Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Semantische Interoperabilität"
  • × theme_ss:"Semantic Web"
  1. Binding, C.; Gnoli, C.; Tudhope, D.: Migrating a complex classification scheme to the semantic web : expressing the Integrative Levels Classification using SKOS RDF (2021) 0.03
    0.026474785 = product of:
      0.123549 = sum of:
        0.041207436 = weight(_text_:classification in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041207436 = score(doc=600,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
        0.04113413 = product of:
          0.08226826 = sum of:
            0.08226826 = weight(_text_:schemes in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08226826 = score(doc=600,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.51202476 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.041207436 = weight(_text_:classification in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041207436 = score(doc=600,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose The Integrative Levels Classification (ILC) is a comprehensive "freely faceted" knowledge organization system not previously expressed as SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System). This paper reports and reflects on work converting the ILC to SKOS representation. Design/methodology/approach The design of the ILC representation and the various steps in the conversion to SKOS are described and located within the context of previous work considering the representation of complex classification schemes in SKOS. Various issues and trade-offs emerging from the conversion are discussed. The conversion implementation employed the STELETO transformation tool. Findings The ILC conversion captures some of the ILC facet structure by a limited extension beyond the SKOS standard. SPARQL examples illustrate how this extension could be used to create faceted, compound descriptors when indexing or cataloguing. Basic query patterns are provided that might underpin search systems. Possible routes for reducing complexity are discussed. Originality/value Complex classification schemes, such as the ILC, have features which are not straight forward to represent in SKOS and which extend beyond the functionality of the SKOS standard. The ILC's facet indicators are modelled as rdf:Property sub-hierarchies that accompany the SKOS RDF statements. The ILC's top-level fundamental facet relationships are modelled by extensions of the associative relationship - specialised sub-properties of skos:related. An approach for representing faceted compound descriptions in ILC and other faceted classification schemes is proposed.
  2. Svensson, L.G.: Unified access : a semantic Web based model for multilingual navigation in heterogeneous data sources (2008) 0.02
    0.02314746 = product of:
      0.10802148 = sum of:
        0.05092278 = weight(_text_:subject in 2191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05092278 = score(doc=2191,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 2191, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2191)
        0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 2191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028549349 = score(doc=2191,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 2191, 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=2191)
        0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 2191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028549349 = score(doc=2191,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 2191, 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=2191)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Most online library catalogues are not well equipped for subject search. On the one hand it is difficult to navigate the structures of the thesauri and classification systems used for indexing. Further, there is little or no support for the integration of crosswalks between different controlled vocabularies, so that a subject search query formulated using one controlled vocabulary will not find resources indexed with another knowledge organisation system even if there exists a crosswalk between them. In this paper we will look at SemanticWeb technologies and a prototype system leveraging those technologies in order to enhance the subject search possibilities in heterogeneously indexed repositories. Finally, we will have a brief look at different initiatives aimed at integrating library data into the SemanticWeb.
    Source
    New pespectives on subject indexing and classification: essays in honour of Magda Heiner-Freiling. Red.: K. Knull-Schlomann, u.a
  3. Panzer, M.: Relationships, spaces, and the two faces of Dewey (2008) 0.02
    0.019244244 = product of:
      0.06735485 = sum of:
        0.012730695 = weight(_text_:subject in 2127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012730695 = score(doc=2127,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.11854853 = fieldWeight in 2127, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2127)
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 2127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=2127,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2127, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2127)
        0.01424928 = product of:
          0.02849856 = sum of:
            0.02849856 = weight(_text_:schemes in 2127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02849856 = score(doc=2127,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.17737058 = fieldWeight in 2127, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2127)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 2127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=2127,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2127, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2127)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Content
    "When dealing with a large-scale and widely-used knowledge organization system like the Dewey Decimal Classification, we often tend to focus solely on the organization aspect, which is closely intertwined with editorial work. This is perfectly understandable, since developing and updating the DDC, keeping up with current scientific developments, spotting new trends in both scholarly communication and popular publishing, and figuring out how to fit those patterns into the structure of the scheme are as intriguing as they are challenging. From the organization perspective, the intended user of the scheme is mainly the classifier. Dewey acts very much as a number-building engine, providing richly documented concepts to help with classification decisions. Since the Middle Ages, quasi-religious battles have been fought over the "valid" arrangement of places according to specific views of the world, as parodied by Jorge Luis Borges and others. Organizing knowledge has always been primarily an ontological activity; it is about putting the world into the classification. However, there is another side to this coin--the discovery side. While the hierarchical organization of the DDC establishes a default set of places and neighborhoods that is also visible in the physical manifestation of library shelves, this is just one set of relationships in the DDC. A KOS (Knowledge Organization System) becomes powerful by expressing those other relationships in a manner that not only collocates items in a physical place but in a knowledge space, and exposes those other relationships in ways beneficial and congenial to the unique perspective of an information seeker.
    What are those "other" relationships that Dewey possesses and that seem so important to surface? Firstly, there is the relationship of concepts to resources. Dewey has been used for a long time, and over 200,000 numbers are assigned to information resources each year and added to WorldCat by the Library of Congress and the German National Library alone. Secondly, we have relationships between concepts in the scheme itself. Dewey provides a rich set of non-hierarchical relations, indicating other relevant and related subjects across disciplinary boundaries. Thirdly, perhaps most importantly, there is the relationship between the same concepts across different languages. Dewey has been translated extensively, and current versions are available in French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Briefer representations of the top-three levels (the DDC Summaries) are available in several languages in the DeweyBrowser. This multilingual nature of the scheme allows searchers to access a broader range of resources or to switch the language of--and thus localize--subject metadata seamlessly. MelvilClass, a Dewey front-end developed by the German National Library for the German translation, could be used as a common interface to the DDC in any language, as it is built upon the standard DDC data format. It is not hard to give an example of the basic terminology of a class pulled together in a multilingual way: <class/794.8> a skos:Concept ; skos:notation "794.8"^^ddc:notation ; skos:prefLabel "Computer games"@en ; skos:prefLabel "Computerspiele"@de ; skos:prefLabel "Jeux sur ordinateur"@fr ; skos:prefLabel "Juegos por computador"@es .
    Expressed in such manner, the Dewey number provides a language-independent representation of a Dewey concept, accompanied by language-dependent assertions about the concept. This information, identified by a URI, can be easily consumed by semantic web agents and used in various metadata scenarios. Fourthly, as we have seen, it is important to play well with others, i.e., establishing and maintaining relationships to other KOS and making the scheme available in different formats. As noted in the Dewey blog post "Tags and Dewey," since no single scheme is ever going to be the be-all, end-all solution for knowledge discovery, DDC concepts have been extensively mapped to other vocabularies and taxonomies, sometimes bridging them and acting as a backbone, sometimes using them as additional access vocabulary to be able to do more work "behind the scenes." To enable other applications and schemes to make use of those relationships, the full Dewey database is available in XML format; RDF-based formats and a web service are forthcoming. Pulling those relationships together under a common surface will be the next challenge going forward. In the semantic web community the concept of Linked Data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_Data) currently receives some attention, with its emphasis on exposing and connecting data using technologies like URIs, HTTP and RDF to improve information discovery on the web. With its focus on relationships and discovery, it seems that Dewey will be well prepared to become part of this big linked data set. Now it is about putting the classification back into the world!"
  4. Isaac, A.: Aligning thesauri for an integrated access to Cultural Heritage Resources (2007) 0.02
    0.015722472 = product of:
      0.055028647 = sum of:
        0.014852478 = weight(_text_:subject in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014852478 = score(doc=553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.13830662 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
        0.011776006 = weight(_text_:classification in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011776006 = score(doc=553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.12315229 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
        0.01662416 = product of:
          0.03324832 = sum of:
            0.03324832 = weight(_text_:schemes in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03324832 = score(doc=553,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.20693234 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.011776006 = weight(_text_:classification in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011776006 = score(doc=553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.12315229 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    Currently, a number of efforts are being carried out to integrate collections from different institutions and containing heterogeneous material. Examples of such projects are The European Library [1] and the Memory of the Netherlands [2]. A crucial point for the success of these is the availability to provide a unified access on top of the different collections, e.g. using one single vocabulary for querying or browsing the objects they contain. This is made difficult by the fact that the objects from different collections are often described using different vocabularies - thesauri, classification schemes - and are therefore not interoperable at the semantic level. To solve this problem, one can turn to semantic links - mappings - between the elements of the different vocabularies. If one knows that a concept C from a vocabulary V is semantically equivalent to a concept to a concept D from vocabulary W, then an appropriate search engine can return all the objects that were indexed against D for a query for objects described using C. We thus have an access to other collections, using a single one vocabulary. This is however an ideal situation, and hard alignment work is required to reach it. Several projects in the past have tried to implement such a solution, like MACS [3] and Renardus [4]. They have demonstrated very interesting results, but also highlighted the difficulty of aligning manually all the different vocabularies involved in practical cases, which sometimes contain hundreds of thousands of concepts. To alleviate this problem, a number of tools have been proposed in order to provide with candidate mappings between two input vocabularies, making alignment a (semi-) automatic task. Recently, the Semantic Web community has produced a lot of these alignment tools'. Several techniques are found, depending on the material they exploit: labels of concepts, structure of vocabularies, collection objects and external knowledge sources. Throughout our presentation, we will present a concrete heterogeneity case where alignment techniques have been applied to build a (pilot) browser, developed in the context of the STITCH project [5]. This browser enables a unified access to two collections of illuminated manuscripts, using the description vocabulary used in the first collection, Mandragore [6], or the one used by the second, Iconclass [7]. In our talk, we will also make the point for using unified representations the vocabulary semantic and lexical information. Additionally to ease the use of the alignment tools that have these vocabularies as input, turning to a standard representation format helps designing applications that are more generic, like the browser we demonstrate. We give pointers to SKOS [8], an open and web-enabled format currently developed by the Semantic Web community.
    References [1] http:// www.theeuropeanlibrary.org [2] http://www.geheugenvannederland.nl [3] http://macs.cenl.org [4] Day, M., Koch, T., Neuroth, H.: Searching and browsing multiple subject gateways in the Renardus service. In Proceedings of the RC33 Sixth International Conference on Social Science Methodology, Amsterdam , 2005. [5] http://stitch.cs.vu.nl [6] http://mandragore.bnf.fr [7] http://www.iconclass.nl [8] www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/ 1 The Semantic Web vision supposes sharing data using different conceptualizations (ontologies), and therefore implies to tackle the semantic interoperability problem
  5. Piscitelli, F.A.: Library linked data models : library data in the Semantic Web (2019) 0.01
    0.012596626 = product of:
      0.058784254 = sum of:
        0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 5478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016822865 = score(doc=5478,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 5478, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5478)
        0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02513852 = score(doc=5478,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 5478, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5478)
        0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 5478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016822865 = score(doc=5478,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 5478, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5478)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    This exploratory study examined Linked Data (LD) schemas/ontologies and data models proposed or in use by libraries around the world using MAchine Readable Cataloging (MARC) as a basis for comparison of the scope and extensibility of these potential new standards. The researchers selected 14 libraries from national libraries, academic libraries, government libraries, public libraries, multi-national libraries, and cultural heritage centers currently developing Library Linked Data (LLD) schemas. The choices of models, schemas, and elements used in each library's LD can create interoperability issues for LD services because of substantial differences between schemas and data models evolving via local decisions. The researchers observed that a wide variety of vocabularies and ontologies were used for LLD including common web schemas such as Dublin Core (DC)/DCTerms, Schema.org and Resource Description Framework (RDF), as well as deprecated schemas such as MarcOnt and rdagroup1elements. A sharp divide existed as well between LLD schemas using variations of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) data model and those with different data models or even with no listed data model. Libraries worldwide are not using the same elements or even the same ontologies, schemas and data models to describe the same materials using the same general concepts.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 57(2019) no.5, S.261-277
  6. Isaac, A.; Schlobach, S.; Matthezing, H.; Zinn, C.: Integrated access to cultural heritage resources through representation and alignment of controlled vocabularies (2008) 0.01
    0.009405181 = product of:
      0.043890845 = sum of:
        0.016974261 = weight(_text_:subject in 3398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016974261 = score(doc=3398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.15806471 = fieldWeight in 3398, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3398)
        0.013458292 = weight(_text_:classification in 3398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013458292 = score(doc=3398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 3398, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3398)
        0.013458292 = weight(_text_:classification in 3398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013458292 = score(doc=3398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 3398, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3398)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - To show how semantic web techniques can help address semantic interoperability issues in the broad cultural heritage domain, allowing users an integrated and seamless access to heterogeneous collections. Design/methodology/approach - This paper presents the heterogeneity problems to be solved. It introduces semantic web techniques that can help in solving them, focusing on the representation of controlled vocabularies and their semantic alignment. It gives pointers to some previous projects and experiments that have tried to address the problems discussed. Findings - Semantic web research provides practical technical and methodological approaches to tackle the different issues. Two contributions of interest are the simple knowledge organisation system model and automatic vocabulary alignment methods and tools. These contributions were demonstrated to be usable for enabling semantic search and navigation across collections. Research limitations/implications - The research aims at designing different representation and alignment methods for solving interoperability problems in the context of controlled subject vocabularies. Given the variety and technical richness of current research in the semantic web field, it is impossible to provide an in-depth account or an exhaustive list of references. Every aspect of the paper is, however, given one or several pointers for further reading. Originality/value - This article provides a general and practical introduction to relevant semantic web techniques. It is of specific value for the practitioners in the cultural heritage and digital library domains who are interested in applying these methods in practice.
    Content
    This paper is based on a talk given at "Information Access for the Global Community, An International Seminar on the Universal Decimal Classification" held on 4-5 June 2007 in The Hague, The Netherlands. An abstract of this talk will be published in Extensions and Corrections to the UDC, an annual publication of the UDC consortium. Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Digital libraries and the semantic web: context, applications and research".
  7. Liang, A.; Salokhe, G.; Sini, M.; Keizer, J.: Towards an infrastructure for semantic applications : methodologies for semantic integration of heterogeneous resources (2006) 0.01
    0.00576784 = product of:
      0.04037488 = sum of:
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 241, 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=241)
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 241, 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=241)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 43(2006) nos.3/4, S.161-189
  8. Mayr, P.; Mutschke, P.; Petras, V.: Reducing semantic complexity in distributed digital libraries : Treatment of term vagueness and document re-ranking (2008) 0.00
    0.0015155592 = product of:
      0.021217827 = sum of:
        0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 1909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021217827 = score(doc=1909,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 1909, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1909)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The general science portal "vascoda" merges structured, high-quality information collections from more than 40 providers on the basis of search engine technology (FAST) and a concept which treats semantic heterogeneity between different controlled vocabularies. First experiences with the portal show some weaknesses of this approach which come out in most metadata-driven Digital Libraries (DLs) or subject specific portals. The purpose of the paper is to propose models to reduce the semantic complexity in heterogeneous DLs. The aim is to introduce value-added services (treatment of term vagueness and document re-ranking) that gain a certain quality in DLs if they are combined with heterogeneity components established in the project "Competence Center Modeling and Treatment of Semantic Heterogeneity". Design/methodology/approach - Two methods, which are derived from scientometrics and network analysis, will be implemented with the objective to re-rank result sets by the following structural properties: the ranking of the results by core journals (so-called Bradfordizing) and ranking by centrality of authors in co-authorship networks. Findings - The methods, which will be implemented, focus on the query and on the result side of a search and are designed to positively influence each other. Conceptually, they will improve the search quality and guarantee that the most relevant documents in result sets will be ranked higher. Originality/value - The central impact of the paper focuses on the integration of three structural value-adding methods, which aim at reducing the semantic complexity represented in distributed DLs at several stages in the information retrieval process: query construction, search and ranking and re-ranking.
  9. Schneider, R.: Web 3.0 ante portas? : Integration von Social Web und Semantic Web (2008) 0.00
    0.0010170004 = product of:
      0.014238005 = sum of:
        0.014238005 = product of:
          0.02847601 = sum of:
            0.02847601 = weight(_text_:22 in 4184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02847601 = score(doc=4184,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4184, 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=4184)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Date
    22. 1.2011 10:38:28
  10. Heflin, J.; Hendler, J.: Semantic interoperability on the Web (2000) 0.00
    0.0010170004 = product of:
      0.014238005 = sum of:
        0.014238005 = product of:
          0.02847601 = sum of:
            0.02847601 = weight(_text_:22 in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02847601 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 759, 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=759)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Date
    11. 5.2013 19:22:18
  11. Metadata and semantics research : 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings (2016) 0.00
    0.0010170004 = product of:
      0.014238005 = sum of:
        0.014238005 = product of:
          0.02847601 = sum of:
            0.02847601 = weight(_text_:22 in 3283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02847601 = score(doc=3283,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3283, 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=3283)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)