Search (92 results, page 5 of 5)

5.4638134E-4 = product of:
  0.00819572 = sum of:
    0.00819572 = product of:
      0.01639144 = sum of:
        0.01639144 = weight(_text_:internet in 4043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01639144 = score(doc=4043,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0837547 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 4043, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4043)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

This paper presents a clustered approach to designing an overall ontological model together with a general rule-based component that serves as a mapping device. By observational criteria, a multi-lingual team of experts excerpts concepts from general communication in the media. The team, then, finds equivalent expressions in English, German, French, and Spanish. On the basis of a set of ontological and lexical relations, a conceptual network is built up. Concepts are thought to be universal. Objects unique in time and space are identified by names and will be explained by the universals as their instances. Our approach relies on multi-relational descriptions of concepts. It provides a powerful tool for documentation and conceptual language learning. First and foremost, our multi-lingual, polyhierarchical ontology fills the gap of semantically-based information retrieval by generating enhanced and improved queries for internet search

5.4638134E-4 = product of:
  0.00819572 = sum of:
    0.00819572 = product of:
      0.01639144 = sum of:
        0.01639144 = weight(_text_:internet in 540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01639144 = score(doc=540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0837547 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 540, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Semantic Search has become an active research of Semantic Web in recent years. The classification methodology plays a pretty critical role in the beginning of search process to disambiguate irrelevant information. However, the applications related to Folksonomy suffer from many obstacles. This study attempts to eliminate the problems resulted from Folksonomy using existing semantic technology. We also focus on how to effectively integrate heterogeneous ontologies over the Internet to acquire the integrity of domain knowledge. A faceted logic layer is abstracted in order to strengthen category framework and organize existing available ontologies according to a series of steps based on the methodology of faceted classification and ontology construction. The result showed that our approach can facilitate the integration of inconsistent or even heterogeneous ontologies. This paper also generalizes the principles of picking appropriate facets with which our facet browser completely complies so that better semantic search result can be obtained.

5.4638134E-4 = product of:
  0.00819572 = sum of:
    0.00819572 = product of:
      0.01639144 = sum of:
        0.01639144 = weight(_text_:internet in 3374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01639144 = score(doc=3374,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0837547 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 3374, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3374)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

As the amount of content and the number of users in social relationships is continually growing in the Internet, resource sharing and access policy management is difficult, time-consuming and error-prone. Cross-domain recommendation of private or protected resources managed and secured by each domain's specific access rules is impracticable due to private security policies and poor sharing mechanisms. This work focus on exploiting resource's content, user's preferences, users' social networks and semantic information to cross-relate different resources through their meta information using recommendation techniques that combine collaborative-filtering techniques with semantics annotations, by generating associations between resources. The semantic similarities established between resources are used on a hybrid recommendation engine that interprets user and resources' semantic information. The recommendation engine allows the promotion and discovery of unknown-unknown resources to users that could not even know about the existence of those resources thus providing means to solve the cross-domain recommendation of private or protected resources.

5.1249703E-4 = product of:
  0.0076874555 = sum of:
    0.0076874555 = product of:
      0.015374911 = sum of:
        0.015374911 = weight(_text_:22 in 1163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015374911 = score(doc=1163,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0993465 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1163, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1163)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Link Analysis, Counterterrorism, and Security, SIAM Data Mining Conference, Bethesda, MD, 20-22 April, 2006. [http://www.siam.org/meetings/sdm06/workproceed/Link%20Analysis/15.pdf]

5.1249703E-4 = product of:
  0.0076874555 = sum of:
    0.0076874555 = product of:
      0.015374911 = sum of:
        0.015374911 = weight(_text_:22 in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015374911 = score(doc=1626,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0993465 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1626, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

4.5531782E-4 = product of:
  0.006829767 = sum of:
    0.006829767 = product of:
      0.013659534 = sum of:
        0.013659534 = weight(_text_:internet in 1615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013659534 = score(doc=1615,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0837547 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 1615, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1615)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

4.5531782E-4 = product of:
  0.006829767 = sum of:
    0.006829767 = product of:
      0.013659534 = sum of:
        0.013659534 = weight(_text_:internet in 431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013659534 = score(doc=431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0837547 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 431, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

The birth of the Web has brought an exponential growth to the amount of the information that is freely available to the Internet population, overloading users and entangling their efforts to satisfy their information needs. Web search engines such Google, Yahoo, or Bing have become popular mainly due to the fact that they offer an easy-to-use query interface (i.e., based on keywords) and an effective and efficient query execution mechanism. The majority of these search engines do not consider information stored on the deep or hidden Web [9,28], despite the fact that the size of the deep Web is estimated to be much bigger than the surface Web [9,47]. There have been a number of systems that record interactions with the deep Web sources or automatically submit queries them (mainly through their Web form interfaces) in order to index their context. Unfortunately, this technique is only partially indexing the data instance. Moreover, it is not possible to take advantage of the query capabilities of data sources, for example, of the relational query features, because their interface is often restricted from the Web form. Besides, Web search engines focus on retrieving documents and not on querying structured sources, so they are unable to access information based on concepts.

4.5531782E-4 = product of:
  0.006829767 = sum of:
    0.006829767 = product of:
      0.013659534 = sum of:
        0.013659534 = weight(_text_:internet in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013659534 = score(doc=2696,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0837547 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 2696, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2696)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Search Engines have become an integral part of our day to day life. Our reliance on search engines increases with every passing day. With the amount of data available on Internet increasing exponentially, it becomes important to develop new methods and tools that help to return results relevant to the queries and reduce the time spent on searching. The results should be diverse but at the same time should return results focused on the queries asked. Relation Based Page Rank [4] algorithms are considered to be the next frontier in improvement of Semantic Web Search. The probability of finding relevance in the search results as posited by the user while entering the query is used to measure the relevance. However, its application is limited by the complexity of determining relation between the terms and assigning explicit meaning to each term. Trust Rank is one of the most widely used ranking algorithms for semantic web search. Few other ranking algorithms like HITS algorithm, PageRank algorithm are also used for Semantic Web Searching. In this paper, we will provide a comparison of few ranking approaches.

4.484349E-4 = product of:
  0.0067265234 = sum of:
    0.0067265234 = product of:
      0.013453047 = sum of:
        0.013453047 = weight(_text_:22 in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013453047 = score(doc=1633,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0993465 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1633, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

3.8634997E-4 = product of:
  0.0057952492 = sum of:
    0.0057952492 = product of:
      0.0115904985 = sum of:
        0.0115904985 = weight(_text_:internet in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0115904985 = score(doc=1270,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0837547 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.13838623 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 54(2003) no.7, S.695-697 (R. Savolainen): "Donald O. Case has written an ambitious book to create an overall picture of the major approaches to information needs and seeking (INS) studies. The aim to write an extensive review is reflected in the list of references containing about 700 items. The high ambitions are explained an p. 14, where Case states that he is aiming at a multidisciplinary understanding of the concept of information seeking. In the Preface, the author characterizes his book as an introduction to the topic for students at the graduate level, as well as as a review and handbook for scholars engagged in information behavior research. In my view, Looking for Information is particularly welcome as an academic textbook because the field of INS studies suffers from the lack of monographs. Along with the continuous growth of the number of journal articles and conference papers, there is a genuine need for a book that picks up the numerous pieces and puts them together. The use of the study as a textbook is facilitated by clearly delineated sections an major themes and the wealth of concrete examples of information seeking in everyday contexts. The book is lucidly written and it is accessible to novice readers, too. At first glance, the idea of providing a comprehensive review of INS studies may seem a mission impossible because the current number of articles, papers, and other contributions in this field is nearing the 10,000 range (p. 224). Donald Case is not alone in the task of coming to grips with an increasing number of studies; similar problems have been faced by those writing INS-related chapters for the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST). Case has solved the problem of "too many publications to be reviewed" by concentrating an the INS literature published during the last two decades. Secondly, studies an library use and information retrieval are discussed only to a limited extent. In addition, Case is highly selective as to studies focusing an the use of specific sources and channels such as WWW. These delineations are reasonable, even though they beg some questions. First, how should one draw the line between studies an information seeking and information retrieval? Case does not discuss this question in greater detail, although in recent years, the overlapping areas of information seeking and retrieval studies have been broadened, along with the growing importance of WWW in information seeking/retrieval. Secondly, how can one define the concept of information searching (or, more specifically, Internet or Web searching) in relation to information seeking and information retrieval? In the field of Web searching studies, there is an increasing number of contributions that are of direct relevance to information-seeking studies. Clearly, the advent of the Internet, particularly, the Web, has blurred the previous lines between INS and IR literature, making them less clear cut. The book consists of five main sections, and comprises 13 chapters. There is an Appendix serving the needs of an INS textbook (questions for discussion and application). The structure of the book is meticulously planned and, as a whole, it offers a sufficiently balanced contribution to theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues of INS. The title, Looking for Information: A Survey of Research an Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior aptly describes the main substance of the book. . . . It is easy to agree with Case about the significance of the problem of specialization and fragmentation. This problem seems to be concomitant with the broadening field of INS research. In itself, Case's book can be interpreted as a struggle against this fragmentation. His book suggests that this struggle is not hopeless and that it is still possible to draw an overall picture of the evolving research field. The major pieces of the puzzle were found and the book will provide a useful overview of INS studies for many years."

3.6425426E-4 = product of:
  0.0054638134 = sum of:
    0.0054638134 = product of:
      0.010927627 = sum of:
        0.010927627 = weight(_text_:internet in 3478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010927627 = score(doc=3478,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0837547 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.1304718 = fieldWeight in 3478, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3478)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Series

Information Systems and Applications, incl. Internet/Web, and HCI; 10151

3.1872245E-4 = product of:
  0.0047808364 = sum of:
    0.0047808364 = product of:
      0.009561673 = sum of:
        0.009561673 = weight(_text_:internet in 1164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009561673 = score(doc=1164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0837547 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028369885 = queryNorm
            0.11416282 = fieldWeight in 1164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

The explosive growth of the Internet and other sources of networked information have made automatic mediation of access to networked information sources an increasingly important problem. Much of this information is expressed as electronic text, and it is becoming practical to automatically convert some printed documents and recorded speech to electronic text as well. Thus, automated systems capable of detecting useful documents are finding widespread application. With even a small number of languages it can be inconvenient to issue the same query repeatedly in every language, so users who are able to read more than one language will likely prefer a multilingual text retrieval system over a collection of monolingual systems. And since reading ability in a language does not always imply fluent writing ability in that language, such users will likely find cross-language text retrieval particularly useful for languages in which they are less confident of their ability to express their information needs effectively. The use of such systems can be also be beneficial if the user is able to read only a single language. For example, when only a small portion of the document collection will ever be examined by the user, performing retrieval before translation can be significantly more economical than performing translation before retrieval. So when the application is sufficiently important to justify the time and effort required for translation, those costs can be minimized if an effective cross-language text retrieval system is available. Even when translation is not available, there are circumstances in which cross-language text retrieval could be useful to a monolingual user. For example, a researcher might find a paper published in an unfamiliar language useful if that paper contains references to works by the same author that are in the researcher's native language.