Search (411 results, page 1 of 21)

0.021399792 = product of:
  0.07489927 = sum of:
    0.027943838 = weight(_text_:system in 3261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027943838 = score(doc=3261,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.36163113 = fieldWeight in 3261, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3261)
    0.011207362 = weight(_text_:information in 3261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011207362 = score(doc=3261,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 3261, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3261)
    0.025775949 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025775949 = score(doc=3261,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 3261, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3261)
    0.009972124 = product of:
      0.019944249 = sum of:
        0.019944249 = weight(_text_:22 in 3261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019944249 = score(doc=3261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3261, 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=3261)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

Ontologies improve IR systems regarding its retrieval and presentation of information, which make the task of finding information more effective, efficient, and interactive. In this paper we argue that ontologies also greatly improve the engineering of such systems. We created a framework that uses ontology to drive the process of engineering an IR system. We developed a prototype that shows how a domain specialist without knowledge in the IR field can build an IR system with interactive components. The resulting system provides support for users not only to find their information needs but also to extend their state of knowledge. This way, our approach to ontology-enabled information retrieval addresses both the engineering aspect described here and also the usability aspect described elsewhere.

Date

28.11.2016 12:43:22

0.015795203 = product of:
  0.07371095 = sum of:
    0.026618723 = weight(_text_:system in 1153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026618723 = score(doc=1153,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 1153, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1153)
    0.008269517 = weight(_text_:information in 1153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008269517 = score(doc=1153,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1153, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1153)
    0.038822707 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038822707 = score(doc=1153,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.5231199 = fieldWeight in 1153, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1153)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

In the proposed article a new, ontology-based approach to information retrieval (IR) is presented. The system is based on a domain knowledge representation schema in form of ontology. New resources registered within the system are linked to concepts from this ontology. In such a way resources may be retrieved based on the associations and not only based on partial or exact term matching as the use of vector model presumes In order to evaluate the quality of this retrieval mechanism, experiments to measure retrieval efficiency have been performed with well-known Cystic Fibrosis collection of medical scientific papers. The ontology-based retrieval mechanism has been compared with traditional full text search based on vector IR model as well as with the Latent Semantic Indexing method.

0.012306197 = product of:
  0.05742892 = sum of:
    0.02328653 = weight(_text_:system in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02328653 = score(doc=1193,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
    0.009339468 = weight(_text_:information in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009339468 = score(doc=1193,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
    0.024802918 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024802918 = score(doc=1193,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

This article describes two approaches for searching heterogeneous resources, which are explained as they are used in two corresponding existing systems-RIRS (Resource Integration Retrieval System) and HRUSP (Heterogeneous Resource Union Search Platform). On analyzing the existing systems, a possible framework-the MUSP (Multimetadata-Based Union Search Platform) is presented. Libraries now face a dilemma. On one hand, libraries subscribe to many types of database retrieval systems that are produced by various providers. The libraries build their data and information systems independently. This results in highly heterogeneous and distributed systems at the technical level (e.g., different operating systems and user interfaces) and at the conceptual level (e.g., the same objects are named using different terms). On the other hand, end users want to access all these heterogeneous data via a union interface, without having to know the structure of each information system or the different retrieval methods used by the systems. Libraries must achieve a harmony between information providers and users. In order to bridge the gap between the service providers and the users, it would seem that all source databases would need to be rebuilt according to a uniform data structure and query language, but this seems impossible. Fortunately, however, libraries and information and technology providers are now making an effort to find a middle course that meets the requirements of both data providers and users. They are doing this through resource integration.

Theme

Information Gateway

0.011695301 = product of:
  0.05457807 = sum of:
    0.016133383 = weight(_text_:system in 4328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016133383 = score(doc=4328,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 4328, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4328)
    0.008681185 = weight(_text_:information in 4328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008681185 = score(doc=4328,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4328, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4328)
    0.029763501 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029763501 = score(doc=4328,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 4328, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4328)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

An increasing number of recent information retrieval systems make use of ontologies to help the users clarify their information needs and come up with semantic representations of documents. A particular concern here is the integration of these semantic approaches with traditional search technology. The research presented in this paper examines how ontologies can be efficiently applied to large-scale search systems for the web. We describe how these systems can be enriched with adapted ontologies to provide both an in-depth understanding of the user's needs as well as an easy integration with standard vector-space retrieval systems. The ontology concepts are adapted to the domain terminology by computing a feature vector for each concept. Later, the feature vectors are used to enrich a provided query. The whole retrieval system is under development as part of a larger Semantic Web standardization project for the Norwegian oil & gas sector.

0.0109178955 = product of:
  0.050950177 = sum of:
    0.022816047 = weight(_text_:system in 4704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022816047 = score(doc=4704,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 4704, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4704)
    0.0070881573 = weight(_text_:information in 4704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070881573 = score(doc=4704,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4704, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4704)
    0.021045974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021045974 = score(doc=4704,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 4704, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4704)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Swoogle is a crawler-based indexing and retrieval system for the Semantic Web, i.e., for Web documents in RDF or OWL. It extracts metadata for each discovered document, and computes relations between documents. Discovered documents are also indexed by an information retrieval system which can use either character N-Gram or URIrefs as keywords to find relevant documents and to compute the similarity among a set of documents. One of the interesting properties we compute is rank, a measure of the importance of a Semantic Web document.

Source

CIKM '04 Proceedings of the thirteenth ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management

0.010861087 = product of:
  0.05068507 = sum of:
    0.024050226 = weight(_text_:system in 1742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024050226 = score(doc=1742,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.31124252 = fieldWeight in 1742, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1742)
    0.009450877 = weight(_text_:information in 1742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009450877 = score(doc=1742,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 1742, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1742)
    0.017183965 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017183965 = score(doc=1742,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.23154683 = fieldWeight in 1742, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1742)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

While being theoretically so widely available, information can be restricted from a more general use by linguistic barriers. The linguistic aspects of the information languages and particularly the chances of an enhanced access to information by means of multilingual access facilities will make the substance of this thesis. The main problem of this research is thus to demonstrate that information retrieval can be improved by using multilingual thesaurus terms based on an intermediate or switching language to search with. Universal classification systems in general can play the role of switching languages for reasons dealt with in the forthcoming pages. The Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) in particular is the classification system used as example of a switching language for our objectives. The question may arise: why a universal classification system and not another thesaurus? Because the UDC like most of the classification systems uses symbols. Therefore, it is language independent and the problems of compatibility between such a thesaurus and different other thesauri in different languages are avoided. Another question may still arise? Why not then, assign running numbers to the descriptors in a thesaurus and make a switching language out of the resulting enumerative system? Because of some other characteristics of the UDC: hierarchical structure and terminological richness, consistency and control. One big problem to find an answer to is: can a thesaurus be made having as a basis a classification system in any and all its parts? To what extent this question can be given an affirmative answer? This depends much on the attributes of the universal classification system which can be favourably used to this purpose. Examples of different situations will be given and discussed upon beginning with those classes of UDC which are best fitted for building a thesaurus structure out of them (classes which are both hierarchical and faceted)...

Content

Inhalt: INFORMATION LANGUAGES: A LINGUISTIC APPROACH MULTILINGUAL ASPECTS IN INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL COMPATIBILITY AND CONVERTIBILITY OF INFORMATION LANGUAGES CURRENT TRENDS IN MULTILINGUAL ACCESS BUILDING UDC-BASED MULTILINGUAL THESAURI ONLINE APPLICATIONS OF THE UDC-BASED MULTILINGUAL THESAURI THE IMPACT OF SPECIFICITY ON THE RETRIEVAL POWER OF A UDC-BASED MULTILINGUAL THESAURUS FINAL REMARKS AND GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Proefschrift voorgelegd tot het behalen van de graad van doctor in de Taal- en Letterkunde aan de Universiteit Antwerpen. - Vgl.: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1862/.

0.010666414 = product of:
  0.0497766 = sum of:
    0.008353474 = weight(_text_:information in 611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008353474 = score(doc=611,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 611, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=611)
    0.024802918 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024802918 = score(doc=611,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 611, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=611)
    0.016620208 = product of:
      0.033240415 = sum of:
        0.033240415 = weight(_text_:22 in 611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033240415 = score(doc=611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 611, 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=611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Content

Präsentation zum Vortrag anlässlich des 98. Deutscher Bibliothekartag in Erfurt: Ein neuer Blick auf Bibliotheken; TK10: Information erschließen und recherchieren Inhalte erschließen - mit neuen Tools

Date

22. 8.2009 12:54:24

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.01054786 = product of:
  0.049223345 = sum of:
    0.018822279 = weight(_text_:system in 6106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018822279 = score(doc=6106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 6106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6106)
    0.0058474317 = weight(_text_:information in 6106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058474317 = score(doc=6106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 6106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6106)
    0.024553634 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024553634 = score(doc=6106,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 6106, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6106)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Living Memory is an interdisciplinary project running for two years, which is realised in cooperation of several institutions. It aims at developing an information system for a digital collection of different types of visual resources and will combine classical methods of image indexing and retrieval with innovative approaches like content-based image retrieval and the use of topic maps for semantic searching and browsing. This work-in-progress-report outlines the aims of the project and present first results after the period of fifteen months.

0.010024834 = product of:
  0.04678256 = sum of:
    0.019013375 = weight(_text_:system in 1924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019013375 = score(doc=1924,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 1924, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1924)
    0.010230875 = weight(_text_:information in 1924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010230875 = score(doc=1924,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 1924, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1924)
    0.017538311 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017538311 = score(doc=1924,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 1924, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1924)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Relevance feedback was one of the first interactive information retrieval techniques to help systems learn more about users' interests. Relevance feedback has been used in a variety of IR applications including query expansion, term disambiguation, user profiling, filtering and personalization. Initial relevance feedback techniques were explicit, in that they required the user's active participation. Many of today's relevance feedback techniques are implicit and based on users' information seeking behaviors, such as the pages they choose to visit, the frequency with which they visit pages, and the length of time pages are displayed. Although this type of information is available in great abundance, it is difficult to interpret without understanding more about the user's search goals and context. In this talk, I will address the following questions: what techniques are available to help us learn about users' interests and preferences? What types of evidence are available through a user's interactions with the system and with the information provided by the system? What do we need to know to accurately interpret and use this evidence? I will address the first two questions by presenting an overview of relevance feedback research in information retrieval. I will address the third question by presenting results of some of my own research that examined the online information seeking behaviors of users during a 14-week period and the context in which these behaviors took place.

0.009874061 = product of:
  0.04607895 = sum of:
    0.021511177 = weight(_text_:system in 1205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021511177 = score(doc=1205,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 1205, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1205)
    0.0047254385 = weight(_text_:information in 1205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0047254385 = score(doc=1205,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 1205, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1205)
    0.019842334 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019842334 = score(doc=1205,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 1205, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1205)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Music websites are ubiquitous, and music downloads, such as MP3, are a major source of Web traffic. As the amount of musical content increases and the Web becomes an important mechanism for distributing music, we expect to see a rising demand for music search services. Many currently available music search engines rely on file names, song title, composer or performer as the indexing and retrieval mechanism. These systems do not make use of the musical content. We believe that a more natural, effective, and usable music-information retrieval (MIR) system should have audio input, where the user can query with musical content. We are developing a system called MusArt for audio-input MIR. With MusArt, as with other audio-input MIR systems, a user sings or plays a theme, hook, or riff from the desired piece of music. The system transcribes the query and searches for related themes in a database, returning the most similar themes, given some measure of similarity. We call this "retrieval by query." In this paper, we describe the architecture of MusArt. An important element of MusArt is metadata creation: we believe that it is essential to automatically abstract important musical elements, particularly themes. Theme extraction is performed by a subsystem called MME, which we describe later in this paper. Another important element of MusArt is its support for a variety of search engines, as we believe that MIR is too complex for a single approach to work for all queries. Currently, MusArt supports a dynamic time-warping search engine that has high recall, and a complementary stochastic search engine that searches over themes, emphasizing speed and relevancy. The stochastic search engine is discussed in this paper.

Theme

Information Gateway

0.009485896 = product of:
  0.044267513 = sum of:
    0.016133383 = weight(_text_:system in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016133383 = score(doc=1173,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
    0.0070881573 = weight(_text_:information in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070881573 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
    0.021045974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021045974 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Popular commercial on-line services such as Google, e-Bay, Amazon, and Netflix have evolved quickly over the last decade to help people find what they want, developing information retrieval strategies such as usefully ranked results, spelling correction, and recommender systems. Online library catalogs (OPACs), in contrast, have changed little and are notoriously difficult for patrons to use (University of California Libraries, 2005). Over the past year (June 2005 to the present), the Melvyl Recommender Project (California Digital Library, 2005) has been exploring methods and feasibility of closing the gap between features that library patrons want and have come to expect from information retrieval systems and what libraries are currently equipped to deliver. The project team conducted exploratory work in five topic areas: relevance ranking, auto-correction, use of a text-based discovery system, user interface strategies, and recommending. This article focuses specifically on the recommending portion of the project and potential extensions to that work.

0.009411427 = product of:
  0.065879986 = sum of:
    0.021511177 = weight(_text_:system in 3979) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021511177 = score(doc=3979,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 3979, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3979)
    0.044368807 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3979) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044368807 = score(doc=3979,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.59785134 = fieldWeight in 3979, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3979)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The retrieval problem is one of the main reasoning tasks for knowledge base systems. Given a knowledge base K and a concept C, the retrieval problem consists of finding all individuals a for which K logically entails C(a). We present an approach to answer retrieval queries over (a restriction of) OWL ontologies. Our solution is based on reducing the retrieval problem to a problem of evaluating an SQL query over a database constructed from the original knowledge base. We provide complete answers to retrieval problems. Still, our system performs very well as is shown by a standard benchmark.

0.009152117 = product of:
  0.04270988 = sum of:
    0.022816047 = weight(_text_:system in 3150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022816047 = score(doc=3150,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 3150, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3150)
    0.0050120843 = weight(_text_:information in 3150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050120843 = score(doc=3150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3150)
    0.014881751 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014881751 = score(doc=3150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3150)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records (FRSAR) Working Group was formed in 2005 as the third IFLA working group of the FRBR family to address subject authority data issues and to investigate the direct and indirect uses of subject authority data by a wide range of users. This paper introduces the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD), the model developed by the FRSAR Working Group, and discusses it in the context of other related conceptual models defined in the specifications during recent years, including the British Standard BS8723-5: Structured vocabularies for information retrieval - Guide Part 5: Exchange formats and protocols for interoperability, W3C's SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference, and OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. These models enable the consideration of the functions of subject authority data and concept schemes at a higher level that is independent of any implementation, system, or specific context, while allowing us to focus on the semantics, structures, and interoperability of subject authority data.

0.009007545 = product of:
  0.04203521 = sum of:
    0.0058474317 = weight(_text_:information in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058474317 = score(doc=4324,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4324, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4324)
    0.024553634 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024553634 = score(doc=4324,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 4324, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4324)
    0.011634145 = product of:
      0.02326829 = sum of:
        0.02326829 = weight(_text_:22 in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02326829 = score(doc=4324,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4324, 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=4324)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Date

11. 2.2011 18:22:25

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.008704734 = product of:
  0.040622093 = sum of:
    0.010755588 = weight(_text_:system in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010755588 = score(doc=2799,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
    0.0100241685 = weight(_text_:information in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0100241685 = score(doc=2799,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.23274568 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
    0.019842334 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019842334 = score(doc=2799,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

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.

Theme

Information Gateway

0.0086287 = product of:
  0.040267266 = sum of:
    0.021511177 = weight(_text_:system in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021511177 = score(doc=1196,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
    0.0047254385 = weight(_text_:information in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0047254385 = score(doc=1196,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
    0.014030648 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014030648 = score(doc=1196,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

This article describes the journey from the conception of and vision for a modern search-engine-based search environment to its technological realisation. In doing so, it takes up the thread of an earlier article on this subject, this time from a technical viewpoint. As well as presenting the conceptual considerations of the initial stages, this article will principally elucidate the technological aspects of this journey. The starting point for the deliberations about development of an academic search engine was the experience we gained through the generally successful project "Digital Library NRW", in which from 1998 to 2000-with Bielefeld University Library in overall charge-we designed a system model for an Internet-based library portal with an improved academic search environment at its core. At the heart of this system was a metasearch with an availability function, to which we added a user interface integrating all relevant source material for study and research. The deficiencies of this approach were felt soon after the system was launched in June 2001. There were problems with the stability and performance of the database retrieval system, with the integration of full-text documents and Internet pages, and with acceptance by users, because users are increasingly performing the searches themselves using search engines rather than going to the library for help in doing searches. Since a long list of problems are also encountered using commercial search engines for academic use (in particular the retrieval of academic information and long-term availability), the idea was born for a search engine configured specifically for academic use. We also hoped that with one single access point founded on improved search engine technology, we could access the heterogeneous academic resources of subject-based bibliographic databases, catalogues, electronic newspapers, document servers and academic web pages.

Theme

Information Gateway

0.008542442 = product of:
  0.039864726 = sum of:
    0.02328653 = weight(_text_:system in 548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02328653 = score(doc=548,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 548, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=548)
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=548)
    0.012401459 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012401459 = score(doc=548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=548)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

UDC aims to be a consistent and complete classification system, that enables practitioners to classify documents swiftly and smoothly. The eventual goal of UDC is to enable the public at large to retrieve documents from large collections of documents that are classified with UDC. The large size of the UDC Master Reference File, MRF with over 66.000 records, makes it difficult to obtain an overview and to understand its structure. Moreover, finding the right classification in MRF turns out to be difficult in practice. Last but not least, retrieval of documents requires insight and understanding of the coding system. Visualization is an effective means to support the development of UDC as well as its use by practitioners. Moreover, visualization offers possibilities to use the classification without use of the coding system as such. MagnaView has developed an application which demonstrates the use of interactive visualization to face these challenges. In our presentation, we discuss these challenges, and we give a demonstration of the way the application helps face these. Examples of visualizations can be found below.

Content

Beitrag anlässlich des 'UDC Seminar: Information Access for the Global Community, The Hague, 4-5 June 2007'. - Vgl.: http://www.udcc.org/seminar07/presentations/magnaview.pdf.

0.008537784 = product of:
  0.039842993 = sum of:
    0.013444485 = weight(_text_:system in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013444485 = score(doc=1211,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
    0.008860197 = weight(_text_:information in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008860197 = score(doc=1211,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.20572007 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
    0.017538311 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017538311 = score(doc=1211,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

In this article we present a method for retrieving documents from a digital library through a visual interface based on automatically generated concepts. We used a vocabulary generation algorithm to generate a set of concepts for the digital library and a technique called the max-min distance technique to cluster them. Additionally, the concepts were visualized in a spring embedding graph layout to depict the semantic relationship among them. The resulting graph layout serves as an aid to users for retrieving documents. An online archive containing the contents of D-Lib Magazine from July 1995 to May 2002 was used to test the utility of an implemented retrieval and visualization system. We believe that the method developed and tested can be applied to many different domains to help users get a better understanding of online document collections and to minimize users' cognitive load during execution of search tasks. Over the past few years, the volume of information available through the World Wide Web has been expanding exponentially. Never has so much information been so readily available and shared among so many people. Unfortunately, the unstructured nature and huge volume of information accessible over networks have made it hard for users to sift through and find relevant information. To deal with this problem, information retrieval (IR) techniques have gained more intensive attention from both industrial and academic researchers. Numerous IR techniques have been developed to help deal with the information overload problem. These techniques concentrate on mathematical models and algorithms for retrieval. Popular IR models such as the Boolean model, the vector-space model, the probabilistic model and their variants are well established.
From the user's perspective, however, it is still difficult to use current information retrieval systems. Users frequently have problems expressing their information needs and translating those needs into queries. This is partly due to the fact that information needs cannot be expressed appropriately in systems terms. It is not unusual for users to input search terms that are different from the index terms information systems use. Various methods have been proposed to help users choose search terms and articulate queries. One widely used approach is to incorporate into the information system a thesaurus-like component that represents both the important concepts in a particular subject area and the semantic relationships among those concepts. Unfortunately, the development and use of thesauri is not without its own problems. The thesaurus employed in a specific information system has often been developed for a general subject area and needs significant enhancement to be tailored to the information system where it is to be used. This thesaurus development process, if done manually, is both time consuming and labor intensive. Usage of a thesaurus in searching is complex and may raise barriers for the user. For illustration purposes, let us consider two scenarios of thesaurus usage. In the first scenario the user inputs a search term and the thesaurus then displays a matching set of related terms. Without an overview of the thesaurus - and without the ability to see the matching terms in the context of other terms - it may be difficult to assess the quality of the related terms in order to select the correct term. In the second scenario the user browses the whole thesaurus, which is organized as in an alphabetically ordered list. The problem with this approach is that the list may be long, and neither does it show users the global semantic relationship among all the listed terms.
Nevertheless, because thesaurus use has shown to improve retrieval, for our method we integrate functions in the search interface that permit users to explore built-in search vocabularies to improve retrieval from digital libraries. Our method automatically generates the terms and their semantic relationships representing relevant topics covered in a digital library. We call these generated terms the "concepts", and the generated terms and their semantic relationships we call the "concept space". Additionally, we used a visualization technique to display the concept space and allow users to interact with this space. The automatically generated term set is considered to be more representative of subject area in a corpus than an "externally" imposed thesaurus, and our method has the potential of saving a significant amount of time and labor for those who have been manually creating thesauri as well. Information visualization is an emerging discipline and developed very quickly in the last decade. With growing volumes of documents and associated complexities, information visualization has become increasingly important. Researchers have found information visualization to be an effective way to use and understand information while minimizing a user's cognitive load. Our work was based on an algorithmic approach of concept discovery and association. Concepts are discovered using an algorithm based on an automated thesaurus generation procedure. Subsequently, similarities among terms are computed using the cosine measure, and the associations among terms are established using a method known as max-min distance clustering. The concept space is then visualized in a spring embedding graph, which roughly shows the semantic relationships among concepts in a 2-D visual representation. The semantic space of the visualization is used as a medium for users to retrieve the desired documents. In the remainder of this article, we present our algorithmic approach of concept generation and clustering, followed by description of the visualization technique and interactive interface. The paper ends with key conclusions and discussions on future work.

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.008533131 = product of:
  0.03982128 = sum of:
    0.006682779 = weight(_text_:information in 1525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006682779 = score(doc=1525,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1525, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1525)
    0.019842334 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019842334 = score(doc=1525,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 1525, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1525)
    0.0132961655 = product of:
      0.026592331 = sum of:
        0.026592331 = weight(_text_:22 in 1525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026592331 = score(doc=1525,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1525, 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=1525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Date

22. 8.2015 21:23:08

0.008533131 = product of:
  0.03982128 = sum of:
    0.006682779 = weight(_text_:information in 2474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006682779 = score(doc=2474,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 2474, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2474)
    0.019842334 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019842334 = score(doc=2474,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 2474, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2474)
    0.0132961655 = product of:
      0.026592331 = sum of:
        0.026592331 = weight(_text_:22 in 2474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026592331 = score(doc=2474,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2474, 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=2474)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Van Dijck builds up an example of actual XFML by showing how to organize tourist information about what restaurants in what cities feature which kind of music: <facet id="city">City</facet> and <topic id="ny" facetid="city"><name>New York</name></topic> combine to mean that New York is the name of a city internally represented as "ny". It is written in the usual clear and practical style of articles on xml.com. Highly recommended as an introduction for anyone interested in XFML.

Source

http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/2003/01/22/xfml.html

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval