Search (32 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Horch, A.; Kett, H.; Weisbecker, A.: Semantische Suchsysteme für das Internet : Architekturen und Komponenten semantischer Suchmaschinen (2013) 0.08
    0.077891305 = product of:
      0.23367392 = sum of:
        0.14800863 = weight(_text_:suchmaschine in 4063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14800863 = score(doc=4063,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.21191008 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.69845015 = fieldWeight in 4063, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4063)
        0.085665286 = weight(_text_:ranking in 4063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085665286 = score(doc=4063,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.42258036 = fieldWeight in 4063, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4063)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    Abstract
    In der heutigen Zeit nimmt die Flut an Informationen exponentiell zu. In dieser »Informationsexplosion« entsteht täglich eine unüberschaubare Menge an neuen Informationen im Web: Beispielsweise 430 deutschsprachige Artikel bei Wikipedia, 2,4 Mio. Tweets bei Twitter und 12,2 Mio. Kommentare bei Facebook. Während in Deutschland vor einigen Jahren noch Google als nahezu einzige Suchmaschine beim Zugriff auf Informationen im Web genutzt wurde, nehmen heute die u.a. in Social Media veröffentlichten Meinungen und damit die Vorauswahl sowie Bewertung von Informationen einzelner Experten und Meinungsführer an Bedeutung zu. Aber wie können themenspezifische Informationen nun effizient für konkrete Fragestellungen identifiziert und bedarfsgerecht aufbereitet und visualisiert werden? Diese Studie gibt einen Überblick über semantische Standards und Formate, die Prozesse der semantischen Suche, Methoden und Techniken semantischer Suchsysteme, Komponenten zur Entwicklung semantischer Suchmaschinen sowie den Aufbau bestehender Anwendungen. Die Studie erläutert den prinzipiellen Aufbau semantischer Suchsysteme und stellt Methoden der semantischen Suche vor. Zudem werden Softwarewerkzeuge vorgestellt, mithilfe derer einzelne Funktionalitäten von semantischen Suchmaschinen realisiert werden können. Abschließend erfolgt die Betrachtung bestehender semantischer Suchmaschinen zur Veranschaulichung der Unterschiede der Systeme im Aufbau sowie in der Funktionalität.
    RSWK
    Suchmaschine / Semantic Web / Information Retrieval
    Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval / Ranking / Datenstruktur / Kontextbezogenes System
    Subject
    Suchmaschine / Semantic Web / Information Retrieval
    Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval / Ranking / Datenstruktur / Kontextbezogenes System
  2. Bando, L.L.; Scholer, F.; Turpin, A.: Query-biased summary generation assisted by query expansion : temporality (2015) 0.04
    0.03781929 = product of:
      0.11345786 = sum of:
        0.10491812 = weight(_text_:ranking in 1820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10491812 = score(doc=1820,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.51755315 = fieldWeight in 1820, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1820)
        0.008539738 = product of:
          0.025619213 = sum of:
            0.025619213 = weight(_text_:29 in 1820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.025619213 = score(doc=1820,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03747799 = queryNorm
                0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1820, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1820)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    Abstract
    Query-biased summaries help users to identify which items returned by a search system should be read in full. In this article, we study the generation of query-biased summaries as a sentence ranking approach, and methods to evaluate their effectiveness. Using sentence-level relevance assessments from the TREC Novelty track, we gauge the benefits of query expansion to minimize the vocabulary mismatch problem between informational requests and sentence ranking methods. Our results from an intrinsic evaluation show that query expansion significantly improves the selection of short relevant sentences (5-13 words) between 7% and 11%. However, query expansion does not lead to improvements for sentences of medium (14-20 words) and long (21-29 words) lengths. In a separate crowdsourcing study, we analyze whether a summary composed of sentences ranked using query expansion was preferred over summaries not assisted by query expansion, rather than assessing sentences individually. We found that participants chose summaries aided by query expansion around 60% of the time over summaries using an unexpanded query. We conclude that query expansion techniques can benefit the selection of sentences for the construction of query-biased summaries at the summary level rather than at the sentence ranking level.
  3. Gillitzer, B.: Yewno (2017) 0.03
    0.027219145 = product of:
      0.08165743 = sum of:
        0.0748871 = weight(_text_:suchmaschine in 3447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0748871 = score(doc=3447,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21191008 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.3533909 = fieldWeight in 3447, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3447)
        0.0067703333 = product of:
          0.020311 = sum of:
            0.020311 = weight(_text_:22 in 3447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.020311 = score(doc=3447,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03747799 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3447, 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=3447)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    Abstract
    "Die Bayerische Staatsbibliothek testet den semantischen "Discovery Service" Yewno als zusätzliche thematische Suchmaschine für digitale Volltexte. Der Service ist unter folgendem Link erreichbar: https://www.bsb-muenchen.de/recherche-und-service/suchen-und-finden/yewno/. Das Identifizieren von Themen, um die es in einem Text geht, basiert bei Yewno alleine auf Methoden der künstlichen Intelligenz und des maschinellen Lernens. Dabei werden sie nicht - wie bei klassischen Katalogsystemen - einem Text als Ganzem zugeordnet, sondern der jeweiligen Textstelle. Die Eingabe eines Suchwortes bzw. Themas, bei Yewno "Konzept" genannt, führt umgehend zu einer grafischen Darstellung eines semantischen Netzwerks relevanter Konzepte und ihrer inhaltlichen Zusammenhänge. So ist ein Navigieren über thematische Beziehungen bis hin zu den Fundstellen im Text möglich, die dann in sogenannten Snippets angezeigt werden. In der Test-Anwendung der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek durchsucht Yewno aktuell 40 Millionen englischsprachige Dokumente aus Publikationen namhafter Wissenschaftsverlage wie Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Wiley, Sage und Springer, sowie Dokumente, die im Open Access verfügbar sind. Nach der dreimonatigen Testphase werden zunächst die Rückmeldungen der Nutzer ausgewertet. Ob und wann dann der Schritt von der klassischen Suchmaschine zum semantischen "Discovery Service" kommt und welche Bedeutung Anwendungen wie Yewno in diesem Zusammenhang einnehmen werden, ist heute noch nicht abzusehen. Die Software Yewno wurde vom gleichnamigen Startup in Zusammenarbeit mit der Stanford University entwickelt, mit der auch die Bayerische Staatsbibliothek eng kooperiert. [Inetbib-Posting vom 22.02.2017].
    Date
    22. 2.2017 10:16:49
  4. Thenmalar, S.; Geetha, T.V.: Enhanced ontology-based indexing and searching (2014) 0.03
    0.026455574 = product of:
      0.07936672 = sum of:
        0.07344268 = weight(_text_:ranking in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07344268 = score(doc=1633,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.3622872 = fieldWeight in 1633, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1633)
        0.005924042 = product of:
          0.017772125 = sum of:
            0.017772125 = weight(_text_:22 in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017772125 = score(doc=1633,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03747799 = queryNorm
                0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1633, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1633)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to improve the conceptual-based search by incorporating structural ontological information such as concepts and relations. Generally, Semantic-based information retrieval aims to identify relevant information based on the meanings of the query terms or on the context of the terms and the performance of semantic information retrieval is carried out through standard measures-precision and recall. Higher precision leads to the (meaningful) relevant documents obtained and lower recall leads to the less coverage of the concepts. Design/methodology/approach - In this paper, the authors enhance the existing ontology-based indexing proposed by Kohler et al., by incorporating sibling information to the index. The index designed by Kohler et al., contains only super and sub-concepts from the ontology. In addition, in our approach, we focus on two tasks; query expansion and ranking of the expanded queries, to improve the efficiency of the ontology-based search. The aforementioned tasks make use of ontological concepts, and relations existing between those concepts so as to obtain semantically more relevant search results for a given query. Findings - The proposed ontology-based indexing technique is investigated by analysing the coverage of concepts that are being populated in the index. Here, we introduce a new measure called index enhancement measure, to estimate the coverage of ontological concepts being indexed. We have evaluated the ontology-based search for the tourism domain with the tourism documents and tourism-specific ontology. The comparison of search results based on the use of ontology "with and without query expansion" is examined to estimate the efficiency of the proposed query expansion task. The ranking is compared with the ORank system to evaluate the performance of our ontology-based search. From these analyses, the ontology-based search results shows better recall when compared to the other concept-based search systems. The mean average precision of the ontology-based search is found to be 0.79 and the recall is found to be 0.65, the ORank system has the mean average precision of 0.62 and the recall is found to be 0.51, while the concept-based search has the mean average precision of 0.56 and the recall is found to be 0.42. Practical implications - When the concept is not present in the domain-specific ontology, the concept cannot be indexed. When the given query term is not available in the ontology then the term-based results are retrieved. Originality/value - In addition to super and sub-concepts, we incorporate the concepts present in same level (siblings) to the ontological index. The structural information from the ontology is determined for the query expansion. The ranking of the documents depends on the type of the query (single concept query, multiple concept queries and concept with relation queries) and the ontological relations that exists in the query and the documents. With this ontological structural information, the search results showed us better coverage of concepts with respect to the query.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  5. Blanco, R.; Matthews, M.; Mika, P.: Ranking of daily deals with concept expansion (2015) 0.02
    0.020983625 = product of:
      0.12590174 = sum of:
        0.12590174 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12590174 = score(doc=2663,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.62106377 = fieldWeight in 2663, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2663)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Daily deals have emerged in the last three years as a successful form of online advertising. The downside of this success is that users are increasingly overloaded by the many thousands of deals offered each day by dozens of deal providers and aggregators. The challenge is thus offering the right deals to the right users i.e., the relevance ranking of deals. This is the problem we address in our paper. Exploiting the characteristics of deals data, we propose a combination of a term- and a concept-based retrieval model that closes the semantic gap between queries and documents expanding both of them with category information. The method consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods based on term-matching alone and existing approaches for ad classification and ranking.
  6. Jindal, V.; Bawa, S.; Batra, S.: ¬A review of ranking approaches for semantic search on Web (2014) 0.02
    0.020983625 = product of:
      0.12590174 = sum of:
        0.12590174 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12590174 = score(doc=2799,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.62106377 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    With ever increasing information being available to the end users, search engines have become the most powerful tools for obtaining useful information scattered on the Web. However, it is very common that even most renowned search engines return result sets with not so useful pages to the user. Research on semantic search aims to improve traditional information search and retrieval methods where the basic relevance criteria rely primarily on the presence of query keywords within the returned pages. This work is an attempt to explore different relevancy ranking approaches based on semantics which are considered appropriate for the retrieval of relevant information. In this paper, various pilot projects and their corresponding outcomes have been investigated based on methodologies adopted and their most distinctive characteristics towards ranking. An overview of selected approaches and their comparison by means of the classification criteria has been presented. With the help of this comparison, some common concepts and outstanding features have been identified.
  7. Bhansali, D.; Desai, H.; Deulkar, K.: ¬A study of different ranking approaches for semantic search (2015) 0.02
    0.020191502 = product of:
      0.121149 = sum of:
        0.121149 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.121149 = score(doc=2696,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.5976189 = fieldWeight in 2696, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2696)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Search Engines have become an integral part of our day to day life. Our reliance on search engines increases with every passing day. With the amount of data available on Internet increasing exponentially, it becomes important to develop new methods and tools that help to return results relevant to the queries and reduce the time spent on searching. The results should be diverse but at the same time should return results focused on the queries asked. Relation Based Page Rank [4] algorithms are considered to be the next frontier in improvement of Semantic Web Search. The probability of finding relevance in the search results as posited by the user while entering the query is used to measure the relevance. However, its application is limited by the complexity of determining relation between the terms and assigning explicit meaning to each term. Trust Rank is one of the most widely used ranking algorithms for semantic web search. Few other ranking algorithms like HITS algorithm, PageRank algorithm are also used for Semantic Web Searching. In this paper, we will provide a comparison of few ranking approaches.
  8. Mandalka, M.: Open semantic search zum unabhängigen und datenschutzfreundlichen Erschliessen von Dokumenten (2015) 0.01
    0.014800863 = product of:
      0.08880518 = sum of:
        0.08880518 = weight(_text_:suchmaschine in 2133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08880518 = score(doc=2133,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.21191008 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.41907007 = fieldWeight in 2133, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2133)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Ob grösserer Leak oder Zusammenwürfeln oder (wieder) Erschliessen umfangreicherer (kollaborativer) Recherche(n) oder Archive: Immer öfter müssen im Journalismus größere Datenberge und Dokumentenberge erschlossen werden. In eine Suchmaschine integrierte Analyse-Tools helfen (halb)automatisch.
    Content
    "Open Semantic Desktop Search Zur Tagung des Netzwerk Recherche ist die Desktop Suchmaschine Open Semantic Desktop Search zum unabhängigen und datenschutzfreundlichen Erschliessen und Analysieren von Dokumentenbergen nun erstmals auch als deutschsprachige Version verfügbar. Dank mächtiger Open Source Basis kann die auf Debian GNU/Linux und Apache Solr basierende freie Software als unter Linux, Windows oder Mac lauffähige virtuelle Maschine kostenlos heruntergeladen, genutzt, weitergegeben und weiterentwickelt werden. Dokumentenberge erschliessen Ob grösserer Leak oder Zusammenwürfeln oder (wieder) Erschliessen umfangreicherer (kollaborativer) Recherche(n) oder Archive: Hin und wieder müssen größere Datenberge bzw. Dokumentenberge erschlossen werden, die so viele Dokumente enthalten, dass Mensch diese Masse an Dokumenten nicht mehr alle nacheinander durchschauen und einordnen kann. Auch bei kontinuierlicher Recherche zu Fachthemen sammeln sich mit der Zeit größere Mengen digitalisierter oder digitaler Dokumente zu grösseren Datenbergen an, die immer weiter wachsen und deren Informationen mit einer Suchmaschine für das Archiv leichter auffindbar bleiben. Moderne Tools zur Datenanalyse in Verbindung mit Enterprise Search Suchlösungen und darauf aufbauender Recherche-Tools helfen (halb)automatisch.
    Virtuelle Maschine für mehr Plattformunabhängigkeit Die nun auch deutschsprachig verfügbare und mit deutschen Daten wie Ortsnamen oder Bundestagsabgeordneten vorkonfigurierte virtuelle Maschine Open Semantic Desktop Search ermöglicht nun auch auf einzelnen Desktop Computern oder Notebooks mit Windows oder iOS (Mac) die Suche und Analyse von Dokumenten mit der Suchmaschine Open Semantic Search. Als virtuelle Maschine (VM) lässt sich die Suchmaschine Open Semantic Search nicht nur für besonders sensible Dokumente mit dem verschlüsselten Live-System InvestigateIX als abgeschottetes System auf verschlüsselten externen Datenträgern installieren, sondern als virtuelle Maschine für den Desktop auch einfach unter Windows oder auf einem Mac in eine bzgl. weiterer Software und Daten bereits existierende Systemumgebung integrieren, ohne hierzu auf einen (für gemeinsame Recherchen im Team oder für die Redaktion auch möglichen) Suchmaschinen Server angewiesen zu sein. Datenschutz & Unabhängigkeit: Grössere Unabhängigkeit von zentralen IT-Infrastrukturen für unabhängigen investigativen Datenjournalismus Damit ist investigative Recherche weitmöglichst unabhängig möglich: ohne teure, zentrale und von Administratoren abhängige Server, ohne von der Dokumentenanzahl abhängige teure Software-Lizenzen, ohne Internet und ohne spionierende Cloud-Dienste. Datenanalyse und Suche finden auf dem eigenen Computer statt, nicht wie bei vielen anderen Lösungen in der sogenannten Cloud."
  9. Xu, B.; Lin, H.; Lin, Y.: Assessment of learning to rank methods for query expansion (2016) 0.01
    0.014277548 = product of:
      0.085665286 = sum of:
        0.085665286 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085665286 = score(doc=2929,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.42258036 = fieldWeight in 2929, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2929)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Pseudo relevance feedback, as an effective query expansion method, can significantly improve information retrieval performance. However, the method may negatively impact the retrieval performance when some irrelevant terms are used in the expanded query. Therefore, it is necessary to refine the expansion terms. Learning to rank methods have proven effective in information retrieval to solve ranking problems by ranking the most relevant documents at the top of the returned list, but few attempts have been made to employ learning to rank methods for term refinement in pseudo relevance feedback. This article proposes a novel framework to explore the feasibility of using learning to rank to optimize pseudo relevance feedback by means of reranking the candidate expansion terms. We investigate some learning approaches to choose the candidate terms and introduce some state-of-the-art learning to rank methods to refine the expansion terms. In addition, we propose two term labeling strategies and examine the usefulness of various term features to optimize the framework. Experimental results with three TREC collections show that our framework can effectively improve retrieval performance.
  10. Mayr, P.; Schaer, P.; Mutschke, P.: ¬A science model driven retrieval prototype (2011) 0.01
    0.0121149 = product of:
      0.0726894 = sum of:
        0.0726894 = weight(_text_:ranking in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0726894 = score(doc=649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.35857132 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    This paper is about a better understanding of the structure and dynamics of science and the usage of these insights for compensating the typical problems that arises in metadata-driven Digital Libraries. Three science model driven retrieval services are presented: co-word analysis based query expansion, re-ranking via Bradfordizing and author centrality. The services are evaluated with relevance assessments from which two important implications emerge: (1) precision values of the retrieval services are the same or better than the tf-idf retrieval baseline and (2) each service retrieved a disjoint set of documents. The different services each favor quite other - but still relevant - documents than pure term-frequency based rankings. The proposed models and derived retrieval services therefore open up new viewpoints on the scientific knowledge space and provide an alternative framework to structure scholarly information systems.
  11. Zenz, G.; Zhou, X.; Minack, E.; Siberski, W.; Nejdl, W.: Interactive query construction for keyword search on the Semantic Web (2012) 0.01
    0.010095751 = product of:
      0.0605745 = sum of:
        0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0605745 = score(doc=430,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 430, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=430)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    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.
  12. Liu, X.; Zheng, W.; Fang, H.: ¬An exploration of ranking models and feedback method for related entity finding (2013) 0.01
    0.010095751 = product of:
      0.0605745 = sum of:
        0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0605745 = score(doc=2714,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 2714, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2714)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
  13. Brambilla, M.; Ceri, S.: Designing exploratory search applications upon Web data sources (2012) 0.01
    0.008076601 = product of:
      0.0484596 = sum of:
        0.0484596 = weight(_text_:ranking in 428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0484596 = score(doc=428,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.23904754 = fieldWeight in 428, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=428)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Search is the preferred method to access information in today's computing systems. The Web, accessed through search engines, is universally recognized as the source for answering users' information needs. However, offering a link to a Web page does not cover all information needs. Even simple problems, such as "Which theater offers an at least three-stars action movie in London close to a good Italian restaurant," can only be solved by searching the Web multiple times, e.g., by extracting a list of the recent action movies filtered by ranking, then looking for movie theaters, then looking for Italian restaurants close to them. While search engines hint to useful information, the user's brain is the fundamental platform for information integration. An important trend is the availability of new, specialized data sources-the so-called "long tail" of the Web of data. Such carefully collected and curated data sources can be much more valuable than information currently available in Web pages; however, many sources remain hidden or insulated, in the lack of software solutions for bringing them to surface and making them usable in the search context. A new class of tailor-made systems, designed to satisfy the needs of users with specific aims, will support the publishing and integration of data sources for vertical domains; the user will be able to select sources based on individual or collective trust, and systems will be able to route queries to such sources and to provide easyto-use interfaces for combining them within search strategies, at the same time, rewarding the data source owners for each contribution to effective search. Efforts such as Google's Fusion Tables show that the technology for bringing hidden data sources to surface is feasible.
  14. Rekabsaz, N. et al.: Toward optimized multimodal concept indexing (2016) 0.00
    0.0028209724 = product of:
      0.016925834 = sum of:
        0.016925834 = product of:
          0.050777502 = sum of:
            0.050777502 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050777502 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03747799 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Date
    1. 2.2016 18:25:22
  15. Kozikowski, P. et al.: Support of part-whole relations in query answering (2016) 0.00
    0.0028209724 = product of:
      0.016925834 = sum of:
        0.016925834 = product of:
          0.050777502 = sum of:
            0.050777502 = weight(_text_:22 in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050777502 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03747799 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2754, 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=2754)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Date
    1. 2.2016 18:25:22
  16. Marx, E. et al.: Exploring term networks for semantic search over RDF knowledge graphs (2016) 0.00
    0.0028209724 = product of:
      0.016925834 = sum of:
        0.016925834 = product of:
          0.050777502 = sum of:
            0.050777502 = weight(_text_:22 in 3279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050777502 = score(doc=3279,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03747799 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3279, 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=3279)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  17. Kopácsi, S. et al.: Development of a classification server to support metadata harmonization in a long term preservation system (2016) 0.00
    0.0028209724 = product of:
      0.016925834 = sum of:
        0.016925834 = product of:
          0.050777502 = sum of:
            0.050777502 = weight(_text_:22 in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050777502 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03747799 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3280, 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=3280)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou
  18. Hoppe, T.: Semantische Filterung : ein Werkzeug zur Steigerung der Effizienz im Wissensmanagement (2013) 0.00
    0.0022772634 = product of:
      0.013663581 = sum of:
        0.013663581 = product of:
          0.04099074 = sum of:
            0.04099074 = weight(_text_:29 in 2245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04099074 = score(doc=2245,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03747799 = queryNorm
                0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2245, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2245)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Date
    29. 9.2015 18:56:44
  19. Atanassova, I.; Bertin, M.: Semantic facets for scientific information retrieval (2014) 0.00
    0.0019926056 = product of:
      0.011955633 = sum of:
        0.011955633 = product of:
          0.035866898 = sum of:
            0.035866898 = weight(_text_:29 in 4471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035866898 = score(doc=4471,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03747799 = queryNorm
                0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4471, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4471)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Source
    Semantic Web Evaluation Challenge. SemWebEval 2014 at ESWC 2014, Anissaras, Crete, Greece, May 25-29, 2014, Revised Selected Papers. Eds.: V. Presutti et al
  20. Salaba, A.; Zeng, M.L.: Extending the "Explore" user task beyond subject authority data into the linked data sphere (2014) 0.00
    0.0019746807 = product of:
      0.011848084 = sum of:
        0.011848084 = product of:
          0.03554425 = sum of:
            0.03554425 = weight(_text_:22 in 1465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03554425 = score(doc=1465,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03747799 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1465, 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=1465)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

Languages

  • e 26
  • d 5
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 26
  • el 4
  • m 2
  • r 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…