem World Wide Web (WWW) zu extrahieren, lassen traditionelle CMS immer mehr an ihre Grenzen stoßen. Dieser Beitrag diskutiert die neuen Herausforderungen an traditionelle CMS und bietet Lösungsvorschläge, wie CMS kombiniert mit semantischen Technologien diesen Herausforderungen begegnen können. Die Autoren stellen eine generische Systemarchitektur für Content Management Systeme vor, die einerseits Inhalte für das Semantic Web generieren, andererseits Content aus dem Web 2.0 syndizieren können und bei der Aufbereitung des Content den User mittels semantischer Technologien wie Reasoning oder Informationsextraktion unterstützen. Dabei wird auf Erfahrungen bei der prototypischen Implementierung von semantischer Technologie in ein bestehendes CMS System zurückgegriffen.
    Object
    Web 2.0
    Source
    Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini
  2. Weller, K.: Anforderungen an die Wissensrepräsentation im Social Semantic Web (2010) 0.05 
    0.046489805 = product of:
  0.09297961 = sum of:
    0.09297961 = product of:
      0.18595922 = sum of:
        0.18595922 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18595922 = score(doc=4061,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.6343458 = fieldWeight in 4061, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4061)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Dieser Artikel gibt einen Einblick in die aktuelle Verschmelzung von Web 2.0-und Semantic Web-Ansätzen, die als Social Semantic Web beschrieben werden kann. Die Grundidee des Social Semantic Web wird beschrieben und einzelne erste Anwendungsbeispiele vorgestellt. Ein wesentlicher Schwerpunkt dieser Entwicklung besteht in der Umsetzung neuer Methoden und Herangehensweisen im Bereich der Wissensrepräsentation. Dieser Artikel stellt vier Schwerpunkte vor, in denen sich die Wissensrepräsentationsmethoden im Social Semantic Web weiterentwickeln müssen und geht dabei jeweils auf den aktuellen Stand ein.
    Object
    Web 2.0
  3. Weller, K.: Knowledge representation in the Social Semantic Web (2010) 0.04 
    0.04026135 = product of:
  0.0805227 = sum of:
    0.0805227 = product of:
      0.1610454 = sum of:
        0.1610454 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1610454 = score(doc=4515,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.54935956 = fieldWeight in 4515, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4515)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The main purpose of this book is to sum up the vital and highly topical research issue of knowledge representation on the Web and to discuss novel solutions by combining benefits of folksonomies and Web 2.0 approaches with ontologies and semantic technologies. This book contains an overview of knowledge representation approaches in past, present and future, introduction to ontologies, Web indexing and in first case the novel approaches of developing ontologies. This title combines aspects of knowledge representation for both the Semantic Web (ontologies) and the Web 2.0 (folksonomies). Currently there is no monographic book which provides a combined overview over these topics. focus on the topic of using knowledge representation methods for document indexing purposes. For this purpose, considerations from classical librarian interests in knowledge representation (thesauri, classification schemes etc.) are included, which are not part of most other books which have a stronger background in computer science.
    Footnote
    Rez. in: iwp 62(2011) H.4, S.205-206 (C. Carstens): "Welche Arten der Wissensrepräsentation existieren im Web, wie ausgeprägt sind semantische Strukturen in diesem Kontext, und wie können soziale Aktivitäten im Sinne des Web 2.0 zur Strukturierung von Wissen im Web beitragen? Diesen Fragen widmet sich Wellers Buch mit dem Titel Knowledge Representation in the Social Semantic Web. Der Begriff Social Semantic Web spielt einerseits auf die semantische Strukturierung von Daten im Sinne des Semantic Web an und deutet andererseits auf die zunehmend kollaborative Inhaltserstellung im Social Web hin. Weller greift die Entwicklungen in diesen beiden Bereichen auf und beleuchtet die Möglichkeiten und Herausforderungen, die aus der Kombination der Aktivitäten im Semantic Web und im Social Web entstehen. Der Fokus des Buches liegt dabei primär auf den konzeptuellen Herausforderungen, die sich in diesem Kontext ergeben. So strebt die originäre Vision des Semantic Web die Annotation aller Webinhalte mit ausdrucksstarken, hochformalisierten Ontologien an. Im Social Web hingegen werden große Mengen an Daten von Nutzern erstellt, die häufig mithilfe von unkontrollierten Tags in Folksonomies annotiert werden. Weller sieht in derartigen kollaborativ erstellten Inhalten und Annotationen großes Potenzial für die semantische Indexierung, eine wichtige Voraussetzung für das Retrieval im Web. Das Hauptinteresse des Buches besteht daher darin, eine Brücke zwischen den Wissensrepräsentations-Methoden im Social Web und im Semantic Web zu schlagen. Um dieser Fragestellung nachzugehen, gliedert sich das Buch in drei Teile. . . .
    Object
    Web 2.0
    RSWK
    World Wide Web 2.0
    Subject
    World Wide Web 2.0
  4. Zeng, Q.; Yu, M.; Yu, W.; Xiong, J.; Shi, Y.; Jiang, M.: Faceted hierarchy : a new graph type to organize scientific concepts and a construction method (2019) 0.04 
    0.040139932 = product of:
  0.080279864 = sum of:
    0.080279864 = product of:
      0.24083959 = sum of:
        0.24083959 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24083959 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42852643 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.
  5. Derntl, M.; Hampel, T.; Motschnig, R.; Pitner, T.: Social Tagging und Inclusive Universal Access (2008) 0.04 
    0.039848406 = product of:
  0.07969681 = sum of:
    0.07969681 = product of:
      0.15939362 = sum of:
        0.15939362 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15939362 = score(doc=2864,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.543725 = fieldWeight in 2864, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2864)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Der vorliegende Artikel beleuchtet und bewertet Social Tagging als aktuelles Phänomen des Web 2.0 im Kontext bekannter Techniken der semantischen Datenorganisation. Tagging wird in einen Raum verwandter Ordnungs- und Strukturierungsansätze eingeordnet, um die fundamentalen Grundlagen des Social Tagging zu identifizieren und zuzuweisen. Dabei wird Tagging anhand des Inclusive Universal Access Paradigmas bewertet, das technische als auch menschlich-soziale Kriterien für die inklusive und barrierefreie Bereitstellung und Nutzung von Diensten definiert. Anhand dieser Bewertung werden fundamentale Prinzipien des "Inclusive Social Tagging" hergeleitet, die der Charakterisierung und Bewertung gängiger Tagging-Funktionalitäten in verbreiteten Web-2.0-Diensten dienen. Aus der Bewertung werden insbesondere Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten von Social Tagging und unterstützenden Diensten erkennbar.
  6. Hausenblas, M.: Anreicherung von Webinhalten mit Semantik : Microformats und RDFa (2009) 0.04 
    0.037569433 = product of:
  0.07513887 = sum of:
    0.07513887 = product of:
      0.15027773 = sum of:
        0.15027773 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15027773 = score(doc=4862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.5126288 = fieldWeight in 4862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini
  7. ¬The Semantic Web - ISWC 2010 : 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, Shanghai, China, November 7-11, 2010, Revised Selected Papers, Part 2. (2010) 0.03 
    0.033207003 = product of:
  0.066414006 = sum of:
    0.066414006 = product of:
      0.13282801 = sum of:
        0.13282801 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13282801 = score(doc=4706,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.45310414 = fieldWeight in 4706, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4706)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    RSWK
    Semantic Web / World Wide Web 2.0 / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Subject
    Semantic Web / World Wide Web 2.0 / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
  8. Kruk, S.R.; McDaniel, B.: Conclusions: The future of semantic digital libraries (2009) 0.03 
    0.032873254 = product of:
  0.06574651 = sum of:
    0.06574651 = product of:
      0.13149302 = sum of:
        0.13149302 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13149302 = score(doc=3372,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.4485502 = fieldWeight in 3372, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3372)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Through out this book we showed that Semantic Digital Libraries are no longer an abstract concept; we have presented both underlying technologies, examples of semantic digital libraries, and their applications. However, the bright future of this technology only begins, and we expect more and more genuine applications of semantic digital libraries to emerge. In this section we will spotlight on three of, in our opinion, the most promising of applications: semantic museums, eLearning 2.0, and semantic digital libraries in enterprises.
  9. Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval (2008) 0.03 
    0.028177075 = product of:
  0.05635415 = sum of:
    0.05635415 = product of:
      0.1127083 = sum of:
        0.1127083 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1127083 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.3844716 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Die populären Web 2.0-Dienste werden von Prosumern - Produzenten und gleichsam Konsumenten - nicht nur dazu genutzt, Inhalte zu produzieren, sondern auch, um sie inhaltlich zu erschließen. Folksonomies erlauben es dem Nutzer, Dokumente mit eigenen Schlagworten, sog. Tags, zu beschreiben, ohne dabei auf gewisse Regeln oder Vorgaben achten zu müssen. Neben einigen Vorteilen zeigen Folksonomies aber auch zahlreiche Schwächen (u. a. einen Mangel an Präzision). Um diesen Nachteilen größtenteils entgegenzuwirken, schlagen wir eine Interpretation der Tags als natürlichsprachige Wörter vor. Dadurch ist es uns möglich, Methoden des Natural Language Processing (NLP) auf die Tags anzuwenden und so linguistische Probleme der Tags zu beseitigen. Darüber hinaus diskutieren wir Ansätze und weitere Vorschläge (Tagverteilungen, Kollaboration und akteurspezifische Aspekte) hinsichtlich eines Relevance Rankings von getaggten Dokumenten. Neben Vorschlägen auf ähnliche Dokumente ("more like this!") erlauben Folksonomies auch Hinweise auf verwandte Nutzer und damit auf Communities ("more like me!").
  10. Stojanovic, N.: Ontology-based Information Retrieval : methods and tools for cooperative query answering (2005) 0.03 
    0.026759956 = product of:
  0.053519912 = sum of:
    0.053519912 = product of:
      0.16055973 = sum of:
        0.16055973 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16055973 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42852643 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = 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.
  11. Xiong, C.: Knowledge based text representations for information retrieval (2016) 0.03 
    0.026759956 = product of:
  0.053519912 = sum of:
    0.053519912 = product of:
      0.16055973 = sum of:
        0.16055973 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16055973 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42852643 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = 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.
  12. ¬The Semantic Web - ISWC 2010 : 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, Shanghai, China, November 7-11, 2010, Revised Selected Papers, Part I. (2010) 0.03 
    0.026565602 = product of:
  0.053131204 = sum of:
    0.053131204 = product of:
      0.10626241 = sum of:
        0.10626241 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10626241 = score(doc=4707,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.36248332 = fieldWeight in 4707, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4707)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    RSWK
    Semantic Web / World Wide Web 2.0 / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
    Subject
    Semantic Web / World Wide Web 2.0 / Kongress / Schanghai <2010>
  13. Lange, C.: Ontologies and languages for representing mathematical knowledge on the Semantic Web (2011) 0.02 
    0.018784717 = product of:
  0.037569433 = sum of:
    0.037569433 = product of:
      0.07513887 = sum of:
        0.07513887 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07513887 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.2563144 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Mathematics is a ubiquitous foundation of science, technology, and engineering. Specific areas, such as numeric and symbolic computation or logics, enjoy considerable software support. Working mathematicians have recently started to adopt Web 2.0 environment, such as blogs and wikis, but these systems lack machine support for knowledge organization and reuse, and they are disconnected from tools such as computer algebra systems or interactive proof assistants.We argue that such scenarios will benefit from Semantic Web technology. Conversely, mathematics is still underrepresented on the Web of [Linked] Data. There are mathematics-related Linked Data, for example statistical government data or scientific publication databases, but their mathematical semantics has not yet been modeled. We argue that the services for the Web of Data will benefit from a deeper representation of mathematical knowledge. Mathematical knowledge comprises logical and functional structures - formulæ, statements, and theories -, a mixture of rigorous natural language and symbolic notation in documents, application-specific metadata, and discussions about conceptualizations, formalizations, proofs, and (counter-)examples. Our review of approaches to representing these structures covers ontologies for mathematical problems, proofs, interlinked scientific publications, scientific discourse, as well as mathematical metadata vocabularies and domain knowledge from pure and applied mathematics. Many fields of mathematics have not yet been implemented as proper Semantic Web ontologies; however, we show that MathML and OpenMath, the standard XML-based exchange languages for mathematical knowledge, can be fully integrated with RDF representations in order to contribute existing mathematical knowledge to theWeb of Data. We conclude with a roadmap for getting the mathematical Web of Data started: what datasets to publish, how to interlink them, and how to take advantage of these new connections.
  14. Schmitz-Esser, W.: Language of general communication and concept compatibility (1996) 0.02 
    0.017120589 = product of:
  0.034241177 = sum of:
    0.034241177 = product of:
      0.068482354 = sum of:
        0.068482354 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068482354 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = 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
  15. Drewer, P.; Massion, F; Pulitano, D: Was haben Wissensmodellierung, Wissensstrukturierung, künstliche Intelligenz und Terminologie miteinander zu tun? (2017) 0.02 
    0.017120589 = product of:
  0.034241177 = sum of:
    0.034241177 = product of:
      0.068482354 = sum of:
        0.068482354 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068482354 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = 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
  16. Tudhope, D.; Hodge, G.: Terminology registries (2007) 0.02 
    0.017120589 = product of:
  0.034241177 = sum of:
    0.034241177 = product of:
      0.068482354 = sum of:
        0.068482354 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068482354 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, 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=539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:22:07
  17. Haller, S.H.M.: Mappingverfahren zur Wissensorganisation (2002) 0.02 
    0.017120589 = product of:
  0.034241177 = sum of:
    0.034241177 = product of:
      0.068482354 = sum of:
        0.068482354 = weight(_text_:22 in 3406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068482354 = score(doc=3406,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3406, 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=3406)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    30. 5.2010 16:22:35
  18. Nielsen, M.: Neuronale Netze : Alpha Go - Computer lernen Intuition (2018) 0.02 
    0.017120589 = product of:
  0.034241177 = sum of:
    0.034241177 = product of:
      0.068482354 = sum of:
        0.068482354 = weight(_text_:22 in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068482354 = score(doc=4523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4523, 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=4523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2018, H.1, S.22-27
  19. Fischer, D.H.: Converting a thesaurus to OWL : Notes on the paper "The National Cancer Institute's Thesaurus and Ontology" (2004) 0.02 
    0.016436627 = product of:
  0.032873254 = sum of:
    0.032873254 = product of:
      0.06574651 = sum of:
        0.06574651 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06574651 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.2242751 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The paper analysed here is a kind of position paper. In order to get a better under-standing of the reported work I used the retrieval interface of the thesaurus, the so-called NCI DTS Browser accessible via the Web3, and I perused the cited OWL file4 with numerous "Find" and "Find next" string searches. In addition the file was im-ported into Protégé 2000, Release 2.0, with OWL Plugin 1.0 and Racer Plugin 1.7.14. At the end of the paper's introduction the authors say: "In the following sections, this paper will describe the terminology development process at NCI, and the issues associated with converting a description logic based nomenclature to a semantically rich OWL ontology." While I will not deal with the first part, i.e. the terminology development process at NCI, I do not see the thesaurus as a description logic based nomenclature, or its cur-rent state and conversion already result in a "rich" OWL ontology. What does "rich" mean here? According to my view there is a great quantity of concepts and links but a very poor description logic structure which enables inferences. And what does the fol-lowing really mean, which is said a few lines previously: "Although editors have defined a number of named ontologic relations to support the description-logic based structure of the Thesaurus, additional relation-ships are considered for inclusion as required to support dependent applications."
  20. Börner, K.: Atlas of knowledge : anyone can map (2015) 0.01 
    0.014527302 = product of:
  0.029054604 = sum of:
    0.029054604 = product of:
      0.05810921 = sum of:
        0.05810921 = weight(_text_:22 in 3355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05810921 = score(doc=3355,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 3355, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3355)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2017 16:54:03
    22. 1.2017 17:10:56

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 49
  • d 16

Types

  • a 47
  • el 15
  • m 5
  • x 5
  • s 2
  • n 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications