Search (80 results, page 1 of 4)

0.17396295 = product of:
  0.3479259 = sum of:
    0.0410311 = product of:
      0.1230933 = sum of:
        0.1230933 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1230933 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32853028 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = 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)
    0.060708184 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060708184 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.263127 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
    0.1230933 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1230933 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32853028 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = 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)
    0.1230933 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1230933 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32853028 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = 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(4/8)

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.

0.03769399 = product of:
  0.1005173 = sum of:
    0.052558206 = weight(_text_:supported in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052558206 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.22901614 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
    0.03496549 = weight(_text_:work in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496549 = score(doc=1155,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.24583626 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
    0.012993602 = product of:
      0.025987204 = sum of:
        0.025987204 = weight(_text_:22 in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025987204 = score(doc=1155,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.19150631 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Metadata and semantics are integral to any information system and significant to the sphere of Web data. Research focusing on metadata and semantics is crucial for advancing our understanding and knowledge of metadata; and, more profoundly for being able to effectively discover, use, archive, and repurpose information. In response to this need, researchers are actively examining methods for generating, reusing, and interchanging metadata. Integrated with these developments is research on the application of computational methods, linked data, and data analytics. A growing body of work also targets conceptual and theoretical designs providing foundational frameworks for metadata and semantic applications. There is no doubt that metadata weaves its way into nearly every aspect of our information ecosystem, and there is great motivation for advancing the current state of metadata and semantics. To this end, it is vital that scholars and practitioners convene and share their work.
The MTSR 2013 program and the contents of these proceedings show a rich diversity of research and practices, drawing on problems from metadata and semantically focused tools and technologies, linked data, cross-language semantics, ontologies, metadata models, and semantic system and metadata standards. The general session of the conference included 18 papers covering a broad spectrum of topics, proving the interdisciplinary field of metadata, and was divided into three main themes: platforms for research data sets, system architecture and data management; metadata and ontology validation, evaluation, mapping and interoperability; and content management. Metadata as a research topic is maturing, and the conference also supported the following five tracks: Metadata and Semantics for Open Repositories, Research Information Systems and Data Infrastructures; Metadata and Semantics for Cultural Collections and Applications; Metadata and Semantics for Agriculture, Food and Environment; Big Data and Digital Libraries in Health, Science and Technology; and European and National Projects, and Project Networking. Each track had a rich selection of papers, giving broader diversity to MTSR, and enabling deeper exploration of significant topics.
All the papers underwent a thorough and rigorous peer-review process. The review and selection this year was highly competitive and only papers containing significant research results, innovative methods, or novel and best practices were accepted for publication. Only 29 of 89 submissions were accepted as full papers, representing 32.5% of the total number of submissions. Additional contributions covering noteworthy and important results in special tracks or project reports were accepted, totaling 42 accepted contributions. This year's conference included two outstanding keynote speakers. Dr. Stefan Gradmann, a professor arts department of KU Leuven (Belgium) and director of university library, addressed semantic research drawing from his work with Europeana. The title of his presentation was, "Towards a Semantic Research Library: Digital Humanities Research, Europeana and the Linked Data Paradigm". Dr. Michail Salampasis, associate professor from our conference host institution, the Department of Informatics of the Alexander TEI of Thessaloniki, presented new potential, intersecting search and linked data. The title of his talk was, "Rethinking the Search Experience: What Could Professional Search Systems Do Better?"

Date

17.12.2013 12:51:22

0.016971767 = product of:
  0.13577414 = sum of:
    0.13577414 = weight(_text_:hochschule in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13577414 = score(doc=2293,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23689921 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.57313037 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

Diplomarbeit zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Diplom-Informatiker (FH) an der Hochschule Fulda, FB Angewandte Informatik

Imprint

Fulda : Hochschule Fulda, FB Angewandte Informatik

0.0146876 = product of:
  0.0587504 = sum of:
    0.04037467 = weight(_text_:work in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037467 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
    0.018375728 = product of:
      0.036751457 = sum of:
        0.036751457 = weight(_text_:22 in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036751457 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2640, 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=2640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Library catalogues contain an enormous amount of structured, high-quality data, however, this data is generally not made available to semantic web applications. In this paper we describe the tools and techniques used to make the Swedish Union Catalogue (LIBRIS) part of the Semantic Web and Linked Data. The focus is on links to and between resources and the mechanisms used to make data available, rather than perfect description of the individual resources. We also present a method of creating links between records of the same work.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.01414314 = product of:
  0.11314512 = sum of:
    0.11314512 = weight(_text_:hochschule in 429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11314512 = score(doc=429,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23689921 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.47760868 = fieldWeight in 429, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=429)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

Bachelorarbeit zur Erlangung des Grades Bachelor of Science Wirtschaftsinformatik des Fachbereichs Wirtschaft der Technischen Hochschule Brandenburg. Vgl. unter: https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-fhbrb/files/2732/20210826_BT_SchulzTheresa.pdf.

Imprint

Brandenburg : Technischen Hochschule Brandenburg

0.01410795 = product of:
  0.1128636 = sum of:
    0.1128636 = product of:
      0.2257272 = sum of:
        0.2257272 = weight(_text_:aufsatzsammlung in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2257272 = score(doc=1952,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.25424787 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.88782334 = fieldWeight in 1952, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

RSWK

Informationssystem / Wissenstechnik / Ontologie <Wissensverarbeitung> / Aufsatzsammlung
Semantic Web / Wissensbasiertes System / Ontologie <Wissensverarbeitung> / Aufsatzsammlung
Informationssystem / Konzeptionelle Modellierung / Ontologie <Wissensverarbeitung> / Aufsatzsammlung

Subject

Informationssystem / Wissenstechnik / Ontologie <Wissensverarbeitung> / Aufsatzsammlung
Semantic Web / Wissensbasiertes System / Ontologie <Wissensverarbeitung> / Aufsatzsammlung
Informationssystem / Konzeptionelle Modellierung / Ontologie <Wissensverarbeitung> / Aufsatzsammlung

0.013004784 = product of:
  0.10403827 = sum of:
    0.10403827 = weight(_text_:supported in 4405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10403827 = score(doc=4405,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.4533344 = fieldWeight in 4405, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4405)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Developing ontologies is central to our vision of Semantic Web-based knowledge management. The methodology described in Chapter 3 guides the development of ontologies for different applications. However, because of the size of ontologies, their complexity, their formal underpinnings and the necessity to come towards a shared understanding within a group of people when defining an ontology, ontology construction is still far from being a well-understood process. Concerning the methodology, OntoEdit focuses on three of the main steps for ontology development (the methodology is described in Chapter 3), viz. the kick off, refinement, and evaluation. We describe the steps supported by OntoEdit and focus on collaborative aspects that occur during each of the step. First, all requirements of the envisaged ontology are collected during the kick off phase. Typically for ontology engineering, ontology engineers and domain experts are joined in a team that works together on a description of the domain and the goal of the ontology, design guidelines, available knowledge sources (e.g. re-usable ontologies and thesauri, etc.), potential users and use cases and applications supported by the ontology. The output of this phase is a semiformal description of the ontology. Second, during the refinement phase, the team extends the semi-formal description in several iterations and formalizes it in an appropriate representation language like RDF(S) or, more advanced, DAML1OIL. The output of this phase is a mature ontology (the 'target ontology'). Third, the target ontology needs to be evaluated according to the requirement specifications. Typically this phase serves as a proof for the usefulness of ontologies (and ontology-based applications) and may involve the engineering team as well as end users of the targeted application. The output of this phase is an evaluated ontology, ready for roll-out into a productive environment. Support for these collaborative development steps within the ontology development methodology is crucial in order to meet the conflicting needs for ease of use and construction of complex ontology structures. We now illustrate OntoEdit's support for each of the supported steps. The examples shown are taken from the Swiss Life case study on skills management (cf. Chapter 12).

0.012589371 = product of:
  0.050357483 = sum of:
    0.034606863 = weight(_text_:work in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034606863 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
    0.015750622 = product of:
      0.031501245 = sum of:
        0.031501245 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031501245 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

More and more cultural heritage institutions publish their collections, vocabularies and metadata on the Web. The resulting Web of linked cultural data opens up exciting new possibilities for searching and browsing through these cultural heritage collections. We report on ongoing work in which we investigate the estimation of relevance in this Web of Culture. We study existing measures of semantic distance and how they apply to two use cases. The use cases relate to the structured, multilingual and multimodal nature of the Culture Web. We distinguish between measures using the Web, such as Google distance and PMI, and measures using the Linked Data Web, i.e. the semantic structure of metadata vocabularies. We perform a small study in which we compare these semantic distance measures to human judgements of relevance. Although it is too early to draw any definitive conclusions, the study provides new insights into the applicability of semantic distance measures to the Web of Culture, and clear starting points for further research.

Date

26.12.2011 13:40:22

0.011262473 = product of:
  0.09009978 = sum of:
    0.09009978 = weight(_text_:supported in 1638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09009978 = score(doc=1638,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3925991 = fieldWeight in 1638, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1638)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The Web of Data keeps growing rapidly. However, the full exploitation of this large amount of structured data faces numerous challenges like usability, scalability, imprecise information needs and data change. We present Semplore, an IR-based system that aims at addressing these issues. Semplore supports intuitive faceted search and complex queries both on text and structured data. It combines imprecise keyword search and precise structured query in a unified ranking scheme. Scalable query processing is supported by leveraging inverted indexes traditionally used in IR systems. This is combined with a novel block-based index structure to support efficient index update when data changes. The experimental results show that Semplore is an efficient and effective system for searching the Web of Data and can be used as a basic infrastructure for Web-scale Semantic Web search engines.

0.011262473 = product of:
  0.09009978 = sum of:
    0.09009978 = weight(_text_:supported in 4682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09009978 = score(doc=4682,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3925991 = fieldWeight in 4682, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4682)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The OWL Web Ontology Language is designed for use by applications that need to process the content of information instead of just presenting information to humans. OWL facilitates greater machine interpretability of Web content than that supported by XML, RDF, and RDF Schema (RDF-S) by providing additional vocabulary along with a formal semantics. OWL has three increasingly-expressive sublanguages: OWL Lite, OWL DL, and OWL Full. This document is written for readers who want a first impression of the capabilities of OWL. It provides an introduction to OWL by informally describing the features of each of the sublanguages of OWL. Some knowledge of RDF Schema is useful for understanding this document, but not essential. After this document, interested readers may turn to the OWL Guide for more detailed descriptions and extensive examples on the features of OWL. The normative formal definition of OWL can be found in the OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax.

0.011262473 = product of:
  0.09009978 = sum of:
    0.09009978 = weight(_text_:supported in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09009978 = score(doc=620,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3925991 = fieldWeight in 620, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=620)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Semantic similarity is vital to many areas, such as information retrieval. Various methods have been proposed with a focus on comparing unstructured text documents. Several of these have been enhanced with ontology; however, they have not been applied to ontology instances. With the growth in ontology instance data published online through, for example, Linked Open Data, there is an increasing need to apply semantic similarity to ontology instances. Drawing on ontology-supported polarity mining (OSPM), we propose an algorithm that enhances the computation of semantic similarity with polarity mining techniques. The algorithm is evaluated with online customer review data. The experimental results show that the proposed algorithm outperforms the baseline algorithm in multiple settings.

0.009875565 = product of:
  0.07900452 = sum of:
    0.07900452 = product of:
      0.15800904 = sum of:
        0.15800904 = weight(_text_:aufsatzsammlung in 167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15800904 = score(doc=167,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.25424787 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.62147635 = fieldWeight in 167, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=167)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

RSWK

Wissensrepräsentation / Semantisches Netz / RDF <Informatik> / OWL <Informatik> / Aufsatzsammlung
Semantic Web / Information Extraction / Suche / Wissensbasiertes System / Aufsatzsammlung
Semantic Web / Web Services / Semantische Modellierung / Ontologie <Wissensverarbeitung> / Suche / Navigieren / Anwendungsbereich / Aufsatzsammlung

Subject

Wissensrepräsentation / Semantisches Netz / RDF <Informatik> / OWL <Informatik> / Aufsatzsammlung
Semantic Web / Information Extraction / Suche / Wissensbasiertes System / Aufsatzsammlung
Semantic Web / Web Services / Semantische Modellierung / Ontologie <Wissensverarbeitung> / Suche / Navigieren / Anwendungsbereich / Aufsatzsammlung

0.009385394 = product of:
  0.07508315 = sum of:
    0.07508315 = weight(_text_:supported in 1908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07508315 = score(doc=1908,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3271659 = fieldWeight in 1908, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1908)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - To demonstrate that newer developments in the semantic web community, particularly those based on ontologies (simple knowledge organization system and others) mitigate common arguments from the digital library (DL) community against participation in the Semantic web. Design/methodology/approach - The approach is a semantic web discussion focusing on the weak structure of the Web and the lack of consideration given to the semantic content during indexing. Findings - The points criticised by the semantic web and ontology approaches are the same as those of the DL "Shell model approach" from the mid-1990s, with emphasis on the centrality of its heterogeneity components (used, for example, in vascoda). The Shell model argument began with the "invisible web", necessitating the restructuring of DL approaches. The conclusion is that both approaches fit well together and that the Shell model, with its semantic heterogeneity components, can be reformulated on the semantic web basis. Practical implications - A reinterpretation of the DL approaches of semantic heterogeneity and adapting to standards and tools supported by the W3C should be the best solution. It is therefore recommended that - although most of the semantic web standards are not technologically refined for commercial applications at present - all individual DL developments should be checked for their adaptability to the W3C standards of the semantic web. Originality/value - A unique conceptual analysis of the parallel developments emanating from the digital library and semantic web communities.

0.009385394 = product of:
  0.07508315 = sum of:
    0.07508315 = weight(_text_:supported in 430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07508315 = score(doc=430,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3271659 = fieldWeight in 430, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=430)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

With the advance of the semantic Web, increasing amounts of data are available in a structured and machine-understandable form. This opens opportunities for users to employ semantic queries instead of simple keyword-based ones to accurately express the information need. However, constructing semantic queries is a demanding task for human users [11]. To compose a valid semantic query, a user has to (1) master a query language (e.g., SPARQL) and (2) acquire sufficient knowledge about the ontology or the schema of the data source. While there are systems which support this task with visual tools [21, 26] or natural language interfaces [3, 13, 14, 18], the process of query construction can still be complex and time consuming. According to [24], users prefer keyword search, and struggle with the construction of semantic queries although being supported with a natural language interface. Several keyword search approaches have already been proposed to ease information seeking on semantic data [16, 32, 35] or databases [1, 31]. However, keyword queries lack the expressivity to precisely describe the user's intent. As a result, ranking can at best put query intentions of the majority on top, making it impossible to take the intentions of all users into consideration.

0.009385394 = product of:
  0.07508315 = sum of:
    0.07508315 = weight(_text_:supported in 3938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07508315 = score(doc=3938,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3271659 = fieldWeight in 3938, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3938)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Access to external information is an important need for Answer Set Programming (ASP), which is a booming declarative problem solving approach these days. External access not only includes data in different formats, but more general also the results of computations, and possibly in a two-way information exchange. Providing such access is a major challenge, and in particular if it should be supported at a generic level, both regarding the semantics and efficient computation. In this article, we consider problem solving with ASP under external information access using the dlvhex system. The latter facilitates this access through special external atoms, which are two-way API style interfaces between the rules of the program and an external source. The dlvhex system has a flexible plugin architecture that allows one to use multiple predefined and user-defined external atoms which can be implemented, e.g., in Python or C++. We consider how to solve problems using the ASP paradigm, and specifically discuss how to use external atoms in this context, illustrated by examples. As a showcase, we demonstrate the development of a hex program for a concrete real-world problem using Semantic Web technologies, and discuss specifics of the implementation process.

0.008651716 = product of:
  0.069213726 = sum of:
    0.069213726 = weight(_text_:work in 4839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069213726 = score(doc=4839,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.4866296 = fieldWeight in 4839, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4839)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Exploration of heterogeneous data sources increases the value of information by allowing users to answer questions through exploration across multiple sources; Users can use information that has been posted across the Web to answer questions and learn about new domains. We have conducted research that lowers the interrogation time of faceted data, by combining related information from different sources. The work contributes methodologies in combining heterogenous sources, and how to deliver that data to a user interface scalably, with enough performance to support rapid interrogation of the knowledge by the user. The work also contributes how to combine linked data sources so that users can create faceted browsers that target the information facets of their needs. The work is grounded and proven in a number of experiments and test cases that study the contributions in domain research work.

0.008392914 = product of:
  0.033571657 = sum of:
    0.02307124 = weight(_text_:work in 320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02307124 = score(doc=320,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.16220987 = fieldWeight in 320, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=320)
    0.010500416 = product of:
      0.021000832 = sum of:
        0.021000832 = weight(_text_:22 in 320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021000832 = score(doc=320,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 320, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=320)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

"The Semantic Web is an extension of the current Web in which information is given well defined meaning, better enabling computers and people to work in cooperation." - Tim Berners Lee, "Scientific American", May 2001. This authoritative guide shows how the "Semantic Web" works technically and how businesses can utilize it to gain a competitive advantage. It explains what taxonomies and ontologies are as well as their importance in constructing the Semantic Web. The companion web site includes further updates as the framework develops and links to related sites.

Date

22. 5.2007 10:37:38

0.008392914 = product of:
  0.033571657 = sum of:
    0.02307124 = weight(_text_:work in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02307124 = score(doc=2661,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.16220987 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
    0.010500416 = product of:
      0.021000832 = sum of:
        0.021000832 = weight(_text_:22 in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021000832 = score(doc=2661,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The basic goal of education within a discipline is to transform a novice into an expert. This entails moving the novice toward the "semantic space" that the expert inhabits-the space of concepts, meanings, vocabularies, and other intellectual constructs that comprise the discipline. Metadata is significant to this goal in digitally mediated education environments. Encoding the experts' semantic space not only enables the sharing of semantics among discipline scientists, but also creates an environment that bridges the semantic gap between the common vocabulary of the novice and the granular descriptive language of the seasoned scientist (Greenberg, et al, 2005). Developments underlying the Semantic Web, where vocabularies are formalized in the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and Web 2.0 approaches of user-generated folksonomies provide an infrastructure for linking vocabulary systems and promoting group learning via metadata literacy. Group learning is a pedagogical approach to teaching that harnesses the phenomenon of "collective intelligence" to increase learning by means of collaboration. Learning a new semantic system can be daunting for a novice, and yet it is integral to advance one's knowledge in a discipline and retain interest. These ideas are key to the "BOT 2.0: Botany through Web 2.0, the Memex and Social Learning" project (Bot 2.0).72 Bot 2.0 is a collaboration involving the North Carolina Botanical Garden, the UNC SILS Metadata Research center, and the Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI). Bot 2.0 presents a curriculum utilizing a memex as a way for students to link and share digital information, working asynchronously in an environment beyond the traditional classroom. Our conception of a memex is not a centralized black box but rather a flexible, distributed framework that uses the most salient and easiest-to-use collaborative platforms (e.g., Facebook, Flickr, wiki and blog technology) for personal information management. By meeting students "where they live" digitally, we hope to attract students to the study of botanical science. A key aspect is to teach students scientific terminology and about the value of metadata, an inherent function in several of the technologies and in the instructional approach we are utilizing. This poster will report on a study examining the value of both folksonomies and taxonomies for post-secondary college students learning plant identification. Our data is drawn from a curriculum involving a virtual independent learning portion and a "BotCamp" weekend at UNC, where students work with digital plan specimens that they have captured. Results provide some insight into the importance of collaboration and shared vocabulary for gaining confidence and for student progression from novice to expert in botany.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.008145229 = product of:
  0.06516183 = sum of:
    0.06516183 = product of:
      0.13032366 = sum of:
        0.13032366 = weight(_text_:aufsatzsammlung in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13032366 = score(doc=2552,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25424787 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.51258504 = fieldWeight in 2552, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2552)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

RSWK

Bibliothek / Linked Data / Benutzer / Mensch-Maschine-Kommunikation / Recherche / Suchverfahren / Aufsatzsammlung

Subject

Bibliothek / Linked Data / Benutzer / Mensch-Maschine-Kommunikation / Recherche / Suchverfahren / Aufsatzsammlung

0.0066399574 = product of:
  0.05311966 = sum of:
    0.05311966 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05311966 = score(doc=1210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.23023613 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The Semantic Web activity is a W3C project whose goal is to enable a 'cooperative' Web where machines and humans can exchange electronic content that has clear-cut, unambiguous meaning. This vision is based on the automated sharing of metadata terms across Web applications. The declaration of schemas in metadata registries advance this vision by providing a common approach for the discovery, understanding, and exchange of semantics. However, many of the issues regarding registries are not clear, and ideas vary regarding their scope and purpose. Additionally, registry issues are often difficult to describe and comprehend without a working example. This article will explore the role of metadata registries and will describe three prototypes, written by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. The article will outline how the prototypes are being used to demonstrate and evaluate application scope, functional requirements, and technology solutions for metadata registries. Metadata schema registries are, in effect, databases of schemas that can trace an historical line back to shared data dictionaries and the registration process encouraged by the ISO/IEC 11179 community. New impetus for the development of registries has come with the development activities surrounding creation of the Semantic Web. The motivation for establishing registries arises from domain and standardization communities, and from the knowledge management community. Examples of current registry activity include: