Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Theorie verbaler Dokumentationssprachen"
  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  1. Jia, J.: From data to knowledge : the relationships between vocabularies, linked data and knowledge graphs (2021) 0.00
    0.0039111464 = product of:
      0.029333597 = sum of:
        0.01861633 = weight(_text_:web in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01861633 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
        0.010717267 = product of:
          0.021434534 = sum of:
            0.021434534 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.021434534 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify the concepts, component parts and relationships between vocabularies, linked data and knowledge graphs (KGs) from the perspectives of data and knowledge transitions. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses conceptual analysis methods. This study focuses on distinguishing concepts and analyzing composition and intercorrelations to explore data and knowledge transitions. Findings Vocabularies are the cornerstone for accurately building understanding of the meaning of data. Vocabularies provide for a data-sharing model and play an important role in supporting the semantic expression of linked data and defining the schema layer; they are also used for entity recognition, alignment and linkage for KGs. KGs, which consist of a schema layer and a data layer, are presented as cubes that organically combine vocabularies, linked data and big data. Originality/value This paper first describes the composition of vocabularies, linked data and KGs. More importantly, this paper innovatively analyzes and summarizes the interrelatedness of these factors, which comes from frequent interactions between data and knowledge. The three factors empower each other and can ultimately empower the Semantic Web.
    Date
    22. 1.2021 14:24:32
  2. Wu, Y.; Yang, L.: Construction and evaluation of an oil spill semantic relation taxonomy for supporting knowledge discovery (2015) 0.00
    0.0034796137 = product of:
      0.052194204 = sum of:
        0.052194204 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 2202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052194204 = score(doc=2202,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.3932532 = fieldWeight in 2202, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2202)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Abstract
    The paper presents the rationale, significance, method and procedure of building a taxonomy of semantic relations in the oil spill domain for supporting knowledge discovery through inference. Difficult problems during the development of the taxonomy are discussed and partial solutions are proposed. A preliminary functional evaluation of the taxonomy for supporting knowledge discovery was performed. Durability an expansibility of the taxonomy were evaluated by using the taxonomy to classifying the terms in a biomedical relation ontology. The taxonomy was found to have full expansibility and high degree of durability. The study proposes more research problems than solutions.
  3. Schmitz-Esser, W.: Formalizing terminology-based knowledge for an ontology independently of a particular language (2008) 0.00
    0.002200755 = product of:
      0.033011325 = sum of:
        0.033011325 = weight(_text_:software in 1680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033011325 = score(doc=1680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 1680, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1680)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Abstract
    Last word ontological thought and practice is exemplified on an axiomatic framework [a model for an Integrative Cross-Language Ontology (ICLO), cf. Poli, R., Schmitz-Esser, W., forthcoming 2007] that is highly general, based on natural language, multilingual, can be implemented as topic maps and may be openly enhanced by software available for particular languages. Basics of ontological modelling, conditions for construction and maintenance, and the most salient points in application are addressed, such as cross-language text mining and knowledge generation. The rationale is to open the eyes for the tremendous potential of terminology-based ontologies for principled Knowledge Organization and the interchange and reuse of formalized knowledge.
  4. Schmitz-Esser, W.: Language of general communication and concept compatibility (1996) 0.00
    0.0014289691 = product of:
      0.021434534 = sum of:
        0.021434534 = product of:
          0.04286907 = sum of:
            0.04286907 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04286907 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Pages
    S.11-22
  5. Boteram, F.: Semantische Relationen in Dokumentationssprachen : vom Thesaurus zum semantischen Netz (2010) 0.00
    0.0010002783 = product of:
      0.015004174 = sum of:
        0.015004174 = product of:
          0.030008348 = sum of:
            0.030008348 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030008348 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  6. Khoo, S.G.; Na, J.-C.: Semantic relations in information science (2006) 0.00
    7.4465317E-4 = product of:
      0.011169797 = sum of:
        0.011169797 = weight(_text_:web in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011169797 = score(doc=1978,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.108171105 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Abstract
    This chapter examines the nature of semantic relations and their main applications in information science. The nature and types of semantic relations are discussed from the perspectives of linguistics and psychology. An overview of the semantic relations used in knowledge structures such as thesauri and ontologies is provided, as well as the main techniques used in the automatic extraction of semantic relations from text. The chapter then reviews the use of semantic relations in information extraction, information retrieval, question-answering, and automatic text summarization applications. Concepts and relations are the foundation of knowledge and thought. When we look at the world, we perceive not a mass of colors but objects to which we automatically assign category labels. Our perceptual system automatically segments the world into concepts and categories. Concepts are the building blocks of knowledge; relations act as the cement that links concepts into knowledge structures. We spend much of our lives identifying regular associations and relations between objects, events, and processes so that the world has an understandable structure and predictability. Our lives and work depend on the accuracy and richness of this knowledge structure and its web of relations. Relations are needed for reasoning and inferencing. Chaffin and Herrmann (1988b, p. 290) noted that "relations between ideas have long been viewed as basic to thought, language, comprehension, and memory." Aristotle's Metaphysics (Aristotle, 1961; McKeon, expounded on several types of relations. The majority of the 30 entries in a section of the Metaphysics known today as the Philosophical Lexicon referred to relations and attributes, including cause, part-whole, same and opposite, quality (i.e., attribute) and kind-of, and defined different types of each relation. Hume (1955) pointed out that there is a connection between successive ideas in our minds, even in our dreams, and that the introduction of an idea in our mind automatically recalls an associated idea. He argued that all the objects of human reasoning are divided into relations of ideas and matters of fact and that factual reasoning is founded on the cause-effect relation. His Treatise of Human Nature identified seven kinds of relations: resemblance, identity, relations of time and place, proportion in quantity or number, degrees in quality, contrariety, and causation. Mill (1974, pp. 989-1004) discoursed on several types of relations, claiming that all things are either feelings, substances, or attributes, and that attributes can be a quality (which belongs to one object) or a relation to other objects.