Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Computerlinguistik"
  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  1. Clark, M.; Kim, Y.; Kruschwitz, U.; Song, D.; Albakour, D.; Dignum, S.; Beresi, U.C.; Fasli, M.; Roeck, A De: Automatically structuring domain knowledge from text : an overview of current research (2012) 0.01
    0.010351777 = product of:
      0.031055331 = sum of:
        0.017500332 = product of:
          0.035000663 = sum of:
            0.035000663 = weight(_text_:web in 2738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035000663 = score(doc=2738,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03505379 = queryNorm
                0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2738, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2738)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.013555 = product of:
          0.040664997 = sum of:
            0.040664997 = weight(_text_:29 in 2738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040664997 = score(doc=2738,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03505379 = queryNorm
                0.3297832 = fieldWeight in 2738, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2738)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    Abstract
    This paper presents an overview of automatic methods for building domain knowledge structures (domain models) from text collections. Applications of domain models have a long history within knowledge engineering and artificial intelligence. In the last couple of decades they have surfaced noticeably as a useful tool within natural language processing, information retrieval and semantic web technology. Inspired by the ubiquitous propagation of domain model structures that are emerging in several research disciplines, we give an overview of the current research landscape and some techniques and approaches. We will also discuss trade-offs between different approaches and point to some recent trends.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Soft Approaches to IA on the Web". Vgl.: doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2011.07.002.
    Date
    29. 1.2016 18:29:51
  2. Rajasurya, S.; Muralidharan, T.; Devi, S.; Swamynathan, S.: Semantic information retrieval using ontology in university domain (2012) 0.00
    0.00343739 = product of:
      0.02062434 = sum of:
        0.02062434 = product of:
          0.04124868 = sum of:
            0.04124868 = weight(_text_:web in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04124868 = score(doc=2861,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03505379 = queryNorm
                0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Today's conventional search engines hardly do provide the essential content relevant to the user's search query. This is because the context and semantics of the request made by the user is not analyzed to the full extent. So here the need for a semantic web search arises. SWS is upcoming in the area of web search which combines Natural Language Processing and Artificial Intelligence. The objective of the work done here is to design, develop and implement a semantic search engine- SIEU(Semantic Information Extraction in University Domain) confined to the university domain. SIEU uses ontology as a knowledge base for the information retrieval process. It is not just a mere keyword search. It is one layer above what Google or any other search engines retrieve by analyzing just the keywords. Here the query is analyzed both syntactically and semantically. The developed system retrieves the web results more relevant to the user query through keyword expansion. The results obtained here will be accurate enough to satisfy the request made by the user. The level of accuracy will be enhanced since the query is analyzed semantically. The system will be of great use to the developers and researchers who work on web. The Google results are re-ranked and optimized for providing the relevant links. For ranking an algorithm has been applied which fetches more apt results for the user query.
  3. Wong, W.; Liu, W.; Bennamoun, M.: Ontology learning from text : a look back and into the future (2010) 0.00
    0.0034028427 = product of:
      0.020417055 = sum of:
        0.020417055 = product of:
          0.04083411 = sum of:
            0.04083411 = weight(_text_:web in 4733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04083411 = score(doc=4733,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03505379 = queryNorm
                0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 4733, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4733)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Ontologies are often viewed as the answer to the need for inter-operable semantics in modern information systems. The explosion of textual information on the "Read/Write" Web coupled with the increasing demand for ontologies to power the Semantic Web have made (semi-)automatic ontology learning from text a very promising research area. This together with the advanced state in related areas such as natural language processing have fuelled research into ontology learning over the past decade. This survey looks at how far we have come since the turn of the millennium, and discusses the remaining challenges that will define the research directions in this area in the near future.
  4. Griffiths, T.L.; Steyvers, M.: ¬A probabilistic approach to semantic representation (2002) 0.00
    0.003012222 = product of:
      0.018073332 = sum of:
        0.018073332 = product of:
          0.05421999 = sum of:
            0.05421999 = weight(_text_:29 in 3671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05421999 = score(doc=3671,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03505379 = 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)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Date
    29. 6.2015 14:55:01
    29. 6.2015 16:09:05
  5. Mustafa El Hadi, W.: Terminologies, ontologies and information access (2006) 0.00
    0.0021299627 = product of:
      0.012779775 = sum of:
        0.012779775 = product of:
          0.038339324 = sum of:
            0.038339324 = weight(_text_:29 in 1488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.038339324 = score(doc=1488,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03505379 = queryNorm
                0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1488, 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=1488)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Date
    29. 2.2008 16:25:23
  6. Cimiano, P.; Völker, J.; Studer, R.: Ontologies on demand? : a description of the state-of-the-art, applications, challenges and trends for ontology learning from text (2006) 0.00
    0.0020624339 = product of:
      0.012374603 = sum of:
        0.012374603 = product of:
          0.024749206 = sum of:
            0.024749206 = weight(_text_:web in 6014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024749206 = score(doc=6014,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03505379 = queryNorm
                0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 6014, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6014)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Ontologies are nowadays used for many applications requiring data, services and resources in general to be interoperable and machine understandable. Such applications are for example web service discovery and composition, information integration across databases, intelligent search, etc. The general idea is that data and services are semantically described with respect to ontologies, which are formal specifications of a domain of interest, and can thus be shared and reused in a way such that the shared meaning specified by the ontology remains formally the same across different parties and applications. As the cost of creating ontologies is relatively high, different proposals have emerged for learning ontologies from structured and unstructured resources. In this article we examine the maturity of techniques for ontology learning from textual resources, addressing the question whether the state-of-the-art is mature enough to produce ontologies 'on demand'.
  7. Rindflesch, T.C.; Aronson, A.R.: Semantic processing in information retrieval (1993) 0.00
    0.0018637171 = product of:
      0.011182303 = sum of:
        0.011182303 = product of:
          0.033546906 = sum of:
            0.033546906 = weight(_text_:29 in 4121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033546906 = score(doc=4121,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03505379 = queryNorm
                0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4121, 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=4121)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Date
    29. 6.2015 14:51:28
  8. Pepper, S.; Arnaud, P.J.L.: Absolutely PHAB : toward a general model of associative relations (2020) 0.00
    0.0013312267 = product of:
      0.00798736 = sum of:
        0.00798736 = product of:
          0.023962079 = sum of:
            0.023962079 = weight(_text_:29 in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.023962079 = score(doc=103,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03505379 = queryNorm
                0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 103, 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=103)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    There have been many attempts at classifying the semantic modification relations (R) of N + N compounds but this work has not led to the acceptance of a definitive scheme, so that devising a reusable classification is a worthwhile aim. The scope of this undertaking is extended to other binominal lexemes, i.e. units that contain two thing-morphemes without explicitly stating R, like prepositional units, N + relational adjective units, etc. The 25-relation taxonomy of Bourque (2014) was tested against over 15,000 binominal lexemes from 106 languages and extended to a 29-relation scheme ("Bourque2") through the introduction of two new reversible relations. Bourque2 is then mapped onto Hatcher's (1960) four-relation scheme (extended by the addition of a fifth relation, similarity , as "Hatcher2"). This results in a two-tier system usable at different degrees of granularities. On account of its semantic proximity to compounding, metonymy is then taken into account, following Janda's (2011) suggestion that it plays a role in word formation; Peirsman and Geeraerts' (2006) inventory of 23 metonymic patterns is mapped onto Bourque2, confirming the identity of metonymic and binominal modification relations. Finally, Blank's (2003) and Koch's (2001) work on lexical semantics justifies the addition to the scheme of a third, superordinate level which comprises the three Aristotelean principles of similarity, contiguity and contrast.
  9. Vlachidis, A.; Binding, C.; Tudhope, D.; May, K.: Excavating grey literature : a case study on the rich indexing of archaeological documents via natural language-processing techniques and knowledge-based resources (2010) 0.00
    0.0010649813 = product of:
      0.0063898875 = sum of:
        0.0063898875 = product of:
          0.019169662 = sum of:
            0.019169662 = weight(_text_:29 in 3948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019169662 = score(doc=3948,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03505379 = queryNorm
                0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 3948, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3948)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Date
    29. 8.2010 12:03:40