Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Hogan, A."
  • × theme_ss:"Semantic Web"
  1. Hogan, A.; Harth, A.; Umbrich, J.; Kinsella, S.; Polleres, A.; Decker, S.: Searching and browsing Linked Data with SWSE : the Semantic Web Search Engine (2011) 0.00
    2.7806804E-4 = product of:
      0.0063955644 = sum of:
        0.0063955644 = weight(_text_:und in 438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0063955644 = score(doc=438,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 438, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=438)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    Content
    Vgl.: http://swse.deri.org/ und http://swse.org/.
  2. Glimm, B.; Hogan, A.; Krötzsch, M.; Polleres, A.: OWL: Yet to arrive on the Web of Data? (2012) 0.00
    2.0495258E-4 = product of:
      0.0047139092 = sum of:
        0.0047139092 = product of:
          0.0094278185 = sum of:
            0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0094278185 = score(doc=4798,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.023567878 = queryNorm
                0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 4798, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4798)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    Abstract
    Seven years on from OWL becoming a W3C recommendation, and two years on from the more recent OWL 2 W3C recommendation, OWL has still experienced only patchy uptake on the Web. Although certain OWL features (like owl:sameAs) are very popular, other features of OWL are largely neglected by publishers in the Linked Data world. This may suggest that despite the promise of easy implementations and the proposal of tractable profiles suggested in OWL's second version, there is still no "right" standard fragment for the Linked Data community. In this paper, we (1) analyse uptake of OWL on the Web of Data, (2) gain insights into the OWL fragment that is actually used/usable on the Web, where we arrive at the conclusion that this fragment is likely to be a simplified profile based on OWL RL, (3) propose and discuss such a new fragment, which we call OWL LD (for Linked Data).