Search (111 results, page 1 of 6)

0.22898833 = product of:
  0.57247084 = sum of:
    0.14311771 = product of:
      0.42935312 = sum of:
        0.42935312 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.42935312 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3819745 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505473 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.42935312 = weight(_text_:2f in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.42935312 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3819745 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.22898164 = product of:
  0.38163605 = sum of:
    0.19348378 = weight(_text_:wide in 5965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19348378 = score(doc=5965,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19962662 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.9692284 = fieldWeight in 5965, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5965)
    0.07422385 = weight(_text_:web in 5965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07422385 = score(doc=5965,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14703658 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 5965, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5965)
    0.1139284 = product of:
      0.2278568 = sum of:
        0.2278568 = weight(_text_:server in 5965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2278568 = score(doc=5965,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25762302 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7180014 = idf(docFreq=394, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505473 = queryNorm
            0.88445824 = fieldWeight in 5965, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7180014 = idf(docFreq=394, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

0.17796594 = product of:
  0.29660988 = sum of:
    0.06362044 = weight(_text_:web in 563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06362044 = score(doc=563,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14703658 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 563, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=563)
    0.21467656 = weight(_text_:2f in 563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21467656 = score(doc=563,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3819745 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 563, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=563)
    0.01831288 = product of:
      0.03662576 = sum of:
        0.03662576 = weight(_text_:22 in 563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03662576 = score(doc=563,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15777399 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505473 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 563, 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=563)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

In this thesis we propose three new word association measures for multi-word term extraction. We combine these association measures with LocalMaxs algorithm in our extraction model and compare the results of different multi-word term extraction methods. Our approach is language and domain independent and requires no training data. It can be applied to such tasks as text summarization, information retrieval, and document classification. We further explore the potential of using multi-word terms as an effective representation for general web-page summarization. We extract multi-word terms from human written summaries in a large collection of web-pages, and generate the summaries by aligning document words with these multi-word terms. Our system applies machine translation technology to learn the aligning process from a training set and focuses on selecting high quality multi-word terms from human written summaries to generate suitable results for web-page summarization.

Content

A Thesis presented to The University of Guelph In partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Computer Science. Vgl. Unter: http://www.inf.ufrgs.br%2F~ceramisch%2Fdownload_files%2Fpublications%2F2009%2Fp01.pdf.

Date

10. 1.2013 19:22:47

0.17066617 = product of:
  0.28444362 = sum of:
    0.059632376 = product of:
      0.17889713 = sum of:
        0.17889713 = weight(_text_:3a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17889713 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3819745 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505473 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4997, 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=4997)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0459141 = weight(_text_:web in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0459141 = score(doc=4997,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14703658 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
    0.17889713 = weight(_text_:2f in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17889713 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3819745 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4997, 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=4997)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

While classifications are heavily used to categorize web content, the evolution of the web foresees a more formal structure - ontology - which can serve this purpose. Ontologies are core artifacts of the Semantic Web which enable machines to use inference rules to conduct automated reasoning on data. Lightweight ontologies bridge the gap between classifications and ontologies. A lightweight ontology (LO) is an ontology representing a backbone taxonomy where the concept of the child node is more specific than the concept of the parent node. Formal lightweight ontologies can be generated from their informal ones. The key applications of formal lightweight ontologies are document classification, semantic search, and data integration. However, these applications suffer from the following problems: the disambiguation accuracy of the state of the art NLP tools used in generating formal lightweight ontologies from their informal ones; the lack of background knowledge needed for the formal lightweight ontologies; and the limitation of ontology reuse. In this dissertation, we propose a novel solution to these problems in formal lightweight ontologies; namely, faceted lightweight ontology (FLO). FLO is a lightweight ontology in which terms, present in each node label, and their concepts, are available in the background knowledge (BK), which is organized as a set of facets. A facet can be defined as a distinctive property of the groups of concepts that can help in differentiating one group from another. Background knowledge can be defined as a subset of a knowledge base, such as WordNet, and often represents a specific domain.

Content

PhD Dissertation at International Doctorate School in Information and Communication Technology. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fcore.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F150083013.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2n-qisNagpyT0lli_6QbAQ.

0.15902281 = product of:
  0.265038 = sum of:
    0.059632376 = product of:
      0.17889713 = sum of:
        0.17889713 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17889713 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3819745 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505473 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, 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=4388)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.026508518 = weight(_text_:web in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026508518 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14703658 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
    0.17889713 = weight(_text_:2f in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17889713 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3819745 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, 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=4388)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

0.15902281 = product of:
  0.265038 = sum of:
    0.059632376 = product of:
      0.17889713 = sum of:
        0.17889713 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17889713 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3819745 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505473 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.026508518 = weight(_text_:web in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026508518 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14703658 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    0.17889713 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17889713 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3819745 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = 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)
  0.6 = 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.

0.13248876 = product of:
  0.22081459 = sum of:
    0.047705904 = product of:
      0.14311771 = sum of:
        0.14311771 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14311771 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3819745 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505473 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.029990964 = weight(_text_:web in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029990964 = score(doc=701,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14703658 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
    0.14311771 = weight(_text_:2f in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14311771 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3819745 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

By the explosion of possibilities for a ubiquitous content production, the information overload problem reaches the level of complexity which cannot be managed by traditional modelling approaches anymore. Due to their pure syntactical nature traditional information retrieval approaches did not succeed in treating content itself (i.e. its meaning, and not its representation). This leads to a very low usefulness of the results of a retrieval process for a user's task at hand. In the last ten years ontologies have been emerged from an interesting conceptualisation paradigm to a very promising (semantic) modelling technology, especially in the context of the Semantic Web. From the information retrieval point of view, ontologies enable a machine-understandable form of content description, such that the retrieval process can be driven by the meaning of the content. However, the very ambiguous nature of the retrieval process in which a user, due to the unfamiliarity with the underlying repository and/or query syntax, just approximates his information need in a query, implies a necessity to include the user in the retrieval process more actively in order to close the gap between the meaning of the content and the meaning of a user's query (i.e. his information need). This thesis lays foundation for such an ontology-based interactive retrieval process, in which the retrieval system interacts with a user in order to conceptually interpret the meaning of his query, whereas the underlying domain ontology drives the conceptualisation process. In that way the retrieval process evolves from a query evaluation process into a highly interactive cooperation between a user and the retrieval system, in which the system tries to anticipate the user's information need and to deliver the relevant content proactively. Moreover, the notion of content relevance for a user's query evolves from a content dependent artefact to the multidimensional context-dependent structure, strongly influenced by the user's preferences. This cooperation process is realized as the so-called Librarian Agent Query Refinement Process. In order to clarify the impact of an ontology on the retrieval process (regarding its complexity and quality), a set of methods and tools for different levels of content and query formalisation is developed, ranging from pure ontology-based inferencing to keyword-based querying in which semantics automatically emerges from the results. Our evaluation studies have shown that the possibilities to conceptualize a user's information need in the right manner and to interpret the retrieval results accordingly are key issues for realizing much more meaningful information retrieval systems.

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F1627&ei=tAtYUYrBNoHKtQb3l4GYBw&usg=AFQjCNHeaxKkKU3-u54LWxMNYGXaaDLCGw&sig2=8WykXWQoDKjDSdGtAakH2Q&bvm=bv.44442042,d.Yms.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.10144578 = product of:
  0.1690763 = sum of:
    0.048862036 = weight(_text_:wide in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048862036 = score(doc=1210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19962662 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
    0.079525545 = weight(_text_:web in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079525545 = score(doc=1210,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.14703658 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.5408555 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
    0.040688716 = product of:
      0.08137743 = sum of:
        0.08137743 = weight(_text_:server in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08137743 = score(doc=1210,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25762302 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7180014 = idf(docFreq=394, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505473 = queryNorm
            0.31587794 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7180014 = idf(docFreq=394, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The current web consists of documents that are highly heterogeneous and hard for machines to understand. The Semantic Web is a progressive movement of the Word Wide Web, aiming at converting the current web of unstructured documents to the web of data. In the Semantic Web, web documents are annotated with metadata using standardized ontology language. These annotated documents are directly processable by machines and it highly improves their usability and usefulness. In Ericsson, similar problems occur. There are massive documents being created with well-defined structures. Though these documents are about domain specific knowledge and can have rich relations, they are currently managed by a traditional search engine, which ignores the rich domain specific information and presents few data to users. Motivated by the Semantic Web, we aim to find standard ways to process these documents, extract rich domain specific information and annotate these data to documents with formal markup languages. We propose this project to develop a domain specific search engine for processing different documents and building explicit relations for them. This research project consists of the three main focuses: examining different domain specific documents and finding ways to extract their metadata; integrating a text search engine with an ontology server; exploring novel ways to build relations for documents. We implement this system and demonstrate its functions. As a prototype, the system provides required features and will be extended in the future.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.10004196 = product of:
  0.2501049 = sum of:
    0.047705904 = product of:
      0.14311771 = sum of:
        0.14311771 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14311771 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3819745 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505473 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.202399 = weight(_text_:2f in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.202399 = score(doc=5820,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.3819745 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.5298757 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Information Technologies. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.cmu.edu%2F~cx%2Fpapers%2Fknowledge_based_text_representation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0SaTSvhWLTh__Uz_HtOtl3.

0.09671283 = product of:
  0.24178207 = sum of:
    0.1368137 = weight(_text_:wide in 4532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1368137 = score(doc=4532,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19962662 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.685348 = fieldWeight in 4532, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4532)
    0.10496838 = weight(_text_:web in 4532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10496838 = score(doc=4532,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14703658 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.71389294 = fieldWeight in 4532, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4532)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

0.096474305 = product of:
  0.24118575 = sum of:
    0.15635851 = weight(_text_:wide in 5961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15635851 = score(doc=5961,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19962662 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.7832548 = fieldWeight in 5961, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5961)
    0.08482725 = weight(_text_:web in 5961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08482725 = score(doc=5961,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14703658 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 5961, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5961)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

0.0954118 = product of:
  0.2385295 = sum of:
    0.059632376 = product of:
      0.17889713 = sum of:
        0.17889713 = weight(_text_:3a in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17889713 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3819745 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505473 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 855, 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=855)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.17889713 = weight(_text_:2f in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17889713 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3819745 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 855, 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=855)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

Vgl. auch: New automatic interpreter for complex UDC numbers. Unter: <https%3A%2F%2Fudcc.org%2Ffiles%2FAttilaPiros_EC_36-37_2014-2015.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3kc9CwDDCWP7aArpfjrs5b>

0.07235573 = product of:
  0.18088932 = sum of:
    0.11726888 = weight(_text_:wide in 785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726888 = score(doc=785,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19962662 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.5874411 = fieldWeight in 785, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=785)
    0.06362044 = weight(_text_:web in 785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06362044 = score(doc=785,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14703658 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 785, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=785)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

0.064368814 = product of:
  0.10728135 = sum of:
    0.034550678 = weight(_text_:wide in 3173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034550678 = score(doc=3173,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19962662 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.17307651 = fieldWeight in 3173, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3173)
    0.043959405 = weight(_text_:web in 3173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043959405 = score(doc=3173,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.14703658 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.29896918 = fieldWeight in 3173, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3173)
    0.028771266 = product of:
      0.057542533 = sum of:
        0.057542533 = weight(_text_:server in 3173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057542533 = score(doc=3173,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25762302 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7180014 = idf(docFreq=394, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505473 = queryNorm
            0.22335944 = fieldWeight in 3173, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7180014 = idf(docFreq=394, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3173)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The integration of metadata from distinct, heterogeneous data sources requires metadata interoperability, which is a qualitative property of metadata information objects that is not given by default. The technique of metadata mapping allows domain experts to establish metadata interoperability in a certain integration scenario. Mapping solutions, as a technical manifestation of this technique, are already available for the intensively studied domain of database system interoperability, but they rarely exist for the Web. If we consider the amount of steadily increasing structured metadata and corresponding metadata schemes on theWeb, we can observe a clear need for a mapping solution that can operate in aWeb-based environment. To achieve that, we first need to build its technical core, which is a mapping model that provides the language primitives to define mapping relationships. Existing SemanticWeb languages such as RDFS and OWL define some basic mapping elements (e.g., owl:equivalentProperty, owl:sameAs), but do not address the full spectrum of semantic and structural heterogeneities that can occur among distinct, incompatible metadata information objects. Furthermore, it is still unclear how to process defined mapping relationships during run-time in order to deliver metadata to the client in a uniform way. As the main contribution of this thesis, we present an abstract mapping model, which reflects the mapping problem on a generic level and provides the means for reconciling incompatible metadata. Instance transformation functions and URIs take a central role in that model. The former cover a broad spectrum of possible structural and semantic heterogeneities, while the latter bind the complete mapping model to the architecture of the Word Wide Web. On the concrete, language-specific level we present a binding of the abstract mapping model for the RDF Vocabulary Description Language (RDFS), which allows us to create mapping specifications among incompatible metadata schemes expressed in RDFS. The mapping model is embedded in a cyclic process that categorises the requirements a mapping solution should fulfil into four subsequent phases: mapping discovery, mapping representation, mapping execution, and mapping maintenance. In this thesis, we mainly focus on mapping representation and on the transformation of mapping specifications into executable SPARQL queries. For mapping discovery support, the model provides an interface for plugging-in schema and ontology matching algorithms. For mapping maintenance we introduce the concept of a simple, but effective mapping registry. Based on the mapping model, we propose aWeb-based mediator wrapper-architecture that allows domain experts to set up mediation endpoints that provide a uniform SPARQL query interface to a set of distributed metadata sources. The involved data sources are encapsulated by wrapper components that expose the contained metadata and the schema definitions on the Web and provide a SPARQL query interface to these metadata. In this thesis, we present the OAI2LOD Server, a wrapper component for integrating metadata that are accessible via the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). In a case study, we demonstrate how mappings can be created in aWeb environment and how our mediator wrapper architecture can easily be configured in order to integrate metadata from various heterogeneous data sources without the need to install any mapping solution or metadata integration solution in a local system environment.

Content

Die Integration von Metadaten aus unterschiedlichen, heterogenen Datenquellen erfordert Metadaten-Interoperabilität, eine Eigenschaft die nicht standardmäßig gegeben ist. Metadaten Mapping Verfahren ermöglichen es Domänenexperten Metadaten-Interoperabilität in einem bestimmten Integrationskontext herzustellen. Mapping Lösungen sollen dabei die notwendige Unterstützung bieten. Während diese für den etablierten Bereich interoperabler Datenbanken bereits existieren, ist dies für Web-Umgebungen nicht der Fall. Betrachtet man das Ausmaß ständig wachsender strukturierter Metadaten und Metadatenschemata im Web, so zeichnet sich ein Bedarf nach Web-basierten Mapping Lösungen ab. Den Kern einer solchen Lösung bildet ein Mappingmodell, das die zur Spezifikation von Mappings notwendigen Sprachkonstrukte definiert. Existierende Semantic Web Sprachen wie beispielsweise RDFS oder OWL bieten zwar grundlegende Mappingelemente (z.B.: owl:equivalentProperty, owl:sameAs), adressieren jedoch nicht das gesamte Sprektrum möglicher semantischer und struktureller Heterogenitäten, die zwischen unterschiedlichen, inkompatiblen Metadatenobjekten auftreten können. Außerdem fehlen technische Lösungsansätze zur Überführung zuvor definierter Mappings in ausfu¨hrbare Abfragen. Als zentraler wissenschaftlicher Beitrag dieser Dissertation, wird ein abstraktes Mappingmodell pr¨asentiert, welches das Mappingproblem auf generischer Ebene reflektiert und Lösungsansätze zum Abgleich inkompatibler Schemata bietet. Instanztransformationsfunktionen und URIs nehmen in diesem Modell eine zentrale Rolle ein. Erstere überbrücken ein breites Spektrum möglicher semantischer und struktureller Heterogenitäten, während letztere das Mappingmodell in die Architektur des World Wide Webs einbinden. Auf einer konkreten, sprachspezifischen Ebene wird die Anbindung des abstrakten Modells an die RDF Vocabulary Description Language (RDFS) präsentiert, wodurch ein Mapping zwischen unterschiedlichen, in RDFS ausgedrückten Metadatenschemata ermöglicht wird. Das Mappingmodell ist in einen zyklischen Mappingprozess eingebunden, der die Anforderungen an Mappinglösungen in vier aufeinanderfolgende Phasen kategorisiert: mapping discovery, mapping representation, mapping execution und mapping maintenance. Im Rahmen dieser Dissertation beschäftigen wir uns hauptsächlich mit der Representation-Phase sowie mit der Transformation von Mappingspezifikationen in ausführbare SPARQL-Abfragen. Zur Unterstützung der Discovery-Phase bietet das Mappingmodell eine Schnittstelle zur Einbindung von Schema- oder Ontologymatching-Algorithmen. Für die Maintenance-Phase präsentieren wir ein einfaches, aber seinen Zweck erfüllendes Mapping-Registry Konzept. Auf Basis des Mappingmodells stellen wir eine Web-basierte Mediator-Wrapper Architektur vor, die Domänenexperten die Möglichkeit bietet, SPARQL-Mediationsschnittstellen zu definieren. Die zu integrierenden Datenquellen müssen dafür durch Wrapper-Komponenen gekapselt werden, welche die enthaltenen Metadaten im Web exponieren und SPARQL-Zugriff ermöglichen. Als beipielhafte Wrapper Komponente präsentieren wir den OAI2LOD Server, mit dessen Hilfe Datenquellen eingebunden werden können, die ihre Metadaten über das Open Archives Initative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) exponieren. Im Rahmen einer Fallstudie zeigen wir, wie Mappings in Web-Umgebungen erstellt werden können und wie unsere Mediator-Wrapper Architektur nach wenigen, einfachen Konfigurationsschritten Metadaten aus unterschiedlichen, heterogenen Datenquellen integrieren kann, ohne dass dadurch die Notwendigkeit entsteht, eine Mapping Lösung in einer lokalen Systemumgebung zu installieren.

0.060296442 = product of:
  0.1507411 = sum of:
    0.09772407 = weight(_text_:wide in 1486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09772407 = score(doc=1486,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19962662 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.48953426 = fieldWeight in 1486, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1486)
    0.053017035 = weight(_text_:web in 1486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053017035 = score(doc=1486,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14703658 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 1486, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1486)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

0.051905703 = product of:
  0.12976426 = sum of:
    0.05863444 = weight(_text_:wide in 4333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05863444 = score(doc=4333,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19962662 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 4333, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4333)
    0.07112982 = weight(_text_:web in 4333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07112982 = score(doc=4333,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14703658 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 4333, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4333)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Das Semantic Web bezeichnet ein erweitertes World Wide Web (WWW), das die Bedeutung von präsentierten Inhalten in neuen standardisierten Sprachen wie RDF Schema und OWL modelliert. Diese Arbeit befasst sich mit dem Aspekt des Information Retrieval, d.h. es wird untersucht, in wie weit Methoden der Informationssuche sich auf modelliertes Wissen übertragen lassen. Die kennzeichnenden Merkmale von IR-Systemen wie vage Anfragen sowie die Unterstützung unsicheren Wissens werden im Kontext des Semantic Web behandelt. Im Fokus steht die Suche nach Fakten innerhalb einer Wissensdomäne, die entweder explizit modelliert sind oder implizit durch die Anwendung von Inferenz abgeleitet werden können. Aufbauend auf der an der Universität Duisburg-Essen entwickelten Retrievalmaschine PIRE wird die Anwendung unsicherer Inferenz mit probabilistischer Prädikatenlogik (pDatalog) implementiert.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.05135048 = product of:
  0.1283762 = sum of:
    0.069101356 = weight(_text_:wide in 115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069101356 = score(doc=115,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19962662 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.34615302 = fieldWeight in 115, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=115)
    0.05927485 = weight(_text_:web in 115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05927485 = score(doc=115,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14703658 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 115, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=115)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Bibliografische Daten, Normdaten und Metadaten im Semantic Web - Konzepte der Bibliografischen Kontrolle im Wandel. Der Titel dieser Arbeit zielt in ein essentielles Feld der Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft, die Bibliografische Kontrolle. Als zweites zentrales Konzept wird der in der Weiterentwicklung des World Wide Webs (WWW) bedeutsame Begriff des Semantic Webs genannt. Auf den ersten Blick handelt es sich hier um einen ungleichen Wettstreit. Auf der einen Seite die Bibliografische Kontrolle, welche die Methoden und Mittel zur Erschließung von bibliothekarischen Objekten umfasst und traditionell in Form von formal-inhaltlichen Surrogaten in Katalogen daherkommt. Auf der anderen Seite das Buzzword Semantic Web mit seinen hochtrabenden Konnotationen eines durch Selbstreferenzialität "bedeutungstragenden", wenn nicht sogar "intelligenten" Webs. Wie kamen also eine wissenschaftliche Bibliothekarin und ein Mitglied des World Wide Web Consortiums 2007 dazu, gemeinsam einen Aufsatz zu publizieren und darin zu behaupten, das semantische Netz würde ein "bibliothekarischeres" Netz sein? Um sich dieser Frage zu nähern, soll zunächst kurz die historische Entwicklung der beiden Informationssphären Bibliothek und WWW gemeinsam betrachtet werden. Denn so oft - und völlig zurecht - die informationelle Revolution durch das Internet beschworen wird, so taucht auch immer wieder das Analogon einer weltweiten, virtuellen Bibliothek auf. Genauer gesagt, nahmen die theoretischen Überlegungen, die später zur Entwicklung des Internets führen sollten, ihren Ausgangspunkt (neben Kybernetik und entstehender Computertechnik) beim Konzept des Informationsspeichers Bibliothek.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.046006184 = product of:
  0.115015455 = sum of:
    0.069101356 = weight(_text_:wide in 3742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069101356 = score(doc=3742,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19962662 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.34615302 = fieldWeight in 3742, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3742)
    0.0459141 = weight(_text_:web in 3742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0459141 = score(doc=3742,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14703658 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 3742, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3742)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Es steht uns eine praktisch unbegrenzte Menge an Informationen über das World Wide Web zur Verfügung. Das Problem, das daraus erwächst, ist, diese Menge zu bewältigen und an die Information zu gelangen, die im Augenblick benötigt wird. Das überwältigende Angebot zwingt sowohl professionelle Anwender als auch Laien zu suchen, ungeachtet ihrer Ansprüche an die gewünschten Informationen. Um dieses Suchen effizienter zu gestalten, gibt es einerseits die Möglichkeit, leistungsstärkere Suchmaschinen zu entwickeln. Eine andere Möglichkeit ist, Daten besser zu strukturieren, um an die darin enthaltenen Informationen zu gelangen. Hoch strukturierte Daten sind maschinell verarbeitbar, sodass ein Teil der Sucharbeit automatisiert werden kann. Das Semantic Web ist die Vision eines weiterentwickelten World Wide Web, in dem derart strukturierten Daten von so genannten Softwareagenten verarbeitet werden. Die fortschreitende inhaltliche Strukturierung von Daten wird Semantisierung genannt. Im ersten Teil der Arbeit sollen einige wichtige Methoden der inhaltlichen Strukturierung von Daten skizziert werden, um die Stellung von Ontologien innerhalb der Semantisierung zu klären. Im dritten Kapitel wird der Aufbau und die Aufgabe des CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM), einer Domain Ontologie im Bereich des Kulturerbes dargestellt. Im darauf folgenden praktischen Teil werden verschiedene Ansätze zur Verwendung des CRM diskutiert und umgesetzt. Es wird ein Vorschlag zur Implementierung des Modells in XML erarbeitet. Das ist eine Möglichkeit, die dem Datentransport dient. Außerdem wird der Entwurf einer Klassenbibliothek in Java dargelegt, auf die die Verarbeitung und Nutzung des Modells innerhalb eines Informationssystems aufbauen kann.

0.046006184 = product of:
  0.115015455 = sum of:
    0.069101356 = weight(_text_:wide in 2029) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069101356 = score(doc=2029,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19962662 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.34615302 = fieldWeight in 2029, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2029)
    0.0459141 = weight(_text_:web in 2029) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0459141 = score(doc=2029,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14703658 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2029, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2029)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Informationen werden heute von den meisten Menschen vor allem im World Wide Web gesucht. Bibliothekskataloge und damit die in den wissenschaftlichen Bibliotheken gepflegte intellektuelle Sacherschliessung konkurrieren dabei mit einfach und intuitiv zu benutzenden Suchmaschinen. Die Anforderungen an die thematische Recherche hat sich in den letzten Jahren durch die rasante Entwicklung der Informationstechnologie grundlegend verändert. Darüber hinaus sehen sich die Bibliotheken heute mit dem Problem konfrontiert, dass die zunehmende Flut an elektronischen Publikationen bei gleichzeitig abnehmenden Ressourcen intellektuell nicht mehr bewältigt werden kann. Vor diesem Hintergrund hat die Expertengruppe Sacherschliessung - eine Arbeitsgruppe innerhalb der Arbeitsstelle für Standardisierung der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek (DNB), in welcher Vertreterinnen und Vertreter der deutschsprachigen Bibliotheksverbünde repräsentiert sind - 2013 damit begonnen, sich mit der Neuausrichtung der verbalen Sacherschliessung zu befassen. Bei der aktuellen Überarbeitung der Regeln für den Schlagwortkatalog (RSWK) sollen die verbale und klassifikatorische Sacherschliessung, ebenso wie die intellektuelle und automatische Indexierung in einem Zusammenhang betrachtet werden. Neben der neuen Suchmaschinentechnologie und den automatischen Indexierungsmethoden gewinnt dabei vor allem die Vernetzung der Bibliothekskataloge mit anderen Ressourcen im World Wide Web immer mehr an Bedeutung. Ausgehend von einer Analyse der grundlegenden Prinzipien der international verbreiteten Normen und Standards (FRBR, FRSAD und RDA) beschäftige ich mich in meiner Masterarbeit mit der in der Expertengruppe Sacherschliessung geführten Debatte über die aktuelle Überarbeitung der RSWK. Dabei stellt sich insbesondere die Frage, welche Auswirkungen die rasante Entwicklung der Informationstechnologie auf die zukünftige Neuausrichtung der intellektuellen Sacherschliessung haben wird? Welche Rolle spielen in Zukunft die Suchmaschinen und Discovery Systeme, die automatischen Indexierungsverfahren und das Semantic Web bzw. Linked Open Data bei der inhaltlichen Erschliessung von bibliografischen Ressourcen?

0.043254755 = product of:
  0.108136885 = sum of:
    0.048862036 = weight(_text_:wide in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048862036 = score(doc=2476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19962662 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
    0.05927485 = weight(_text_:web in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05927485 = score(doc=2476,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14703658 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505473 = queryNorm
        0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Nach dem zu Beginn der Ära des World Wide Web von Hand gepflegte Linklisten und -Verzeichnisse und an Freunde und Kollegen per E-Mail verschickte Links genügten, um die Informationen zu finden, nach denen man suchte, waren schon bald Volltextsuchmaschinen und halbautomatisch betriebene Kataloge notwendig, um den mehr und mehr anschwellenden Informationsfluten des Web Herr zu werden. Heute bereits sind diese Dämme gebrochen und viele Millionen Websites halten Billionen an Einzelseiten mit Informationen vor, von Datenbanken und anderweitig versteckten Informationen ganz zu schweigen. Mit Volltextsuchmaschinen erreicht man bei dieser Masse keine befriedigenden Ergebnisse mehr. Entweder man erzeugt lange Suchterme mit vielen Ausschließungen und ebenso vielen nicht-exklusiven ODER-Verknüpfungen um verschiedene Schreibweisen für den gleichen Term abzudecken oder man wählt von vornherein die Daten-Quelle, an die man seine Fragen stellt, genau aus. Doch oft bleiben nur klassische Web-Suchmaschinen übrig, zumal wenn der Fragende kein Informationsspezialist mit Kenntnissen von Spezialdatenbanken ist, sondern, von dieser Warte aus gesehenen, ein Laie. Und nicht nur im Web selbst, auch in unternehmensinternen Intranets steht man vor diesem Problem. Tausende von indizierten Dokumente mögen ein Eckdatum sein, nach dem sich der Erfolg der Einführung eines Intranets bemessen lässt, aber eine Aussage über die Nützlichkeit ist damit nicht getroffen. Und die bleibt meist hinter den Erwartungen zurück, vor allem bei denen Mitarbeitern, die tatsächlich mit dem Intranet arbeiten müssen. Entscheidend ist für die Informationsauffindung in Inter- und Intranet eine einfach zu nutzende und leicht anpassbare Möglichkeit, neue interessante Inhalte zu entdecken. Mit Tags steht eine mögliche Lösung bereit.