Search (146 results, page 2 of 8)

0.0020450184 = product of:
  0.016360147 = sum of:
    0.016360147 = product of:
      0.04908044 = sum of:
        0.04908044 = weight(_text_:problem in 1266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04908044 = score(doc=1266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.375163 = fieldWeight in 1266, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1266)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

In diesem Beitrag wird ausgehend von einem ungelösten Problem der Informationserschließung ein Modell vorgestellt, das die Methoden und Erfahrungen zur inhaltlichen Dokumenterschließung mittels kognitiv zu interpretierender Dokumentationssprachen mit den Möglichkeiten formaler Wissensrepräsentation verbindet. Die Kernkomponente des Modells besteht aus der Nutzung von Inferenzen entlang der Pfade typisierter Relationen zwischen den in Facetten geordneten Entitäten innerhalb einer Wissensrepräsentation zur Bestimmung von Treffermengen im Rahmen von Retrievalprozessen. Es werden die möglichen Konsequenzen für das Indexieren und Retrieval diskutiert.

0.0020450184 = product of:
  0.016360147 = sum of:
    0.016360147 = product of:
      0.04908044 = sum of:
        0.04908044 = weight(_text_:problem in 1510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04908044 = score(doc=1510,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.375163 = fieldWeight in 1510, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1510)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Starting from an unsolved problem of information retrieval this paper presents an ontology-based model for indexing and retrieval. The model combines the methods and experiences of cognitive-to-interpret indexing languages with the strengths and possibilities of formal knowledge representation. The core component of the model uses inferences along the paths of typed relations between the entities of a knowledge representation for enabling the determination of hit quantities in the context of retrieval processes. The entities are arranged in aspect-oriented facets to ensure a consistent hierarchical structure. The possible consequences for indexing and retrieval are discussed.

0.0020450184 = product of:
  0.016360147 = sum of:
    0.016360147 = product of:
      0.04908044 = sum of:
        0.04908044 = weight(_text_:problem in 2862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04908044 = score(doc=2862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.375163 = fieldWeight in 2862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

Beitrag für: Workshop on the Applications of Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods, (eds) Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R., Guarino, N., and Uschold, M. European Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2000, Berlin.

0.0019864459 = product of:
  0.015891567 = sum of:
    0.015891567 = product of:
      0.047674697 = sum of:
        0.047674697 = weight(_text_:29 in 3671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047674697 = score(doc=3671,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.43971092 = fieldWeight in 3671, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3671)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

29. 6.2015 14:55:01
29. 6.2015 16:09:05

0.0018075579 = product of:
  0.014460463 = sum of:
    0.014460463 = product of:
      0.04338139 = sum of:
        0.04338139 = weight(_text_:problem in 1529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04338139 = score(doc=1529,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.33160037 = fieldWeight in 1529, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1529)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The aim of this book is to highlight the relationship between knowledge representation and language in artificial intelligence, and in particular on the way in which the choice of representation influences the language used to discuss a problem - and vice versa. Opening with a discussion of knowledge representation methods, and following this with a look at reasoning methods, the author begins to make his case for the intimate relationship between language and representation. He shows how each representation method fits particularly well with some reasoning methods and less so with others, using specific languages as examples. The question of representation change, an important and complex issue about which very little is known, is addressed. Dr Hodgson gathers together recent work on problem solving, showing how, in some cases, it has been possible to use representation changes to recast problems into a language that makes them easier to solve. The author maintains throughout that the relationships that this book explores lie at the heart of the construction of large systems, examining a number of the current large AI systems from the viewpoint of representation and language to prove his point.

0.0018075579 = product of:
  0.014460463 = sum of:
    0.014460463 = product of:
      0.04338139 = sum of:
        0.04338139 = weight(_text_:problem in 3304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04338139 = score(doc=3304,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.33160037 = fieldWeight in 3304, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3304)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Knowledge and Inference discusses an important problem for software systems: How do we treat knowledge and ideas on a computer and how do we use inference to solve problems on a computer? The book talks about the problems of knowledge and inference for the purpose of merging artificial intelligence and library science. The book begins by clarifying the concept of ""knowledge"" from many points of view, followed by a chapter on the current state of library science and the place of artificial intelligence in library science. Subsequent chapters cover central topics in the artificial intelligence: search and problem solving, methods of making proofs, and the use of knowledge in looking for a proof. There is also a discussion of how to use the knowledge system. The final chapter describes a popular expert system. It describes tools for building expert systems using an example based on Expert Systems-A Practical Introduction by P. Sell (Macmillian, 1985). This type of software is called an ""expert system shell."" This book was written as a textbook for undergraduate students covering only the basics but explaining as much detail as possible.

0.0018075579 = product of:
  0.014460463 = sum of:
    0.014460463 = product of:
      0.04338139 = sum of:
        0.04338139 = weight(_text_:problem in 3936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04338139 = score(doc=3936,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.33160037 = fieldWeight in 3936, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3936)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

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

0.0018075579 = product of:
  0.014460463 = sum of:
    0.014460463 = product of:
      0.04338139 = sum of:
        0.04338139 = weight(_text_:problem in 5732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04338139 = score(doc=5732,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.33160037 = fieldWeight in 5732, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5732)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Recent technological developments have increased the use of machine learning to solve many problems, including many in information retrieval. Multimedia information retrieval as a problem represents a significant challenge to machine learning as a technological solution, but some problems can still be addressed by using appropriate AI techniques. We review the technological developments and provide a perspective on the use of machine learning in conjunction with knowledge organization to address multimedia IR needs. The semantic gap in multimedia IR remains a significant problem in the field, and solutions to them are many years off. However, new technological developments allow the use of knowledge organization and machine learning in multimedia search systems and services. Specifically, we argue that, the improvement of detection of some classes of lowlevel features in images music and video can be used in conjunction with knowledge organization to tag or label multimedia content for better retrieval performance. We provide an overview of the use of knowledge organization schemes in machine learning and make recommendations to information professionals on the use of this technology with knowledge organization techniques to solve multimedia IR problems. We introduce a five-step process model that extracts features from multimedia objects (Step 1) from both knowledge organization (Step 1a) and machine learning (Step 1b), merging them together (Step 2) to create an index of those multimedia objects (Step 3). We also overview further steps in creating an application to utilize the multimedia objects (Step 4) and maintaining and updating the database of features on those objects (Step 5).

0.0018075579 = product of:
  0.014460463 = sum of:
    0.014460463 = product of:
      0.04338139 = sum of:
        0.04338139 = weight(_text_:problem in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04338139 = score(doc=306,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.33160037 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Internet of Things (IoT) brings the third development wave of the global information industry which makes users, network and perception devices cooperate more closely. However, if IoT has security problems, it may cause a variety of damage and even threaten human lives and properties. To improve the abilities of monitoring, providing emergency response and predicting the development trend of IoT security, a new paradigm called network security situation awareness (NSSA) is proposed. However, it is limited by its ability to mine and evaluate security situation elements from multi-source heterogeneous network security information. To solve this problem, this paper proposes an IoT network security situation awareness model using situation reasoning method based on semantic ontology and user-defined rules. Ontology technology can provide a unified and formalized description to solve the problem of semantic heterogeneity in the IoT security domain. In this paper, four key sub-domains are proposed to reflect an IoT security situation: context, attack, vulnerability and network flow. Further, user-defined rules can compensate for the limited description ability of ontology, and hence can enhance the reasoning ability of our proposed ontology model. The examples in real IoT scenarios show that the ability of the network security situation awareness that adopts our situation reasoning method is more comprehensive and more powerful reasoning abilities than the traditional NSSA methods. [http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7999187/]

0.001789391 = product of:
  0.014315128 = sum of:
    0.014315128 = product of:
      0.042945385 = sum of:
        0.042945385 = weight(_text_:problem in 5806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042945385 = score(doc=5806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.3282676 = fieldWeight in 5806, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5806)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Dieser Artikel betrachtet das Problem steigender Komplexität in IT Systemen. Als wesentlicher Aspekt wird Interoperabilität zwischen Anwendungen dargestellt. Als Modell für die Vielschichtigkeit von Integrationszenarien wird ein Modell präsentiert. das Integration und deren Auswirkungen auf verschiedenen Ebenen darstellt. Semantische Technologien werden in Relation zu bestehenden Ansätzen, wie Entity Relationship Diagrammen und objektorientierter Modellierung, gesetzt. Ein konkretes Beispiel demonstriert die unterschiedlichen Modellierungsergebnisse. Als wesentliche Szenarien für die Verwendung von semantischen Technologien werden Daten- und Prozessintegration dargestellt. Hierbei werden zuerst Probleme mit bestehenden Technologien präsentiert. Anschließend folgt anhand von Beispielen die Demonstration, wie semantische Technologien helfen können, diese Probleme zu lösen.

0.0017557865 = product of:
  0.014046292 = sum of:
    0.014046292 = product of:
      0.042138875 = sum of:
        0.042138875 = weight(_text_:29 in 4607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042138875 = score(doc=4607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 4607, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4607)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

20.12.2018 12:39:29

0.0017399922 = product of:
  0.013919937 = sum of:
    0.013919937 = product of:
      0.04175981 = sum of:
        0.04175981 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04175981 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Pages

S.11-22

0.0017399922 = product of:
  0.013919937 = sum of:
    0.013919937 = product of:
      0.04175981 = sum of:
        0.04175981 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04175981 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5576, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5576)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

13.12.2017 14:17:22

0.0017399922 = product of:
  0.013919937 = sum of:
    0.013919937 = product of:
      0.04175981 = sum of:
        0.04175981 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04175981 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:07

0.0017399922 = product of:
  0.013919937 = sum of:
    0.013919937 = product of:
      0.04175981 = sum of:
        0.04175981 = weight(_text_:22 in 3406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04175981 = score(doc=3406,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3406, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3406)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

30. 5.2010 16:22:35

0.0017399922 = product of:
  0.013919937 = sum of:
    0.013919937 = product of:
      0.04175981 = sum of:
        0.04175981 = weight(_text_:22 in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04175981 = score(doc=4523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4523, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4523)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2018, H.1, S.22-27

0.0017248237 = product of:
  0.006899295 = sum of:
    0.0040900367 = product of:
      0.01227011 = sum of:
        0.01227011 = weight(_text_:problem in 4472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01227011 = score(doc=4472,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.09379075 = fieldWeight in 4472, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=4472)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0028092582 = product of:
      0.0084277745 = sum of:
        0.0084277745 = weight(_text_:29 in 4472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0084277745 = score(doc=4472,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.07773064 = fieldWeight in 4472, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=4472)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

However, this assumption does not hold in all cases, the needs of the user evolve over time and can move away from his previous interests stored in his profile. In other cases, the user's profile may be misused to extract or infer new information needs. This problem is much more accentuated with ambiguous queries. When multiple POIs linked to a search query are identified in the user's profile, the system is unable to select the relevant data from that profile to respond to that request. This has a direct impact on the quality of the results provided to this user. In order to overcome some of these limitations, in this research thesis, we have been interested in the development of techniques aimed mainly at improving the relevance of the results of current SRIs and facilitating the exploration of major collections of documents. To do this, we propose a solution based on a new concept and model of indexing and information retrieval called multi-spaces projection. This proposal is based on the exploitation of different categories of semantic and social information that enrich the universe of document representation and search queries in several dimensions of interpretations. The originality of this representation is to be able to distinguish between the different interpretations used for the description and the search for documents. This gives a better visibility on the results returned and helps to provide a greater flexibility of search and exploration, giving the user the ability to navigate one or more views of data that interest him the most. In addition, the proposed multidimensional representation universes for document description and search query interpretation help to improve the relevance of the user's results by providing a diversity of research / exploration that helps meet his diverse needs and those of other different users. This study exploits different aspects that are related to the personalized search and aims to solve the problems caused by the evolution of the information needs of the user. Thus, when the profile of this user is used by our system, a technique is proposed and used to identify the interests most representative of his current needs in his profile. This technique is based on the combination of three influential factors, including the contextual, frequency and temporal factor of the data. The ability of users to interact, exchange ideas and opinions, and form social networks on the Web, has led systems to focus on the types of interactions these users have at the level of interaction between them as well as their social roles in the system. This social information is discussed and integrated into this research work. The impact and how they are integrated into the IR process are studied to improve the relevance of the results.

Date

29. 9.2018 18:57:38

0.0015337638 = product of:
  0.012270111 = sum of:
    0.012270111 = product of:
      0.03681033 = sum of:
        0.03681033 = weight(_text_:problem in 3218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03681033 = score(doc=3218,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 3218, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3218)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Begriffsorientiertes Information Retrieval bedarf einer informationswissenschaftlichen Theorie der Begriffe sowie der semantischen Relationen. Ein Begriff wird durch seine Intension und Extension sowie durch Definitionen bestimmt. Dem Problem der Vagheit begegnen wir durch die Einführung von Prototypen. Wichtige Definitionsarten sind die Begriffserklärung (nach Aristoteles) und die Definition über Familienähnlichkeiten (im Sinne Wittgensteins). Wir modellieren Begriffe als Frames (in der Version von Barsalou). Die zentrale paradigmatische Relation in Wissensordnungen ist die Hierarchie, die in verschiedene Arten zu gliedern ist: Hyponymie zerfällt in die Taxonomie und die einfache Hyponymie, Meronymie in eine ganze Reihe unterschiedlicher Teil-Ganzes-Beziehungen. Wichtig für praktische Anwendungen ist die Transitivität der jeweiligen Relation. Eine unspezifische Assoziationsrelation ist bei den angepeilten Anwendungen wenig hilfreich und wird durch ein Bündel von generalisierbaren und fachspezifischen Relationen ersetzt. Unser Ansatz fundiert neue Optionen der Anwendung von Wissensordnungen in der Informationspraxis neben ihrem "klassischen" Einsatz beim Information Retrieval: Erweiterung von Suchanfragen (Anwendung der semantischen Nähe), automatisches Schlussfolgern (Anwendung der terminologischen Logik in Vorbereitung eines semantischen Web) und automatische Berechnungen (bei Funktionalbegriffen mit numerischen Wertangaben).

0.0015337638 = product of:
  0.012270111 = sum of:
    0.012270111 = product of:
      0.03681033 = sum of:
        0.03681033 = weight(_text_:problem in 4337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03681033 = score(doc=4337,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 4337, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4337)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Many Semantic Web initiatives improve the capabilities of machines to exchange the meaning of information with other machines. These efforts lead to an increased quality of the application's results, but their user interfaces take little or no advantage of the semantic richness. For example, an ontology-based search engine will use its ontology when evaluating the user's query (e.g. for query formulation, disambiguation or evaluation), but fails to use it to significantly enrich the presentation of the results to a human user. For example, one could imagine replacing the endless list of hits with a structured presentation based on the semantic properties of the hits. Another problem is that the modelling of a domain is done from a single perspective (most often that of the information provider). Therefore, presentation based on the resulting ontology is unlikely to satisfy the needs of all the different types of users of the information. So even assuming an ontology for the domain is in place, mapping that ontology to the needs of individual users - based on their tasks, expertise and personal preferences - is not trivial.

0.0015337638 = product of:
  0.012270111 = sum of:
    0.012270111 = product of:
      0.03681033 = sum of:
        0.03681033 = weight(_text_:problem in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03681033 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The ontology middleware discussed in this chapter can be seen as 'administrative' software infrastructure that makes the rest of the modules in a knowledge management toolset easier to integrate into real-world applications. The central issue is to make the methodology and modules available to society as a self-sufficient platform with mature support for development, management, maintenance, and use of middle-size and large knowledge bases. This chapter starts with an explanation of the required features of ontology middleware in the context of our knowledge management architecture and the terminology used In Section 11.2 the problem of versioning and tracking change is discussed. Section 11.3 presents the versioning model and its implementation that is developed in the project, and Section 11.4 describes the functionality of the instance reasoning module.