Search (250 results, page 1 of 13)

  • × theme_ss:"Semantische Interoperabilität"
  1. Vetere, G.; Lenzerini, M.: Models for semantic interoperability in service-oriented architectures (2005) 0.18 
    0.17974035 = product of:
  0.29956725 = sum of:
    0.04644411 = product of:
      0.23222055 = sum of:
        0.23222055 = weight(_text_:3a in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23222055 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.35416332 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.23222055 = weight(_text_:2f in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23222055 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.35416332 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
    0.020902606 = weight(_text_:of in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020902606 = score(doc=306,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Although service-oriented architectures go a long way toward providing interoperability in distributed, heterogeneous environments, managing semantic differences in such environments remains a challenge. We give an overview of the issue of semantic interoperability (integration), provide a semantic characterization of services, and discuss the role of ontologies. Then we analyze four basic models of semantic interoperability that differ in respect to their mapping between service descriptions and ontologies and in respect to where the evaluation of the integration logic is performed. We also provide some guidelines for selecting one of the possible interoperability models.
    Content
    Vgl.: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5386707&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5386707.
  2. Gabler, S.: Vergabe von DDC-Sachgruppen mittels eines Schlagwort-Thesaurus (2021) 0.12 
    0.12281362 = product of:
  0.20468935 = sum of:
    0.033174362 = product of:
      0.16587181 = sum of:
        0.16587181 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16587181 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.35416332 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.16587181 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16587181 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.35416332 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    0.005643173 = weight(_text_:of in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005643173 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.086386204 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Content
    Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.
  3. Kim, J.-M.; Shin, H.; Kim, H.-J.: Schema and constraints-based matching and merging of Topic Maps (2007) 0.06 
    0.06261691 = product of:
  0.15654226 = sum of:
    0.14058095 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14058095 = score(doc=922,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.60976285 = fieldWeight in 922, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=922)
    0.015961302 = weight(_text_:of in 922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015961302 = score(doc=922,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 922, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=922)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In this paper, we propose a multi-strategic matching and merging approach to find correspondences between ontologies based on the syntactic or semantic characteristics and constraints of the Topic Maps. Our multi-strategic matching approach consists of a linguistic module and a Topic Map constraints-based module. A linguistic module computes similarities between concepts using morphological analysis, string normalization and tokenization and language-dependent heuristics. A Topic Map constraints-based module takes advantage of several Topic Maps-dependent techniques such as a topic property-based matching, a hierarchy-based matching, and an association-based matching. This is a composite matching procedure and need not generate a cross-pair of all topics from the ontologies because unmatched pairs of topics can be removed by characteristics and constraints of the Topic Maps. Merging between Topic Maps follows the matching operations. We set up the MERGE function to integrate two Topic Maps into a new Topic Map, which satisfies such merge requirements as entity preservation, property preservation, relation preservation, and conflict resolution. For our experiments, we used oriental philosophy ontologies, western philosophy ontologies, Yahoo western philosophy dictionary, and Wikipedia philosophy ontology as input ontologies. Our experiments show that the automatically generated matching results conform to the outputs generated manually by domain experts and can be of great benefit to the following merging operations.
  4. Mao, M.: Ontology mapping : towards semantic interoperability in distributed and heterogeneous environments (2008) 0.05 
    0.053214014 = product of:
  0.08869002 = sum of:
    0.0133040715 = product of:
      0.066520356 = sum of:
        0.066520356 = weight(_text_:problem in 4659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.066520356 = score(doc=4659,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.375163 = fieldWeight in 4659, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4659)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.05623238 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 4659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05623238 = score(doc=4659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.24390514 = fieldWeight in 4659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4659)
    0.019153563 = weight(_text_:of in 4659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019153563 = score(doc=4659,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 4659, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4659)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    This dissertation studies ontology mapping: the problem of finding semantic correspondences between similar elements of different ontologies. In the dissertation, elements denote classes or properties of ontologies. The goal of this research is to use ontology mapping to make heterogeneous information more accessible. The World Wide Web (WWW) now is widely used as a universal medium for information exchange. Semantic interoperability among different information systems in the WWW is limited due to information heterogeneity, and the non semantic nature of HTML and URLs. Ontologies have been suggested as a way to solve the problem of information heterogeneity by providing formal, explicit definitions of data and reasoning ability over related concepts. Given that no universal ontology exists for the WWW, work has focused on finding semantic correspondences between similar elements of different ontologies, i.e., ontology mapping. Ontology mapping can be done either by hand or using automated tools. Manual mapping becomes impractical as the size and complexity of ontologies increases. Full or semi-automated mapping approaches have been examined by several research studies. Previous full or semiautomated mapping approaches include analyzing linguistic information of elements in ontologies, treating ontologies as structural graphs, applying heuristic rules and machine learning techniques, and using probabilistic and reasoning methods etc. In this paper, two generic ontology mapping approaches are proposed. One is the PRIOR+ approach, which utilizes both information retrieval and artificial intelligence techniques in the context of ontology mapping. The other is the non-instance learning based approach, which experimentally explores machine learning algorithms to solve ontology mapping problem without requesting any instance. The results of the PRIOR+ on different tests at OAEI ontology matching campaign 2007 are encouraging. The non-instance learning based approach has shown potential for solving ontology mapping problem on OAEI benchmark tests.
    Content
    Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of School of Information Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
    Imprint
    Pittsburgh : University of Pittsburgh
  5. Smith, D.A.: Exploratory and faceted browsing over heterogeneous and cross-domain data sources. (2011) 0.04 
    0.0418656 = product of:
  0.104664 = sum of:
    0.084348574 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 4839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084348574 = score(doc=4839,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.36585772 = fieldWeight in 4839, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4839)
    0.02031542 = weight(_text_:of in 4839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02031542 = score(doc=4839,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 4839, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4839)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Exploration of heterogeneous data sources increases the value of information by allowing users to answer questions through exploration across multiple sources; Users can use information that has been posted across the Web to answer questions and learn about new domains. We have conducted research that lowers the interrogation time of faceted data, by combining related information from different sources. The work contributes methodologies in combining heterogenous sources, and how to deliver that data to a user interface scalably, with enough performance to support rapid interrogation of the knowledge by the user. The work also contributes how to combine linked data sources so that users can create faceted browsers that target the information facets of their needs. The work is grounded and proven in a number of experiments and test cases that study the contributions in domain research work.
    Footnote
    A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. June 2011.
    Imprint
    Southampton : University, Faculty of Physical and Applied Sciences, Electronics and Computer Science
  6. Heflin, J.; Hendler, J.: Semantic interoperability on the Web (2000) 0.03 
    0.03337468 = product of:
  0.055624463 = sum of:
    0.01646295 = product of:
      0.08231475 = sum of:
        0.08231475 = weight(_text_:problem in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08231475 = score(doc=759,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.46424055 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.01935205 = weight(_text_:of in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01935205 = score(doc=759,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 759, 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=759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    XML will have a profound impact on the way data is exchanged on the Internet. An important feature of this language is the separation of content from presentation, which makes it easier to select and/or reformat the data. However, due to the likelihood of numerous industry and domain specific DTDs, those who wish to integrate information will still be faced with the problem of semantic interoperability. In this paper we discuss why this problem is not solved by XML, and then discuss why the Resource Description Framework is only a partial solution. We then present the SHOE language, which we feel has many of the features necessary to enable a semantic web, and describe an existing set of tools that make it easy to use the language.
    Date
    11. 5.2013 19:22:18
  7. Faro, S.; Francesconi, E.; Sandrucci, V.: Thesauri KOS analysis and selected thesaurus mapping methodology on the project case-study (2007) 0.03 
    0.0292275 = product of:
  0.0487125 = sum of:
    0.0133040715 = product of:
      0.066520356 = sum of:
        0.066520356 = weight(_text_:problem in 2227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.066520356 = score(doc=2227,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.375163 = fieldWeight in 2227, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2227)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0127690425 = weight(_text_:of in 2227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0127690425 = score(doc=2227,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 2227, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2227)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 2227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=2227,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2227, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    - Introduction to the Thesaurus Interoperability problem - Analysis of the thesauri for the project case study - Overview of Schema/Ontology Mapping methodologies - The proposed approach for thesaurus mapping - Standards for implementing the proposed methodology
    Date
    7.11.2008 10:40:22
  8. Faro, S.; Francesconi, E.; Marinai, E.; Sandrucci, V.: Report on execution and results of the interoperability tests (2008) 0.03 
    0.026983522 = product of:
  0.044972535 = sum of:
    0.0133040715 = product of:
      0.066520356 = sum of:
        0.066520356 = weight(_text_:problem in 7411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.066520356 = score(doc=7411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.375163 = fieldWeight in 7411, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7411)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.009029076 = weight(_text_:of in 7411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009029076 = score(doc=7411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 7411, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7411)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 7411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=7411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7411, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7411)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    - Formal characterization given to the thesaurus mapping problem - Interopearbility workflow - - Thesauri SKOS Core transformation - - Thesaurus Mapping algorithms implementation - The "gold standard" data set and the THALEN application - Thesaurus interoperability assessment measures - Experimental results
    Date
    7.11.2008 10:40:22
  9. Garcia Marco, F.J.: Compatibility & heterogeneity in knowledge organization : some reflections around a case study in the field of consumer information (2008) 0.03 
    0.025207913 = product of:
  0.042013187 = sum of:
    0.008315044 = product of:
      0.041575223 = sum of:
        0.041575223 = weight(_text_:problem in 1678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041575223 = score(doc=1678,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 1678, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1678)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.019548526 = weight(_text_:of in 1678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019548526 = score(doc=1678,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 1678, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1678)
    0.0141496165 = product of:
      0.028299233 = sum of:
        0.028299233 = weight(_text_:22 in 1678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028299233 = score(doc=1678,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1678, 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=1678)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    A case study in compatibility and heterogeneity of knowledge organization (KO) systems and processes is presented. It is based in the experience of the author in the field of information for consumer protection, a good example of the emerging transdisciplinary applied social sciences. The activities and knowledge organization problems and solutions of the Aragonian Consumers' Information and Documentation Centre are described and analyzed. Six assertions can be concluded: a) heterogeneity and compatibility are certainly an inherent problem in knowledge organization and also in practical domains; b) knowledge organization is also a social task, not only a lögical one; c) knowledge organization is affected by economical and efficiency considerations; d) knowledge organization is at the heart of Knowledge Management; e) identifying and maintaining the focus in interdisciplinary fields is a must; f the different knowledge organization tools of a institution must be considered as an integrated system, pursuing a unifying model.
    Date
    16. 3.2008 18:22:50
    Source
    Kompatibilität, Medien und Ethik in der Wissensorganisation - Compatibility, Media and Ethics in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings der 10. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Wien, 3.-5. Juli 2006 - Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the German Section of the International Society of Knowledge Organization Vienna, 3-5 July 2006. Ed.: H.P. Ohly, S. Netscher u. K. Mitgutsch
  10. Huckstorf, A.; Petras, V.: Mind the lexical gap : EuroVoc Building Block of the Semantic Web (2011) 0.02 
    0.024285322 = product of:
  0.060713302 = sum of:
    0.0067718076 = weight(_text_:of in 2782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067718076 = score(doc=2782,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.103663445 = fieldWeight in 2782, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2782)
    0.053941496 = product of:
      0.10788299 = sum of:
        0.10788299 = weight(_text_:mind in 2782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10788299 = score(doc=2782,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2607373 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.41376126 = fieldWeight in 2782, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2782)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
  11. Euzenat, J.; Shvaiko, P.: Ontology matching (2010) 0.02 
    0.019071244 = product of:
  0.031785406 = sum of:
    0.0094074 = product of:
      0.047036998 = sum of:
        0.047036998 = weight(_text_:problem in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047036998 = score(doc=168,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2652803 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.011058315 = weight(_text_:of in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011058315 = score(doc=168,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.16928169 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
    0.011319693 = product of:
      0.022639386 = sum of:
        0.022639386 = weight(_text_:22 in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022639386 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 168, 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=168)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Ontologies are viewed as the silver bullet for many applications, but in open or evolving systems, different parties can adopt different ontologies. This increases heterogeneity problems rather than reducing heterogeneity. This book proposes ontology matching as a solution to the problem of semantic heterogeneity, offering researchers and practitioners a uniform framework of reference to currently available work. The techniques presented apply to database schema matching, catalog integration, XML schema matching and more. Ontologies tend to be found everywhere. They are viewed as the silver bullet for many applications, such as database integration, peer-to-peer systems, e-commerce, semantic web services, or social networks. However, in open or evolving systems, such as the semantic web, different parties would, in general, adopt different ontologies. Thus, merely using ontologies, like using XML, does not reduce heterogeneity: it just raises heterogeneity problems to a higher level. Euzenat and Shvaiko's book is devoted to ontology matching as a solution to the semantic heterogeneity problem faced by computer systems. Ontology matching aims at finding correspondences between semantically related entities of different ontologies. These correspondences may stand for equivalence as well as other relations, such as consequence, subsumption, or disjointness, between ontology entities. Many different matching solutions have been proposed so far from various viewpoints, e.g., databases, information systems, artificial intelligence. With Ontology Matching, researchers and practitioners will find a reference book which presents currently available work in a uniform framework. In particular, the work and the techniques presented in this book can equally be applied to database schema matching, catalog integration, XML schema matching and other related problems. The objectives of the book include presenting (i) the state of the art and (ii) the latest research results in ontology matching by providing a detailed account of matching techniques and matching systems in a systematic way from theoretical, practical and application perspectives.
    Date
    20. 6.2012 19:08:22
  12. Dini, L.: CACAO : multilingual access to bibliographic records (2007) 0.02 
    0.019001076 = product of:
  0.04750269 = sum of:
    0.013543615 = weight(_text_:of in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013543615 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 126, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=126)
    0.033959076 = product of:
      0.06791815 = sum of:
        0.06791815 = weight(_text_:22 in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06791815 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 126, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=126)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".
  13. Landry, P.: MACS: multilingual access to subject and link management : Extending the Multilingual Capacity of TEL in the EDL Project (2007) 0.02 
    0.017704215 = product of:
  0.044260535 = sum of:
    0.015961302 = weight(_text_:of in 1287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015961302 = score(doc=1287,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 1287, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1287)
    0.028299233 = product of:
      0.056598466 = sum of:
        0.056598466 = weight(_text_:22 in 1287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056598466 = score(doc=1287,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1287, 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=1287)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".
  14. Mitchell, J.S.; Zeng, M.L.; Zumer, M.: Modeling classification systems in multicultural and multilingual contexts (2012) 0.02 
    0.017266503 = product of:
  0.043166257 = sum of:
    0.019153563 = weight(_text_:of in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019153563 = score(doc=1967,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
    0.024012696 = product of:
      0.048025392 = sum of:
        0.048025392 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048025392 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.
  15. Slavic, A.: Mapping intricacies : UDC to DDC (2010) 0.02 
    0.016217038 = product of:
  0.040542595 = sum of:
    0.018066969 = weight(_text_:of in 3370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018066969 = score(doc=3370,freq=82.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2765708 = fieldWeight in 3370, product of:
          9.055386 = tf(freq=82.0), with freq of:
            82.0 = termFreq=82.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3370)
    0.022475624 = product of:
      0.04495125 = sum of:
        0.04495125 = weight(_text_:mind in 3370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04495125 = score(doc=3370,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2607373 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.17240053 = fieldWeight in 3370, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3370)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    "Last week, I received an email from Yulia Skora in Ukraine who is working on the mapping between UDC Summary and BBK (Bibliographic Library Classification) Summary. It reminded me of yet another challenging area of work. When responding to Yulia I realised that the issues with mapping, for instance, UDC Summary to Dewey Summaries [pdf] are often made more difficult because we have to deal with classification summaries in both systems and we cannot use a known exactMatch in many situations. In 2008, following advice received from colleagues in the HILT project, two of our colleagues quickly mapped 1000 classes of Dewey Summaries to UDC Master Reference File as a whole. This appeared to be relatively simple. The mapping in this case is simply an answer to a question "and how would you say e.g. Art metal work in UDC?" But when in 2009 we realised that we were going to release 2000 classes of UDC Summary as linked data, we decided to wait until we had our UDC Summary set defined and completed to be able to publish it mapped to the Dewey Summaries. As we arrived at this stage, little did we realise how much more complex the reversed mapping of UDC Summary to Dewey Summaries would turn out to be. Mapping the Dewey Summaries to UDC highlighted situations in which the logic and structure of two systems do not agree. Especially because Dewey tends to enumerate combinations of subject and attributes that do not always logically belong together. For instance, 850 Literatures of Italian, Sardinian, Dalmatian, Romanian, Rhaeto-Romanic languages Italian literature. This class mixes languages from three different subgroups of Romance languages. Italian and Sardinian belong to Italo Romance sub-family; Romanian and Dalmatian are Balkan Romance languages and Rhaeto Romance is the third subgroup that includes Friulian Ladin and Romanch. As UDC literature is based on a strict classification of language families, Dewey class 850 has to be mapped to 3 narrower UDC classes 821.131 Literature of Italo-Romance Languages , 821.132 Literature of Rhaeto-Romance languages and 821.135 Literature of Balkan-Romance Languages, or to a broader class 821.13 Literature of Romance languages. Hence we have to be sure that we have all these classes listed in the UDC Summary to be able to express UDC-DDC many-to-one, specific-to-broader relationships.
    Another challenge appears when, e.g., mapping Dewey class 890 Literatures of other specific languages and language families, which does not make sense in UDC in which all languages and literatures have equal status. Standard UDC schedules do not have a selection of preferred literatures and other literatures. In principle, UDC does not allow classes entitled 'others' which do not have defined semantic content. If entities are subdivided and there is no provision for an item outside the listed subclasses then this item is subsumed to a top class or a broader class where all unspecifiied or general members of that class may be expected. If specification is needed this can be divised by adding an alphabetical extension to the broader class. Here we have to find and list in the UDC Summary all literatures that are 'unpreferred' i.e. lumped in the 890 classes and map them again as many-to-one specific-to-broader match. The example below illustrates another interesting case. Classes Dewey 061 and UDC 06 cover roughy the same semantic field but in the subdivision the Dewey Summaries lists a combination of subject and place and as an enumerative classification, provides ready made numbers for combinations of place that are most common in an average (American?) library. This is a frequent approach in the schemes created with the physical book arrangement, i.e. library schelves, in mind. UDC, designed as an indexing language for information retrieval, keeps subject and place in separate tables and allows for any concept of place such as, e.g. (7) North America to be used in combination with any subject as these may coincide in documents. Thus combinations such as Newspapers in North America, or Organizations in North America would not be offered as ready made combinations. There is no selection of 'preferred' or 'most needed countries' or languages or cultures in the standard UDC edition: <Tabelle>
    If we map the Dewey Summaries to UDC in general and do not have to worry about a reverse relationship the situation is very simple as shown above. Mapping of UDC Summary to Dewey Summaries requires more thought. Firstly, UDC class (7) North America (common auxiliary of place) which simply represents the place has to be mapped to all occurences in which this place is 'built in' to the Dewey subjects: 063 Organization of North America 073 Journalism of North America 917 Geography of North America 970 History of North America 277 Christianity in North America 317 General Statistics in North America 557 Earth Sciences of North America The type of mapping from what is a general UDC concept of place (7) North America to a specific subject is clearly a broader-to-narrow match. Mapping of, for instance , UDC class 07 Newspapers. The press (includes journalism) to DDC class of 073 Journalim of North America is again broad-to-narrow match.
    Precombined subjects, such as those shown above from Dewey, may be expressed in UDC Summary as examples of combination within various records. To express an exact match UDC class 07 has to contain example of combination 07(7) Journals. The Press - North America. In some cases we have, therefore, added examples to UDC Summary that represent exact match to Dewey Summaries. It is unfortunate that DDC has so many classes on the top level that deal with a selection of countries or languages that are given a preferred status in the scheme, and repeating these preferences in examples of combinations of UDC emulates an unwelcome cultural bias which we have to balance out somehow. This brings us to another challenge.. UDC 913(7) Regional Geography - North America [contains 2 concepts each of which has its URI] is an exact match to Dewey 917 [represented as one concept, 1 URI]. It seems that, because they represent an exact match to Dewey numbers, these UDC examples of combinations may also need a separate URIs so that they can be published as SKOS data. Albeit challenging, mapping proves to be a very useful exercise and I am looking forward to future work here especially in relation to our plans to map UDC Summary to Colon Classification. We are discussing this project with colleagues from DRTC in Bangalore (India)."
  16. Si, L.: Encoding formats and consideration of requirements for mapping (2007) 0.02 
    0.015664605 = product of:
  0.03916151 = sum of:
    0.01935205 = weight(_text_:of in 540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01935205 = score(doc=540,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 540, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=540)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 540, 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=540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    With the increasing requirement of establishing semantic mappings between different vocabularies, further development of these encoding formats is becoming more and more important. For this reason, four types of knowledge representation formats were assessed:MARC21 for Classification Data in XML, Zthes XML Schema, XTM(XML Topic Map), and SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organisation System). This paper explores the potential of adapting these representation formats to support different semantic mapping methods, and discusses the implication of extending them to represent more complex KOS.
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:22:27
  17. Giunchiglia, F.; Maltese, V.; Dutta, B.: Domains and context : first steps towards managing diversity in knowledge (2011) 0.02 
    0.015394402 = product of:
  0.038486004 = sum of:
    0.016630089 = product of:
      0.08315045 = sum of:
        0.08315045 = weight(_text_:problem in 603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08315045 = score(doc=603,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.46895373 = fieldWeight in 603, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=603)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.021855915 = weight(_text_:of in 603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021855915 = score(doc=603,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 603, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=603)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Despite the progress made, one of the main barriers towards the use of semantics is the lack of background knowledge. Dealing with this problem has turned out to be a very difficult task because on the one hand the background knowledge should be very large and virtually unbound and, on the other hand, it should be context sensitive and able to capture the diversity of the world, for instance in terms of language and knowledge. Our proposed solution consists in addressing the problem in three steps: (1) create an extensible diversity-aware knowledge base providing a continuously growing quantity of properly organized knowledge; (2) given the problem, build at run-time the proper context within which perform the reasoning; (3) solve the problem. Our work is based on two key ideas. The first is that of using domains, i.e. a general semantic-aware methodology and technique for structuring the background knowledge. The second is that of building the context of reasoning by a suitable combination of domains. Our goal in this paper is to introduce the overall approach, show how it can be applied to an important use case, i.e. the matching of classifications, and describe our first steps towards the construction of a large scale diversity-aware knowledge base.
    Content
    Also in: Journal of Web Semantics, special issue on Reasoning with Context in the Semantic Web, April 2012.
    Imprint
    Trento : University of Trento / Department of Information engineering and Computer Science
  18. Boteram, F.; Hubrich, J.: Specifying intersystem relations : requirements, strategies, and issues (2010) 0.02 
    0.015357548 = product of:
  0.03839387 = sum of:
    0.021414334 = weight(_text_:of in 3691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021414334 = score(doc=3691,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 3691, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3691)
    0.016979538 = product of:
      0.033959076 = sum of:
        0.033959076 = weight(_text_:22 in 3691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033959076 = score(doc=3691,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3691, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3691)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Ideally, intersystem relations complement highly expressive and thoroughly structured relational indexing languages. The relational structures of the participating systems contribute to the meaning of the individual terms or classes. When conceptualizing mapping relations the structural and functional design of the respective systems must be fully taken into account. As intersystem relations may differ considerably from familiar interconcept relations, the creation of an adequate inventory that is general in coverage and specific in depth demands a deep understanding of the requirements and properties of mapping relations. The characteristics of specific mapping relations largely rely on the characteristics of the systems they are intended to connect. The detailed declaration of differences and peculiarities of specific mapping relations is an important prerequisite for modelling these relations. First approaches towards specifying
    Date
    22. 7.2010 17:11:51
  19. Golub, K.; Tudhope, D.; Zeng, M.L.; Zumer, M.: Terminology registries for knowledge organization systems : functionality, use, and attributes (2014) 0.02 
    0.015357548 = product of:
  0.03839387 = sum of:
    0.021414334 = weight(_text_:of in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021414334 = score(doc=1347,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 1347, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1347)
    0.016979538 = product of:
      0.033959076 = sum of:
        0.033959076 = weight(_text_:22 in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033959076 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1347, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Terminology registries (TRs) are a crucial element of the infrastructure required for resource discovery services, digital libraries, Linked Data, and semantic interoperability generally. They can make the content of knowledge organization systems (KOS) available both for human and machine access. The paper describes the attributes and functionality for a TR, based on a review of published literature, existing TRs, and a survey of experts. A domain model based on user tasks is constructed and a set of core metadata elements for use in TRs is proposed. Ideally, the TR should allow searching as well as browsing for a KOS, matching a user's search while also providing information about existing terminology services, accessible to both humans and machines. The issues surrounding metadata for KOS are also discussed, together with the rationale for different aspects and the importance of a core set of KOS metadata for future machine-based access; a possible core set of metadata elements is proposed. This is dealt with in terms of practical experience and in relation to the Dublin Core Application Profile.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:12:54
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.9, S.1901-1916
  20. Wake, S.; Nicholson, D.: HILT: High-Level Thesaurus Project : building consensus for interoperable subject access across communities (2001) 0.01 
    0.014739186 = product of:
  0.036847964 = sum of:
    0.019956108 = product of:
      0.09978054 = sum of:
        0.09978054 = weight(_text_:problem in 1224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09978054 = score(doc=1224,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.5627445 = fieldWeight in 1224, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1224)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.016891856 = weight(_text_:of in 1224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016891856 = score(doc=1224,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.25858206 = fieldWeight in 1224, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1224)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article provides an overview of the work carried out by the HILT Project <http://hilt.cdlr.strath.ac.uk> in making recommendations towards interoperable subject access, or cross-searching and browsing distributed services amongst the archives, libraries, museums and electronic services sectors. The article details consensus achieved at the 19 June 2001 HILT Workshop and discusses the HILT Stakeholder Survey. In 1999 Péter Jascó wrote that "savvy searchers" are asking for direction. Three years later the scenario he describes, that of searchers cross-searching databases where the subject vocabulary used in each case is different, still rings true. Jascó states that, in many cases, databases do not offer the necessary aids required to use the "preferred terms of the subject-controlled vocabulary". The databases to which Jascó refers are Dialog and DataStar. However, the situation he describes applies as well to the area that HILT is researching: that of cross-searching and browsing by subject across databases and catalogues in archives, libraries, museums and online information services. So how does a user access information on a particular subject when it is indexed across a multitude of services under different, but quite often similar, subject terms? Also, if experienced searchers are having problems, what about novice searchers? As information professionals, it is our role to investigate such problems and recommend solutions. Although there is no hard empirical evidence one way or another, HILT participants agree that the problem for users attempting to search across databases is real. There is a strong likelihood that users are disadvantaged by the use of different subject terminology combined with a multitude of different practices taking place within the archive, library, museums and online communities. Arguably, failure to address this problem of interoperability undermines the value of cross-searching and browsing facilities, and wastes public money because relevant resources are 'hidden' from searchers. HILT is charged with analysing this broad problem through qualitative methods, with the main aim of presenting a set of recommendations on how to make it easier to cross-search and browse distributed services. Because this is a very large problem composed of many strands, HILT recognizes that any proposed solutions must address a host of issues. Recommended solutions must be affordable, sustainable, politically acceptable, useful, future-proof and international in scope. It also became clear to the HILT team that progress toward finding solutions to the interoperability problem could only be achieved through direct dialogue with other parties keen to solve this problem, and that the problem was as much about consensus building as it was about finding a solution. This article describes how HILT approached the cross-searching problem; how it investigated the nature of the problem, detailing results from the HILT Stakeholder Survey; and how it achieved consensus through the recent HILT Workshop.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 221
  • d 28

Types

  • a 175
  • el 76
  • m 15
  • x 8
  • s 7
  • r 3
  • n 2
  • p 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications