Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0156014785 = product of:
  0.09360887 = sum of:
    0.09360887 = weight(_text_:suchmaschine in 2257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09360887 = score(doc=2257,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21191008 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.44173864 = fieldWeight in 2257, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2257)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

RSWK

Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval

Subject

Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval

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.

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.

0.0055159554 = product of:
  0.033095732 = sum of:
    0.033095732 = weight(_text_:suchmaschine in 42) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033095732 = score(doc=42,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21191008 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.15617819 = fieldWeight in 42, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=42)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Mehrere Beiträge befassen sich mit dem Problem der Relevanz. Erica Cosijn und Theo Bothma (Pretoria) argumentieren, dass für das Benutzerverhalten neben der thematischen Relevanz auch verschiedene andere Relevanzdimensionen eine Rolle spielen und schlagen auf der Basis eines (abermals auf Ingwersen zurückgehenden) erweiterten Relevanzmodells vor, dass IR-Systeme die Möglichkeit zur Abgabe auch kognitiver, situativer und sozio-kognitiver Relevanzurteile bieten sollten. Elaine Toms et al. (Kanada) berichten von einer Studie, in der versucht wurde, die schon vor 30 Jahren von Tefko Saracevic3 erstellten fünf Relevanzdimensionen (kognitiv, motivational, situativ, thematisch und algorithmisch) zu operationalisieren und anhand von Recherchen mit einer Web-Suchmaschine zu untersuchen. Die Ergebnisse zeigten, dass sich diese fünf Dimensionen in drei Typen vereinen lassen, die Benutzer, System und Aufgabe repräsentieren. Von einer völlig anderen Seite nähern sich Olof Sundin und Jenny Johannison (Boras, Schweden) der Relevanzthematik, indem sie einen kommunikationsorientierten, neo-pragmatistischen Ansatz (nach Richard Rorty) wählen, um Informationssuche und Relevanz zu analysieren, und dabei auch auf das Werk von Michel Foucault zurückgreifen. Weitere interessante Artikel befassen sich mit Bradford's Law of Scattering (Hjørland & Nicolaisen), Information Sharing and Timing (Widén-Wulff & Davenport), Annotations as Context for Searching Documents (Agosti & Ferro), sowie dem Nutzen von neuen Informationsquellen wie Web Links, Newsgroups und Blogs für die sozial- und informationswissenschaftliche Forschung (Thelwall & Wouters). In Summe liegt hier ein interessantes und anspruchsvolles Buch vor - inhaltlich natürlich nicht gerade einheitlich und geschlossen, doch dies darf man bei einem Konferenzband ohnedies nicht erwarten. Manche der abgedruckten Beiträge sind sicher nicht einfach zu lesen, lohnen aber die Mühe. Auch für Praktiker aus Bibliothek und Information ist einiges dabei, sofern sie sich für die wissenschaftliche Basis ihrer Tätigkeit interessieren. Fachlich einschlägige Spezial- und grössere Allgemeinbibliotheken sollten das Werk daher unbedingt führen.

0.0022772634 = product of:
  0.013663581 = sum of:
    0.013663581 = product of:
      0.04099074 = sum of:
        0.04099074 = weight(_text_:29 in 5625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04099074 = score(doc=5625,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 5625, 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=5625)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

2. 3.1997 17:29:07

0.0014232898 = product of:
  0.008539738 = sum of:
    0.008539738 = product of:
      0.025619213 = sum of:
        0.025619213 = weight(_text_:29 in 1404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025619213 = score(doc=1404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1404, 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=1404)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Rez.in: KO 29(2002) no.2, S.103-104 (G.J.A. Riesthuis)