Search (25 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Semantische Interoperabilität"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Gabler, S.: Vergabe von DDC-Sachgruppen mittels eines Schlagwort-Thesaurus (2021) 0.18
    0.18320744 = product of:
      0.44493234 = sum of:
        0.033045247 = product of:
          0.099135734 = sum of:
            0.099135734 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.099135734 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.21167092 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.024967048 = 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)
        0.099135734 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099135734 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21167092 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = 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)
        0.011735085 = weight(_text_:und in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011735085 = score(doc=1000,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.21206908 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
        0.099135734 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099135734 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21167092 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = 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)
        0.099135734 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099135734 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21167092 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = 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)
        0.003609089 = weight(_text_:in in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003609089 = score(doc=1000,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
        0.099135734 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099135734 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21167092 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = 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)
      0.4117647 = coord(7/17)
    
    Abstract
    Vorgestellt wird die Konstruktion eines thematisch geordneten Thesaurus auf Basis der Sachschlagwörter der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND) unter Nutzung der darin enthaltenen DDC-Notationen. Oberste Ordnungsebene dieses Thesaurus werden die DDC-Sachgruppen der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek. Die Konstruktion des Thesaurus erfolgt regelbasiert unter der Nutzung von Linked Data Prinzipien in einem SPARQL Prozessor. Der Thesaurus dient der automatisierten Gewinnung von Metadaten aus wissenschaftlichen Publikationen mittels eines computerlinguistischen Extraktors. Hierzu werden digitale Volltexte verarbeitet. Dieser ermittelt die gefundenen Schlagwörter über Vergleich der Zeichenfolgen Benennungen im Thesaurus, ordnet die Treffer nach Relevanz im Text und gibt die zugeordne-ten Sachgruppen rangordnend zurück. Die grundlegende Annahme dabei ist, dass die gesuchte Sachgruppe unter den oberen Rängen zurückgegeben wird. In einem dreistufigen Verfahren wird die Leistungsfähigkeit des Verfahrens validiert. Hierzu wird zunächst anhand von Metadaten und Erkenntnissen einer Kurzautopsie ein Goldstandard aus Dokumenten erstellt, die im Online-Katalog der DNB abrufbar sind. Die Dokumente vertei-len sich über 14 der Sachgruppen mit einer Losgröße von jeweils 50 Dokumenten. Sämtliche Dokumente werden mit dem Extraktor erschlossen und die Ergebnisse der Kategorisierung do-kumentiert. Schließlich wird die sich daraus ergebende Retrievalleistung sowohl für eine harte (binäre) Kategorisierung als auch eine rangordnende Rückgabe der Sachgruppen beurteilt.
    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.
  2. Rölke, H.; Weichselbraun, A.: Ontologien und Linked Open Data (2023) 0.01
    0.011048991 = product of:
      0.06261095 = sum of:
        0.017925637 = weight(_text_:und in 788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017925637 = score(doc=788,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.32394084 = fieldWeight in 788, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=788)
        0.03958129 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03958129 = score(doc=788,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11246919 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.35193008 = fieldWeight in 788, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=788)
        0.005104023 = weight(_text_:in in 788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005104023 = score(doc=788,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 788, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=788)
      0.1764706 = coord(3/17)
    
    Abstract
    Der Begriff Ontologie stammt ursprünglich aus der Metaphysik, einem Teilbereich der Philosophie, welcher sich um die Erkenntnis der Grundstruktur und Prinzipien der Wirklichkeit bemüht. Ontologien befassen sich dabei mit der Frage, welche Dinge auf der fundamentalsten Ebene existieren, wie sich diese strukturieren lassen und in welchen Beziehungen diese zueinanderstehen. In der Informationswissenschaft hingegen werden Ontologien verwendet, um das Vokabular für die Beschreibung von Wissensbereichen zu formalisieren. Ziel ist es, dass alle Akteure, die in diesen Bereichen tätig sind, die gleichen Konzepte und Begrifflichkeiten verwenden, um eine reibungslose Zusammenarbeit ohne Missverständnisse zu ermöglichen. So definierte zum Beispiel die Dublin Core Metadaten Initiative 15 Kernelemente, die zur Beschreibung von elektronischen Ressourcen und Medien verwendet werden können. Jedes Element wird durch eine eindeutige Bezeichnung (zum Beispiel identifier) und eine zugehörige Konzeption, welche die Bedeutung dieser Bezeichnung möglichst exakt festlegt, beschrieben. Ein Identifier muss zum Beispiel laut der Dublin Core Ontologie ein Dokument basierend auf einem zugehörigen Katalog eindeutig identifizieren. Je nach Katalog kämen daher zum Beispiel eine ISBN (Katalog von Büchern), ISSN (Katalog von Zeitschriften), URL (Web), DOI (Publikationsdatenbank) etc. als Identifier in Frage.
    Source
    Grundlagen der Informationswissenschaft. Hrsg.: Rainer Kuhlen, Dirk Lewandowski, Wolfgang Semar und Christa Womser-Hacker. 7., völlig neu gefasste Ausg
  3. Balakrishnan, U.; Peters, S.; Voß, J.: Coli-conc : eine Infrastruktur zur Nutzung und Erstellung von Konkordanzen (2021) 0.00
    0.0037507485 = product of:
      0.031881362 = sum of:
        0.02682864 = weight(_text_:und in 368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02682864 = score(doc=368,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.4848303 = fieldWeight in 368, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=368)
        0.005052725 = weight(_text_:in in 368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005052725 = score(doc=368,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 368, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=368)
      0.11764706 = coord(2/17)
    
    Abstract
    coli-conc ist eine Dienstleistung der Verbundzentrale des Gemeinsamen Bibliotheksverbundes (VZG). Sie stellt webbasierte Dienste für einen effektiveren Austausch von Wissensorganisationssystemen und für die effiziente Erstellung und Wartung von Mappings zur Verfügung. Der Schwerpunkt liegt auf den im deutschsprachigen Raum verbreiteten bibliothekarischen Klassifikationen und Normdateien, vor allem den bedeutenden Universalklassifikationen wie Dewey Dezimalklassifikation (DDC), Regensburger Verbundklassifikation (RVK), Basisklassifikation (BK) und den Sachgruppen der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie (SDNB). Dieser Bericht beschreibt den Hintergrund, die Architektur und die Funktionalitäten von coli-conc sowie das Herzstück der Infrastruktur - das Mapping-Tool Cocoda. Außerdem wird auf Maßnahmen zur Qualitätssicherung eingegangen und ein Einblick in das neue Mapping-Verfahren mit dem Konzept- Hub gewährt.
    Series
    Bibliotheks- und Informationspraxis; 70
    Source
    Qualität in der Inhaltserschließung. Hrsg.: M. Franke-Maier, u.a
  4. Gabler, S.: Thesauri - a Toolbox for Information Retrieval (2023) 0.00
    0.0032300418 = product of:
      0.027455356 = sum of:
        0.021680813 = weight(_text_:und in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021680813 = score(doc=114,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.39180204 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
        0.0057745427 = weight(_text_:in in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0057745427 = score(doc=114,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
      0.11764706 = coord(2/17)
    
    Abstract
    Thesauri sind etablierte Instrumente der bibliothekarischen Sacherschließung. Durch die jüngste technologische Entwicklung und das Aufkommen künstlicher Intelligenz haben sie an Bedeutung gewonnen, da sie in der Lage sind, erklärbare Ergebnisse für die computergestützte Erschließungs- und Konkordanzarbeit mit anderen Datensätzen und Modellen sowie für die Datenvalidierung zu liefern. Ausgehend von bestehenden eigenen Recherchen für eine Masterarbeit wird der Aspekt der Qualitätssicherung in Bibliothekskatalogen anhand ausgewählter Beispiele vertieft.
    Source
    Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 47(2023) H.2, S.189-199
  5. Menzel, S.; Schnaitter, H.; Zinck, J.; Petras, V.; Neudecker, C.; Labusch, K.; Leitner, E.; Rehm, G.: Named Entity Linking mit Wikidata und GND : das Potenzial handkuratierter und strukturierter Datenquellen für die semantische Anreicherung von Volltexten (2021) 0.00
    0.0031919654 = product of:
      0.027131706 = sum of:
        0.021425236 = weight(_text_:und in 373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021425236 = score(doc=373,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.3871834 = fieldWeight in 373, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=373)
        0.005706471 = weight(_text_:in in 373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005706471 = score(doc=373,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 373, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=373)
      0.11764706 = coord(2/17)
    
    Abstract
    Named Entities (benannte Entitäten) - wie Personen, Organisationen, Orte, Ereignisse und Werke - sind wichtige inhaltstragende Komponenten eines Dokuments und sind daher maßgeblich für eine gute inhaltliche Erschließung. Die Erkennung von Named Entities, deren Auszeichnung (Annotation) und Verfügbarmachung für die Suche sind wichtige Instrumente, um Anwendungen wie z. B. die inhaltliche oder semantische Suche in Texten, dokumentübergreifende Kontextualisierung oder das automatische Textzusammenfassen zu verbessern. Inhaltlich präzise und nachhaltig erschlossen werden die erkannten Named Entities eines Dokuments allerdings erst, wenn sie mit einer oder mehreren Quellen verknüpft werden (Grundprinzip von Linked Data, Berners-Lee 2006), die die Entität eindeutig identifizieren und gegenüber gleichlautenden Entitäten disambiguieren (vergleiche z. B. Berlin als Hauptstadt Deutschlands mit dem Komponisten Irving Berlin). Dazu wird die im Dokument erkannte Entität mit dem Entitätseintrag einer Normdatei oder einer anderen zuvor festgelegten Wissensbasis (z. B. Gazetteer für geografische Entitäten) verknüpft, gewöhnlich über den persistenten Identifikator der jeweiligen Wissensbasis oder Normdatei. Durch die Verknüpfung mit einer Normdatei erfolgt nicht nur die Disambiguierung und Identifikation der Entität, sondern es wird dadurch auch Interoperabilität zu anderen Systemen hergestellt, in denen die gleiche Normdatei benutzt wird, z. B. die Suche nach der Hauptstadt Berlin in verschiedenen Datenbanken bzw. Portalen. Die Entitätenverknüpfung (Named Entity Linking, NEL) hat zudem den Vorteil, dass die Normdateien oftmals Relationen zwischen Entitäten enthalten, sodass Dokumente, in denen Named Entities erkannt wurden, zusätzlich auch im Kontext einer größeren Netzwerkstruktur von Entitäten verortet und suchbar gemacht werden können
    Series
    Bibliotheks- und Informationspraxis; 70
    Source
    Qualität in der Inhaltserschließung. Hrsg.: M. Franke-Maier, u.a
  6. Steeg, F.; Pohl, A.: ¬Ein Protokoll für den Datenabgleich im Web am Beispiel von OpenRefine und der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND) (2021) 0.00
    0.0025334973 = product of:
      0.021534726 = sum of:
        0.017925637 = weight(_text_:und in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017925637 = score(doc=367,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.32394084 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
        0.003609089 = weight(_text_:in in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003609089 = score(doc=367,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
      0.11764706 = coord(2/17)
    
    Abstract
    Normdaten spielen speziell im Hinblick auf die Qualität der Inhaltserschließung bibliografischer und archivalischer Ressourcen eine wichtige Rolle. Ein konkretes Ziel der Inhaltserschließung ist z. B., dass alle Werke über Hermann Hesse einheitlich zu finden sind. Hier bieten Normdaten eine Lösung, indem z. B. bei der Erschließung einheitlich die GND-Nummer 11855042X für Hermann Hesse verwendet wird. Das Ergebnis ist eine höhere Qualität der Inhaltserschließung vor allem im Sinne von Einheitlichkeit und Eindeutigkeit und, daraus resultierend, eine bessere Auffindbarkeit. Werden solche Entitäten miteinander verknüpft, z. B. Hermann Hesse mit einem seiner Werke, entsteht ein Knowledge Graph, wie ihn etwa Google bei der Inhaltserschließung des Web verwendet (Singhal 2012). Die Entwicklung des Google Knowledge Graph und das hier vorgestellte Protokoll sind historisch miteinander verbunden: OpenRefine wurde ursprünglich als Google Refine entwickelt, und die Funktionalität zum Abgleich mit externen Datenquellen (Reconciliation) wurde ursprünglich zur Einbindung von Freebase entwickelt, einer der Datenquellen des Google Knowledge Graph. Freebase wurde später in Wikidata integriert. Schon Google Refine wurde zum Abgleich mit Normdaten verwendet, etwa den Library of Congress Subject Headings (Hooland et al. 2013).
    Series
    Bibliotheks- und Informationspraxis; 70
    Source
    Qualität in der Inhaltserschließung. Hrsg.: M. Franke-Maier, u.a
  7. Candela, G.: ¬An automatic data quality approach to assess semantic data from cultural heritage institutions (2023) 0.00
    0.0018132038 = product of:
      0.015412232 = sum of:
        0.0035728158 = weight(_text_:in in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0035728158 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
        0.011839416 = product of:
          0.023678832 = sum of:
            0.023678832 = weight(_text_:22 in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.023678832 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.08743035 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.024967048 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 997, 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=997)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.11764706 = coord(2/17)
    
    Abstract
    In recent years, cultural heritage institutions have been exploring the benefits of applying Linked Open Data to their catalogs and digital materials. Innovative and creative methods have emerged to publish and reuse digital contents to promote computational access, such as the concepts of Labs and Collections as Data. Data quality has become a requirement for researchers and training methods based on artificial intelligence and machine learning. This article explores how the quality of Linked Open Data made available by cultural heritage institutions can be automatically assessed. The results obtained can be useful for other institutions who wish to publish and assess their collections.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:23:31
  8. Marcondes, C.H.: Towards a vocabulary to implement culturally relevant relationships between digital collections in heritage institutions (2020) 0.00
    0.0017303355 = product of:
      0.014707852 = sum of:
        0.0062511256 = weight(_text_:in in 5757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062511256 = score(doc=5757,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 5757, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5757)
        0.008456727 = product of:
          0.016913453 = sum of:
            0.016913453 = weight(_text_:22 in 5757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.016913453 = score(doc=5757,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.08743035 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.024967048 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5757, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5757)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.11764706 = coord(2/17)
    
    Abstract
    Cultural heritage institutions are publishing their digital collections over the web as LOD. This is is a new step in the patrimonialization and curatorial processes developed by such institutions. Many of these collections are thematically superimposed and complementary. Frequently, objects in these collections present culturally relevant relationships, such as a book about a painting, or a draft or sketch of a famous painting, etc. LOD technology enables such heritage records to be interlinked, achieving interoperability and adding value to digital collections, thus empowering heritage institutions. An aim of this research is characterizing such culturally relevant relationships and organizing them in a vocabulary. Use cases or examples of relationships between objects suggested by curators or mentioned in literature and in the conceptual models as FRBR/LRM, CIDOC CRM and RiC-CM, were collected and used as examples or inspiration of cultural relevant relationships. Relationships identified are collated and compared for identifying those with the same or similar meaning, synthesized and normalized. A set of thirty-three culturally relevant relationships are identified and formalized as a LOD property vocabulary to be used by digital curators to interlink digital collections. The results presented are provisional and a starting point to be discussed, tested, and enhanced.
    Date
    4. 3.2020 14:22:41
  9. Naun, C.C.: Expanding the use of Linked Data value vocabularies in PCC cataloging (2020) 0.00
    5.147986E-4 = product of:
      0.008751577 = sum of:
        0.008751577 = weight(_text_:in in 123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008751577 = score(doc=123,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 123, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=123)
      0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    
    Abstract
    In 2015, the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC was tasked to identify and address linked data identifiers deployment in the current MARC format. By way of a pilot test, a survey, MARC Discussion papers, Proposals, etc., the Task Group initiated and introduced changes to MARC encoding. The Task Group succeeded in laying the ground work for preparing library data transition from MARC data to a linked data, RDF environment.
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC): 25 Years Strong and Growing!'.
  10. Rodrigues Barbosa, E.; Godoy Viera, A.F.: Relações semânticas e interoperabilidade em tesauros representados em SKOS : uma revisao sistematica da literatura (2022) 0.00
    4.7825326E-4 = product of:
      0.008130305 = sum of:
        0.008130305 = weight(_text_:und in 254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008130305 = score(doc=254,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 254, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=254)
      0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  11. Folsom, S.M.: Using the Program for Cooperative Cataloging's past and present to project a Linked Data future (2020) 0.00
    4.160201E-4 = product of:
      0.0070723416 = sum of:
        0.0070723416 = weight(_text_:in in 5747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0070723416 = score(doc=5747,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 5747, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5747)
      0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    
    Abstract
    Drawing on the PCC's history with linked data and related work this article identifies and gives context to pressing areas PCC will need to focus on moving forward. These areas include defining plausible data targets, tractable implementation models and data flows, engaging in related tool development, and participating in the broader linked data community.
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC): 25 Years Strong and Growing!'.
  12. Sartini, B.; Erp, M. van; Gangemi, A.: Marriage is a peach and a chalice : modelling cultural symbolism on the Semantic Web (2021) 0.00
    4.0280976E-4 = product of:
      0.0068477658 = sum of:
        0.0068477658 = weight(_text_:in in 557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0068477658 = score(doc=557,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 557, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=557)
      0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    
    Abstract
    In this work, we fill the gap in the Semantic Web in the context of Cultural Symbolism. Building upon earlier work in \citesartini_towards_2021, we introduce the Simulation Ontology, an ontology that models the background knowledge of symbolic meanings, developed by combining the concepts taken from the authoritative theory of Simulacra and Simulations of Jean Baudrillard with symbolic structures and content taken from "Symbolism: a Comprehensive Dictionary'' by Steven Olderr. We re-engineered the symbolic knowledge already present in heterogeneous resources by converting it into our ontology schema to create HyperReal, the first knowledge graph completely dedicated to cultural symbolism. A first experiment run on the knowledge graph is presented to show the potential of quantitative research on symbolism.
  13. Cheng, Y.-Y.; Xia, Y.: ¬A systematic review of methods for aligning, mapping, merging taxonomies in information sciences (2023) 0.00
    3.6771328E-4 = product of:
      0.0062511256 = sum of:
        0.0062511256 = weight(_text_:in in 1029) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062511256 = score(doc=1029,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 1029, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1029)
      0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study is to provide a systematic literature review on taxonomy alignment methods in information science to explore the common research pipeline and characteristics. Design/methodology/approach The authors implement a five-step systematic literature review process relating to taxonomy alignment. They take on a knowledge organization system (KOS) perspective, and specifically examining the level of KOS on "taxonomies." Findings They synthesize the matching dimensions of 28 taxonomy alignment studies in terms of the taxonomy input, approach and output. In the input dimension, they develop three characteristics: tree shapes, variable names and symmetry; for approach: methodology, unit of matching, comparison type and relation type; for output: the number of merged solutions and whether original taxonomies are preserved in the solutions. Research limitations/implications The main research implications of this study are threefold: (1) to enhance the understanding of the characteristics of a taxonomy alignment work; (2) to provide a novel categorization of taxonomy alignment approaches into natural language processing approach, logic-based approach and heuristic-based approach; (3) to provide a methodological guideline on the must-include characteristics for future taxonomy alignment research. Originality/value There is no existing comprehensive review on the alignment of "taxonomies". Further, no other mapping survey research has discussed the comparison from a KOS perspective. Using a KOS lens is critical in understanding the broader picture of what other similar systems of organizations are, and enables us to define taxonomies more precisely.
  14. Hider, P.; Coe, M.: Academic disciplines in the context of library classification : mapping university faculty structures to the DDC and LCC schemes (2022) 0.00
    3.640176E-4 = product of:
      0.006188299 = sum of:
        0.006188299 = weight(_text_:in in 709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006188299 = score(doc=709,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 709, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=709)
      0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    
    Abstract
    We investigated the extent to which the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and the Library of Congress Classification reflect the organizational structures of Australian universities. The mapping of the faculty structures of ten universities to the two schemes showed strong alignment, with very few fields represented in the names of the organizational units not covered at all by either bibliographic scheme. This suggests a degree of universality and "scientific and educational consensus" with respect to both the schemes and academic disciplines. The article goes on to discuss the concept of discipline and its application in bibliographic classification.
  15. Kahlawi, A,: ¬An ontology driven ESCO LOD quality enhancement (2020) 0.00
    3.1201506E-4 = product of:
      0.005304256 = sum of:
        0.005304256 = weight(_text_:in in 5959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005304256 = score(doc=5959,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 5959, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5959)
      0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    
    Abstract
    The labor market is a system that is complex and difficult to manage. To overcome this challenge, the European Union has launched the ESCO project which is a language that aims to describe this labor market. In order to support the spread of this project, its dataset was presented as linked open data (LOD). Since LOD is usable and reusable, a set of conditions have to be met. First, LOD must be feasible and high quality. In addition, it must provide the user with the right answers, and it has to be built according to a clear and correct structure. This study investigates the LOD of ESCO, focusing on data quality and data structure. The former is evaluated through applying a set of SPARQL queries. This provides solutions to improve its quality via a set of rules built in first order logic. This process was conducted based on a new proposed ESCO ontology.
  16. Rocha Souza, R.; Lemos, D.: a comparative analysis : Knowledge organization systems for the representation of multimedia resources on the Web (2020) 0.00
    3.1201506E-4 = product of:
      0.005304256 = sum of:
        0.005304256 = weight(_text_:in in 5993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005304256 = score(doc=5993,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 5993, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5993)
      0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    
    Abstract
    The lack of standardization in the production, organization and dissemination of information in documentation centers and institutions alike, as a result from the digitization of collections and their availability on the internet has called for integration efforts. The sheer availability of multimedia content has fostered the development of many distinct and, most of the time, independent metadata standards for its description. This study aims at presenting and comparing the existing standards of metadata, vocabularies and ontologies for multimedia annotation and also tries to offer a synthetic overview of its main strengths and weaknesses, aiding efforts for semantic integration and enhancing the findability of available multimedia resources on the web. We also aim at unveiling the characteristics that could, should and are perhaps not being highlighted in the characterization of multimedia resources.
  17. Smith, A.: Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) (2022) 0.00
    3.1201506E-4 = product of:
      0.005304256 = sum of:
        0.005304256 = weight(_text_:in in 1094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005304256 = score(doc=1094,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 1094, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1094)
      0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    
    Abstract
    SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System) is a recommendation from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) for representing controlled vocabularies, taxonomies, thesauri, classifications, and similar systems for organizing and indexing information as linked data elements in the Semantic Web, using the Resource Description Framework (RDF). The SKOS data model is centered on "concepts", which can have preferred and alternate labels in any language as well as other metadata, and which are identified by addresses on the World Wide Web (URIs). Concepts are grouped into hierarchies through "broader" and "narrower" relations, with "top concepts" at the broadest conceptual level. Concepts are also organized into "concept schemes", also identified by URIs. Other relations, mappings, and groupings are also supported. This article discusses the history of the development of SKOS and provides notes on adoption, uses, and limitations.
    Series
    Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization
  18. Balakrishnan, U,; Soergel, D.; Helfer, O.: Representing concepts through description logic expressions for knowledge organization system (KOS) mapping (2020) 0.00
    3.0023666E-4 = product of:
      0.005104023 = sum of:
        0.005104023 = weight(_text_:in in 144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005104023 = score(doc=144,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 144, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=144)
      0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.17
  19. Binding, C.; Gnoli, C.; Tudhope, D.: Migrating a complex classification scheme to the semantic web : expressing the Integrative Levels Classification using SKOS RDF (2021) 0.00
    3.0023666E-4 = product of:
      0.005104023 = sum of:
        0.005104023 = weight(_text_:in in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005104023 = score(doc=600,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
      0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose The Integrative Levels Classification (ILC) is a comprehensive "freely faceted" knowledge organization system not previously expressed as SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System). This paper reports and reflects on work converting the ILC to SKOS representation. Design/methodology/approach The design of the ILC representation and the various steps in the conversion to SKOS are described and located within the context of previous work considering the representation of complex classification schemes in SKOS. Various issues and trade-offs emerging from the conversion are discussed. The conversion implementation employed the STELETO transformation tool. Findings The ILC conversion captures some of the ILC facet structure by a limited extension beyond the SKOS standard. SPARQL examples illustrate how this extension could be used to create faceted, compound descriptors when indexing or cataloguing. Basic query patterns are provided that might underpin search systems. Possible routes for reducing complexity are discussed. Originality/value Complex classification schemes, such as the ILC, have features which are not straight forward to represent in SKOS and which extend beyond the functionality of the SKOS standard. The ILC's facet indicators are modelled as rdf:Property sub-hierarchies that accompany the SKOS RDF statements. The ILC's top-level fundamental facet relationships are modelled by extensions of the associative relationship - specialised sub-properties of skos:related. An approach for representing faceted compound descriptions in ILC and other faceted classification schemes is proposed.
  20. Schreur, P.E.: ¬The use of Linked Data and artificial intelligence as key elements in the transformation of technical services (2020) 0.00
    2.972191E-4 = product of:
      0.005052725 = sum of:
        0.005052725 = weight(_text_:in in 125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005052725 = score(doc=125,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 125, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=125)
      0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    
    Abstract
    Library Technical Services have benefited from numerous stimuli. Although initially looked at with suspicion, transitions such as the move from catalog cards to the MARC formats have proven enormously helpful to libraries and their patrons. Linked data and Artificial Intelligence (AI) hold the same promise. Through the conversion of metadata surrogates (cataloging) to linked open data, libraries can represent their resources on the Semantic Web. But in order to provide some form of controlled access to unstructured data, libraries must reach beyond traditional cataloging to new tools such as AI to provide consistent access to a growing world of full-text resources.