Search (190 results, page 1 of 10)

  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  1. 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) 0.29
    0.2943934 = product of:
      0.5887868 = sum of:
        0.047687992 = product of:
          0.14306398 = sum of:
            0.14306398 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.14306398 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = 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)
        0.14306398 = weight(_text_:2f in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14306398 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
        0.07153199 = product of:
          0.14306398 = sum of:
            0.14306398 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.14306398 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.14306398 = weight(_text_:2f in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14306398 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
        0.14306398 = weight(_text_:2f in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14306398 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(7/14)
    
    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.
  2. Xiong, C.: Knowledge based text representations for information retrieval (2016) 0.22
    0.21602866 = product of:
      0.5040669 = sum of:
        0.031791996 = product of:
          0.095375985 = sum of:
            0.095375985 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.095375985 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = 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)
        0.13488202 = weight(_text_:2f in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13488202 = score(doc=5820,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.5298757 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
        0.047687992 = product of:
          0.095375985 = sum of:
            0.095375985 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.095375985 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.13488202 = weight(_text_:2f in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13488202 = score(doc=5820,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.5298757 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
        0.13488202 = weight(_text_:2f in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13488202 = score(doc=5820,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.5298757 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
        0.019940836 = product of:
          0.039881673 = sum of:
            0.039881673 = weight(_text_:texts in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.039881673 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.2422848 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.42857143 = coord(6/14)
    
    Abstract
    This proposal includes plans to improve the quality of relevant entities with a co-learning framework that learns from both entity labels and document labels. We also plan to develop a hybrid ranking system that combines word based and entity based representations together with their uncertainties considered. At last, we plan to enrich the text representations with connections between entities. We propose several ways to infer entity graph representations for texts, and to rank documents using their structure representations. This dissertation overcomes the limitation of word based representations with external and carefully curated information from knowledge bases. We believe this thesis research is a solid start towards the new generation of intelligent, semantic, and structured information retrieval.
    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.
  3. Stojanovic, N.: Ontology-based Information Retrieval : methods and tools for cooperative query answering (2005) 0.13
    0.13057427 = product of:
      0.36560795 = sum of:
        0.031791996 = product of:
          0.095375985 = sum of:
            0.095375985 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.095375985 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = 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)
        0.095375985 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095375985 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
        0.047687992 = product of:
          0.095375985 = sum of:
            0.095375985 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.095375985 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.095375985 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095375985 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
        0.095375985 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095375985 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25455406 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = 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)
      0.35714287 = coord(5/14)
    
    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.
  4. Broughton, V.: Facet analysis as a tool for modelling subject domains and terminologies (2011) 0.09
    0.09482564 = product of:
      0.22125982 = sum of:
        0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021217827 = score(doc=4826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 4826, 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=4826)
        0.023791125 = weight(_text_:classification in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023791125 = score(doc=4826,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 4826, 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=4826)
        0.042440403 = product of:
          0.08488081 = sum of:
            0.08488081 = weight(_text_:bliss in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08488081 = score(doc=4826,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
                  7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.3951839 = fieldWeight in 4826, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4826)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.08488081 = weight(_text_:bliss in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08488081 = score(doc=4826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.3951839 = fieldWeight in 4826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4826)
        0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02513852 = score(doc=4826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 4826, 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=4826)
        0.023791125 = weight(_text_:classification in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023791125 = score(doc=4826,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 4826, 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=4826)
      0.42857143 = coord(6/14)
    
    Abstract
    Facet analysis is proposed as a general theory of knowledge organization, with an associated methodology that may be applied to the development of terminology tools in a variety of contexts and formats. Faceted classifications originated as a means of representing complexity in semantic content that facilitates logical organization and effective retrieval in a physical environment. This is achieved through meticulous analysis of concepts, their structural and functional status (based on fundamental categories), and their inter-relationships. These features provide an excellent basis for the general conceptual modelling of domains, and for the generation of KOS other than systematic classifications. This is demonstrated by the adoption of a faceted approach to many web search and visualization tools, and by the emergence of a facet based methodology for the construction of thesauri. Current work on the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (Second Edition) is investigating the ways in which the full complexity of faceted structures may be represented through encoded data, capable of generating intellectually and mechanically compatible forms of indexing tools from a single source. It is suggested that a number of research questions relating to the Semantic Web could be tackled through the medium of facet analysis.
    Source
    Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero
  5. Broughton, V.: Language related problems in the construction of faceted terminologies and their automatic management (2008) 0.08
    0.07526281 = product of:
      0.21073586 = sum of:
        0.029138058 = weight(_text_:classification in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029138058 = score(doc=2497,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 2497, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2497)
        0.042440403 = product of:
          0.08488081 = sum of:
            0.08488081 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08488081 = score(doc=2497,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
                  7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.3951839 = fieldWeight in 2497, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2497)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.08488081 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08488081 = score(doc=2497,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.3951839 = fieldWeight in 2497, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2497)
        0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02513852 = score(doc=2497,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 2497, 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=2497)
        0.029138058 = weight(_text_:classification in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029138058 = score(doc=2497,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 2497, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2497)
      0.35714287 = coord(5/14)
    
    Content
    The paper describes current work on the generation of a thesaurus format from the schedules of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition (BC2). The practical problems that occur in moving from a concept based approach to a terminological approach cluster around issues of vocabulary control that are not fully addressed in a systematic structure. These difficulties can be exacerbated within domains in the humanities because large numbers of culture specific terms may need to be accommodated in any thesaurus. The ways in which these problems can be resolved within the context of a semi-automated approach to the thesaurus generation have consequences for the management of classification data in the source vocabulary. The way in which the vocabulary is marked up for the purpose of machine manipulation is described, and some of the implications for editorial policy are discussed and examples given. The value of the classification notation as a language independent representation and mapping tool should not be sacrificed in such an exercise.
  6. Miles, A.; Pérez-Agüera, J.R.: SKOS: Simple Knowledge Organisation for the Web (2006) 0.05
    0.048747413 = product of:
      0.17061594 = sum of:
        0.042009152 = weight(_text_:subject in 504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042009152 = score(doc=504,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 504, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=504)
        0.04079328 = weight(_text_:classification in 504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04079328 = score(doc=504,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.42661208 = fieldWeight in 504, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=504)
        0.047020227 = product of:
          0.09404045 = sum of:
            0.09404045 = weight(_text_:schemes in 504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09404045 = score(doc=504,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.58529305 = fieldWeight in 504, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=504)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.04079328 = weight(_text_:classification in 504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04079328 = score(doc=504,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.42661208 = fieldWeight in 504, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=504)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    This article introduces the Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS), a Semantic Web language for representing controlled structured vocabularies, including thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading systems and taxonomies. SKOS provides a framework for publishing thesauri, classification schemes, and subject indexes on the Web, and for applying these systems to resource collections that are part of the SemanticWeb. SemanticWeb applications may harvest and merge SKOS data, to integrate and enhances retrieval service across multiple collections (e.g. libraries). This article also describes some alternatives for integrating Semantic Web services based on the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and SKOS into a distributed enterprise architecture.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 43(2006) nos.3/4, S.69-83
  7. Sperber, W.; Ion, P.D.F.: Content analysis and classification in mathematics (2011) 0.04
    0.04168817 = product of:
      0.1459086 = sum of:
        0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 4818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02546139 = score(doc=4818,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 4818, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4818)
        0.045140486 = weight(_text_:classification in 4818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045140486 = score(doc=4818,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 4818, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4818)
        0.030166224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030166224 = score(doc=4818,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 4818, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4818)
        0.045140486 = weight(_text_:classification in 4818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045140486 = score(doc=4818,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 4818, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4818)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    The number of publications in mathematics increases faster each year. Presently far more than 100,000 mathematically relevant journal articles and books are published annually. Efficient and high-quality content analysis of this material is important for mathematical bibliographic services such as ZBMath or MathSciNet. Content analysis has different facets and levels: classification, keywords, abstracts and reviews, and (in the future) formula analysis. It is the opinion of the authors that the different levels have to be enhanced and combined using the methods and technology of the Semantic Web. In the presentation, the problems and deficits of the existing methods and tools, the state of the art and current activities are discussed. As a first step, the Mathematical Subject Classification Scheme (MSC), has been encoded with Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) and Resource Description Framework (RDF) at its recent revision to MSC2010. The use of SKOS principally opens new possibilities for the enrichment and wider deployment of this classification scheme and for machine-based content analysis of mathematical publications.
    Source
    Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero
  8. Zeng, M.L.; Panzer, M.; Salaba, A.: Expressing classification schemes with OWL 2 Web Ontology Language : exploring issues and opportunities based on experiments using OWL 2 for three classification schemes 0.04
    0.03935625 = product of:
      0.1836625 = sum of:
        0.053833168 = weight(_text_:classification in 3130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053833168 = score(doc=3130,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 3130, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3130)
        0.07599616 = product of:
          0.15199232 = sum of:
            0.15199232 = weight(_text_:schemes in 3130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.15199232 = score(doc=3130,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.9459764 = fieldWeight in 3130, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3130)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.053833168 = weight(_text_:classification in 3130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053833168 = score(doc=3130,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 3130, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3130)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Based on the research on three general classification schemes, this paper discusses issues encountered when expressing classification schemes in SKOS and explores opportunities of resolving major issues using OWL 2 Web Ontology Language.
  9. SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Primer (2009) 0.04
    0.035095256 = product of:
      0.122833386 = sum of:
        0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 4795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02546139 = score(doc=4795,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 4795, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4795)
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 4795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=4795,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4795, 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=4795)
        0.05699712 = product of:
          0.11399424 = sum of:
            0.11399424 = weight(_text_:schemes in 4795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.11399424 = score(doc=4795,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.7094823 = fieldWeight in 4795, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4795)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 4795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=4795,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4795, 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=4795)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organisation System) provides a model for expressing the basic structure and content of concept schemes such as thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading lists, taxonomies, folksonomies, and other types of controlled vocabulary. As an application of the Resource Description Framework (RDF) SKOS allows concepts to be documented, linked and merged with other data, while still being composed, integrated and published on the World Wide Web. This document is an implementors guide for those who would like to represent their concept scheme using SKOS. In basic SKOS, conceptual resources (concepts) can be identified using URIs, labelled with strings in one or more natural languages, documented with various types of notes, semantically related to each other in informal hierarchies and association networks, and aggregated into distinct concept schemes. In advanced SKOS, conceptual resources can be mapped to conceptual resources in other schemes and grouped into labelled or ordered collections. Concept labels can also be related to each other. Finally, the SKOS vocabulary itself can be extended to suit the needs of particular communities of practice.
  10. SKOS Core Guide (2005) 0.03
    0.032913495 = product of:
      0.11519723 = sum of:
        0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02546139 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4689, 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=4689)
        0.049360957 = product of:
          0.098721914 = sum of:
            0.098721914 = weight(_text_:schemes in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.098721914 = score(doc=4689,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.6144297 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4689, 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=4689)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    SKOS Core provides a model for expressing the basic structure and content of concept schemes such as thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading lists, taxonomies, 'folksonomies', other types of controlled vocabulary, and also concept schemes embedded in glossaries and terminologies. The SKOS Core Vocabulary is an application of the Resource Description Framework (RDF), that can be used to express a concept scheme as an RDF graph. Using RDF allows data to be linked to and/or merged with other data, enabling data sources to be distributed across the web, but still be meaningfully composed and integrated. This document is a guide using the SKOS Core Vocabulary, for readers who already have a basic understanding of RDF concepts. This edition of the SKOS Core Guide [SKOS Core Guide] is a W3C Public Working Draft. It is the authoritative guide to recommended usage of the SKOS Core Vocabulary at the time of publication.
  11. Buizza, G.: Subject analysis and indexing : an "Italian version" of the analytico-synthetic model (2011) 0.03
    0.032754723 = product of:
      0.114641525 = sum of:
        0.044100422 = weight(_text_:subject in 1812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044100422 = score(doc=1812,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.41066417 = fieldWeight in 1812, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1812)
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 1812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=1812,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 1812, 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=1812)
        0.030166224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030166224 = score(doc=1812,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 1812, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1812)
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 1812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=1812,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 1812, 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=1812)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    The paper presents the theoretical foundation of Italian indexing system. A consistent integration of vocabulary control through a thesaurus (semantics) and of role analysis to construct subject strings (syntax) allows to represent the full theme of a work, even if complex, in one string. The conceptual model produces a binary scheme: each aspect (entities, relationships, etc.) consists of a couple of elements, drawing the two lines of semantics and syntax. The meaning of 'concept' and 'theme' is analysed, also in comparison with the FRBR and FRSAD models, with the proposal of an en riched model. A double existence of concepts is suggested: document-independent adn document-dependent.
    Series
    IFLA series on bibliographic control; vol. 42
    Source
    Subject access: preparing for the future. Conference on August 20 - 21, 2009 in Florence, the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section sponsored an IFLA satellite conference entitled "Looking at the Past and Preparing for the Future". Eds.: P. Landry et al
  12. Peponakis, M.; Mastora, A.; Kapidakis, S.; Doerr, M.: Expressiveness and machine processability of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) : an analysis of concepts and relations (2020) 0.03
    0.0308804 = product of:
      0.1080814 = sum of:
        0.03675035 = weight(_text_:subject in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03675035 = score(doc=5787,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 5787, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5787)
        0.023791125 = weight(_text_:classification in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023791125 = score(doc=5787,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 5787, 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=5787)
        0.0237488 = product of:
          0.0474976 = sum of:
            0.0474976 = weight(_text_:schemes in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0474976 = score(doc=5787,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.2956176 = fieldWeight in 5787, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5787)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.023791125 = weight(_text_:classification in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023791125 = score(doc=5787,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 5787, 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=5787)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    This study considers the expressiveness (that is the expressive power or expressivity) of different types of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) and discusses its potential to be machine-processable in the context of the Semantic Web. For this purpose, the theoretical foundations of KOS are reviewed based on conceptualizations introduced by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) and the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS); natural language processing techniques are also implemented. Applying a comparative analysis, the dataset comprises a thesaurus (Eurovoc), a subject headings system (LCSH) and a classification scheme (DDC). These are compared with an ontology (CIDOC-CRM) by focusing on how they define and handle concepts and relations. It was observed that LCSH and DDC focus on the formalism of character strings (nomens) rather than on the modelling of semantics; their definition of what constitutes a concept is quite fuzzy, and they comprise a large number of complex concepts. By contrast, thesauri have a coherent definition of what constitutes a concept, and apply a systematic approach to the modelling of relations. Ontologies explicitly define diverse types of relations, and are by their nature machine-processable. The paper concludes that the potential of both the expressiveness and machine processability of each KOS is extensively regulated by its structural rules. It is harder to represent subject headings and classification schemes as semantic networks with nodes and arcs, while thesauri are more suitable for such a representation. In addition, a paradigm shift is revealed which focuses on the modelling of relations between concepts, rather than the concepts themselves.
  13. Giunchiglia, F.; Zaihrayeu, I.; Farazi, F.: Converting classifications into OWL ontologies (2009) 0.03
    0.02992327 = product of:
      0.13964193 = sum of:
        0.045140486 = weight(_text_:classification in 4690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045140486 = score(doc=4690,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 4690, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4690)
        0.049360957 = product of:
          0.098721914 = sum of:
            0.098721914 = weight(_text_:schemes in 4690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.098721914 = score(doc=4690,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.6144297 = fieldWeight in 4690, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4690)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.045140486 = weight(_text_:classification in 4690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045140486 = score(doc=4690,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 4690, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4690)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Classification schemes, such as the DMoZ web directory, provide a convenient and intuitive way for humans to access classified contents. While being easy to be dealt with for humans, classification schemes remain hard to be reasoned about by automated software agents. Among other things, this hardness is conditioned by the ambiguous na- ture of the natural language used to describe classification categories. In this paper we describe how classification schemes can be converted into OWL ontologies, thus enabling reasoning on them by Semantic Web applications. The proposed solution is based on a two phase approach in which category names are first encoded in a concept language and then, together with the structure of the classification scheme, are converted into an OWL ontology. We demonstrate the practical applicability of our approach by showing how the results of reasoning on these OWL ontologies can help improve the organization and use of web directories.
  14. Frické, M.: Logical division (2016) 0.03
    0.028953599 = product of:
      0.10133759 = sum of:
        0.030006537 = weight(_text_:subject in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030006537 = score(doc=3183,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 3183, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3183)
        0.023791125 = weight(_text_:classification in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023791125 = score(doc=3183,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 3183, 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=3183)
        0.0237488 = product of:
          0.0474976 = sum of:
            0.0474976 = weight(_text_:schemes in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0474976 = score(doc=3183,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.2956176 = fieldWeight in 3183, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3183)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.023791125 = weight(_text_:classification in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023791125 = score(doc=3183,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 3183, 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=3183)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    Division is obviously important to Knowledge Organization. Typically, an organizational infrastructure might acknowledge three types of connecting relationships: class hierarchies, where some classes are subclasses of others, partitive hierarchies, where some items are parts of others, and instantiation, where some items are members of some classes (see Z39.19 ANSI/NISO 2005 as an example). The first two of these involve division (the third, instantiation, does not involve division). Logical division would usually be a part of hierarchical classification systems, which, in turn, are central to shelving in libraries, to subject classification schemes, to controlled vocabularies, and to thesauri. Partitive hierarchies, and partitive division, are often essential to controlled vocabularies, thesauri, and subject tagging systems. Partitive hierarchies also relate to the bearers of information; for example, a journal would typically have its component articles as parts and, in turn, they might have sections as their parts, and, of course, components might be arrived at by partitive division (see Tillett 2009 as an illustration). Finally, verbal division, disambiguating homographs, is basic to controlled vocabularies. Thus Division is a broad and relevant topic. This article, though, is going to focus on Logical Division.
  15. Quick Guide to Publishing a Classification Scheme on the Semantic Web (2008) 0.03
    0.02731208 = product of:
      0.12745637 = sum of:
        0.047104023 = weight(_text_:classification in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047104023 = score(doc=3061,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
        0.03324832 = product of:
          0.06649664 = sum of:
            0.06649664 = weight(_text_:schemes in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06649664 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.41386467 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.047104023 = weight(_text_:classification in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047104023 = score(doc=3061,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    This document describes in brief how to express the content and structure of a classification scheme, and metadata about a classification scheme, in RDF using the SKOS vocabulary. RDF allows data to be linked to and/or merged with other RDF data by semantic web applications. The Semantic Web, which is based on the Resource Description Framework (RDF), provides a common framework that allows data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries. Publishing classifications schemes in SKOS will unify the great many of existing classification efforts in the framework of the Semantic Web.
  16. Panzer, M.; Zeng, M.L.: Modeling classification systems in SKOS : Some challenges and best-practice (2009) 0.03
    0.02731208 = product of:
      0.12745637 = sum of:
        0.047104023 = weight(_text_:classification in 3717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047104023 = score(doc=3717,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 3717, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3717)
        0.03324832 = product of:
          0.06649664 = sum of:
            0.06649664 = weight(_text_:schemes in 3717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06649664 = score(doc=3717,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.41386467 = fieldWeight in 3717, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3717)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.047104023 = weight(_text_:classification in 3717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047104023 = score(doc=3717,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 3717, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3717)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Representing classification systems on the web for publication and exchange continues to be a challenge within the SKOS framework. This paper focuses on the differences between classification schemes and other families of KOS (knowledge organization systems) that make it difficult to express classifications without sacrificing a large amount of their semantic richness. Issues resulting from the specific set of relationships between classes and topics that defines the basic nature of any classification system are discussed. Where possible, different solutions within the frameworks of SKOS and OWL are proposed and examined.
  17. SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference : W3C Recommendation 18 August 2009 (2009) 0.03
    0.026952809 = product of:
      0.094334826 = sum of:
        0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 4688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02546139 = score(doc=4688,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 4688, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4688)
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 4688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=4688,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4688, 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=4688)
        0.02849856 = product of:
          0.05699712 = sum of:
            0.05699712 = weight(_text_:schemes in 4688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05699712 = score(doc=4688,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.35474116 = fieldWeight in 4688, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4688)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 4688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=4688,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4688, 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=4688)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    This document defines the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS), a common data model for sharing and linking knowledge organization systems via the Web. Many knowledge organization systems, such as thesauri, taxonomies, classification schemes and subject heading systems, share a similar structure, and are used in similar applications. SKOS captures much of this similarity and makes it explicit, to enable data and technology sharing across diverse applications. The SKOS data model provides a standard, low-cost migration path for porting existing knowledge organization systems to the Semantic Web. SKOS also provides a lightweight, intuitive language for developing and sharing new knowledge organization systems. It may be used on its own, or in combination with formal knowledge representation languages such as the Web Ontology language (OWL). This document is the normative specification of the Simple Knowledge Organization System. It is intended for readers who are involved in the design and implementation of information systems, and who already have a good understanding of Semantic Web technology, especially RDF and OWL. For an informative guide to using SKOS, see the [SKOS-PRIMER].
  18. Buxton, A.: Ontologies and classification of chemicals : can they help each other? (2011) 0.03
    0.026176075 = product of:
      0.12215501 = sum of:
        0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 4817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021217827 = score(doc=4817,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 4817, 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=4817)
        0.05046859 = weight(_text_:classification in 4817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05046859 = score(doc=4817,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.5277955 = fieldWeight in 4817, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4817)
        0.05046859 = weight(_text_:classification in 4817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05046859 = score(doc=4817,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.5277955 = fieldWeight in 4817, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4817)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    The chemistry schedule in the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) is badly in need of revision. In many places it is enumerative rather than synthetic (giving rules for constructing numbers for any compound required). In principle, chemistry should be the ideal subject for a synthetic classification but many common compounds have complex formulae and a synthetic system becomes unwieldy. Also, all compounds belong to several hierarchies, e.g. chloroquin is a heterocycle, an aromatic compound, amine, antimalarial drug, etc. and rules need to be drawn up as to which ones take precedence and which ones should be taken into account in classifying a compound. There are obvious similarities between a classification and an ontology. This paper looks at existing ontologies for chemistry, especially ChEBI which is one of the largest, to examine how a classification and an ontology might draw on each other and what the problem areas are. An ontology might help in creating an index to a classification (for chemicals not listed or to provide access by facets not used in the classification) and a classification could provide a hierarchy to use in an ontology.
    Source
    Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero
  19. Green, R.; Panzer, M.: Relations in the notational hierarchy of the Dewey Decimal Classification (2011) 0.02
    0.024857301 = product of:
      0.11600074 = sum of:
        0.041207436 = weight(_text_:classification in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041207436 = score(doc=4823,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
        0.033585876 = product of:
          0.06717175 = sum of:
            0.06717175 = weight(_text_:schemes in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06717175 = score(doc=4823,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.41806644 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.041207436 = weight(_text_:classification in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041207436 = score(doc=4823,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    As part of a larger assessment of relationships in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system, this study investigates the semantic nature of relationships in the DDC notational hierarchy. The semantic relationship between each of a set of randomly selected classes and its parent class in the notational hierarchy is examined against a set of relationship types (specialization, class-instance, several flavours of whole-part).The analysis addresses the prevalence of specific relationship types, their lexical expression, difficulties encountered in assigning relationship types, compatibility of relationships found in the DDC with those found in other knowledge organization systems (KOS), and compatibility of relationships found in the DDC with those in a shared formalism like the Web Ontology Language (OWL). Since notational hierarchy is an organizational mechanism shared across most classification schemes and is often considered to provide an easy solution for ontological transformation of a classification system, the findings of the study are likely to generalize across classification schemes with respect to difficulties that might be encountered in such a transformation process.
    Source
    Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero
  20. Jacobs, I.: From chaos, order: W3C standard helps organize knowledge : SKOS Connects Diverse Knowledge Organization Systems to Linked Data (2009) 0.02
    0.023840893 = product of:
      0.08344312 = sum of:
        0.03638099 = weight(_text_:subject in 3062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03638099 = score(doc=3062,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.33878064 = fieldWeight in 3062, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3062)
        0.011776006 = weight(_text_:classification in 3062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011776006 = score(doc=3062,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.12315229 = fieldWeight in 3062, 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=3062)
        0.023510113 = product of:
          0.047020227 = sum of:
            0.047020227 = weight(_text_:schemes in 3062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047020227 = score(doc=3062,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.29264653 = fieldWeight in 3062, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3062)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.011776006 = weight(_text_:classification in 3062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011776006 = score(doc=3062,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.12315229 = fieldWeight in 3062, 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=3062)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    18 August 2009 -- Today W3C announces a new standard that builds a bridge between the world of knowledge organization systems - including thesauri, classifications, subject headings, taxonomies, and folksonomies - and the linked data community, bringing benefits to both. Libraries, museums, newspapers, government portals, enterprises, social networking applications, and other communities that manage large collections of books, historical artifacts, news reports, business glossaries, blog entries, and other items can now use Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) to leverage the power of linked data. As different communities with expertise and established vocabularies use SKOS to integrate them into the Semantic Web, they increase the value of the information for everyone.
    Content
    SKOS Adapts to the Diversity of Knowledge Organization Systems A useful starting point for understanding the role of SKOS is the set of subject headings published by the US Library of Congress (LOC) for categorizing books, videos, and other library resources. These headings can be used to broaden or narrow queries for discovering resources. For instance, one can narrow a query about books on "Chinese literature" to "Chinese drama," or further still to "Chinese children's plays." Library of Congress subject headings have evolved within a community of practice over a period of decades. By now publishing these subject headings in SKOS, the Library of Congress has made them available to the linked data community, which benefits from a time-tested set of concepts to re-use in their own data. This re-use adds value ("the network effect") to the collection. When people all over the Web re-use the same LOC concept for "Chinese drama," or a concept from some other vocabulary linked to it, this creates many new routes to the discovery of information, and increases the chances that relevant items will be found. As an example of mapping one vocabulary to another, a combined effort from the STITCH, TELplus and MACS Projects provides links between LOC concepts and RAMEAU, a collection of French subject headings used by the Bibliothèque Nationale de France and other institutions. SKOS can be used for subject headings but also many other approaches to organizing knowledge. Because different communities are comfortable with different organization schemes, SKOS is designed to port diverse knowledge organization systems to the Web. "Active participation from the library and information science community in the development of SKOS over the past seven years has been key to ensuring that SKOS meets a variety of needs," said Thomas Baker, co-chair of the Semantic Web Deployment Working Group, which published SKOS. "One goal in creating SKOS was to provide new uses for well-established knowledge organization systems by providing a bridge to the linked data cloud." SKOS is part of the Semantic Web technology stack. Like the Web Ontology Language (OWL), SKOS can be used to define vocabularies. But the two technologies were designed to meet different needs. SKOS is a simple language with just a few features, tuned for sharing and linking knowledge organization systems such as thesauri and classification schemes. OWL offers a general and powerful framework for knowledge representation, where additional "rigor" can afford additional benefits (for instance, business rule processing). To get started with SKOS, see the SKOS Primer.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 172
  • d 13
  • pt 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 136
  • el 45
  • m 14
  • x 11
  • n 5
  • p 3
  • s 2
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Subjects