Search (66 results, page 4 of 4)

0.0021343674 = product of:
  0.010671836 = sum of:
    0.010671836 = product of:
      0.021343673 = sum of:
        0.021343673 = weight(_text_:management in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021343673 = score(doc=2799,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Grounded on a strong belief that ontologies enhance the performance of information retrieval systems, there has been an upsurge of interest in ontologies. Its importance is identified in diverse research fields such as knowledge engineering, knowledge representation, qualitative modeling, language engineering, database design, information integration, object-oriented analysis, information retrieval and extraction, knowledge management and agent-based systems design (Guarino, 1998). While the role-played by ontologies, automatically lends a place of legitimacy for these tools, research in this area gains greater significance in the wake of various challenges faced in the contemporary digital environment. With the objective of overcoming various pitfalls associated with current search mechanisms, ontologies are increasingly used for developing efficient information retrieval systems. An indicator of research interest in the area of ontology is the Swoogle, a search engine for Semantic Web documents, terms and data found on the Web (Ding, Li et al, 2004). Given the complex nature of the digital content archived in digital libraries, ontologies can be employed for designing efficient forms of information retrieval in digital libraries. Knowledge representation assumes greater significance due to its crucial role in ontology development. These systems aid in developing intelligent information systems, wherein the notion of intelligence implies the ability of the system to find implicit consequences of its explicitly represented knowledge (Baader and Nutt, 2003). Knowledge representation formalisms such as 'Description Logics' are used to obtain explicit knowledge representation of the subject domain. These representations are developed into ontologies, which are used for developing intelligent information systems. Against this backdrop, the paper examines the use of Description Logics for conceptually modeling a chosen domain, which would be utilized for developing domain ontologies. The knowledge representation languages identified for this purpose are Web Ontology Language (OWL) and KArlsruhe ONtology (KAON) language. Drawing upon the various technical constructs in developing ontology-based information systems, the paper explains the working of the prototypes and also presents a comparative study of the two prototypes.

0.0021343674 = product of:
  0.010671836 = sum of:
    0.010671836 = product of:
      0.021343673 = sum of:
        0.021343673 = weight(_text_:management in 2816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021343673 = score(doc=2816,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 2816, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2816)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The European Commission's goal for Europeana is to make European information resources easier to use in an online environment. It will build on Europe's rich heritage, combining multicultural and multilingual environments with technological advances and new business models. The Europeana prototype is the result of a 2-year project that began in July 2007. Europeana.eu went live on 20 November 2008, launched by Viviane Reding, European Commissioner for Information Society and Media. Europeana.eu is about ideas and inspiration. It links the user to 2 million digital items: images, text, sounds and videos. Europeana is a Thematic Network funded by the European Commission under the eContentplus programme, as part of the i2010 policy. Originally known as the European digital library network - EDLnet - it is a partnership of 100 representatives of heritage and knowledge organisations and IT experts from throughout Europe. They contribute to the work packages that are solving the technical and usability issues. The project is run by a core team based in the national library of the Netherlands, the Koninklijke Bibliotheek. It builds on the project management and technical expertise developed by The European Library, which is a service of the Conference of European National Librarians. Content is added via so called aggregators, national or domain specific portals aggegrating digital content and channelling it to Europeana. Most of these portals are being developed in the framework of EU funded projects, e.g. European Film Gateway, Athena and EuropeanaLocal. Overseeing the project is the EDL Foundation, which includes key European cultural heritage associations from the four domains. The Foundation's statutes commit members to: * providing access to Europe's cultural and scientific heritage through a cross-domain portal; * co-operating in the delivery and sustainability of the joint portal; * stimulating initiatives to bring together existing digital content; * supporting digitisation of Europe's cultural and scientific heritage. Europeana.eu is a prototype. Europeana Version 1.0 is being developed and will be launched in 2010 with links to over 6 million digital objects.

0.0020158102 = product of:
  0.01007905 = sum of:
    0.01007905 = product of:
      0.0201581 = sum of:
        0.0201581 = weight(_text_:22 in 2438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0201581 = score(doc=2438,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2438, 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=2438)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.2009 19:11:10

0.0014398645 = product of:
  0.0071993223 = sum of:
    0.0071993223 = product of:
      0.014398645 = sum of:
        0.014398645 = weight(_text_:22 in 2670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014398645 = score(doc=2670,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2670, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2670)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.2009 19:08:56

0.0013339795 = product of:
  0.0066698976 = sum of:
    0.0066698976 = product of:
      0.013339795 = sum of:
        0.013339795 = weight(_text_:management in 1219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013339795 = score(doc=1219,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.09310089 = fieldWeight in 1219, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1219)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The Renardus project has brought together gateways that are 'large-scale national initiatives'. Within the European context this immediately introduces a diversity of organisations, as responsibility for national gateway initiatives is located differently, for example, in national libraries, national agencies with responsibility for educational technology infrastructure, and within universities or consortia of universities. Within the project, gateways are in some cases represented directly by their own personnel, in some cases by other departments or research centres, but not always by the people responsible for providing the gateway service. For example, the UK Resource Discovery Network (RDN) is represented in the project by UKOLN (formerly part of the Resource Discovery Network Centre) and the Institute of Learning and Research Technology (ILRT), University of Bristol -- an RDN 'hub' service provider -- who are primarily responsible for dissemination. Since the start of the project there have been changes within the organisational structures providing gateways and within the service ambitions of gateways themselves. Such lack of stability is inherent within the Internet service environment, and this presents challenges to Renardus activity that has to be planned for a three-year period. For example, within the gateway's funding environment there is now an exploration of 'subject portals' offering more extended services than gateways. There is also potential commercial interest for including gateways as a value-added component to existing commercial services, and new offerings from possible competitors such as Google's Web Directory and country based services. This short update on the Renardus project intends to inform the reader of progress within the project and to give some wider context to its main themes by locating the project within the broader arena of digital library activity. There are twelve partners in the project from Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, as well as the UK. In particular we will focus on the specific activity in which UKOLN is involved: the architectural design, the specification of functional requirements, reaching consensus on a collaborative business model, etc. We will also consider issues of metadata management where all partners have interests. We will highlight implementation issues that connect to areas of debate elsewhere. In particular we see connections with activity related to establishing architectural models for digital library services, connections to the services that may emerge from metadata sharing using the Open Archives Initiative metadata sharing protocol, and links with work elsewhere on navigation of digital information spaces by means of controlled vocabularies.

0.0011518915 = product of:
  0.0057594576 = sum of:
    0.0057594576 = product of:
      0.011518915 = sum of:
        0.011518915 = weight(_text_:22 in 3125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011518915 = score(doc=3125,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 3125, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2005 19:05:37