Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Peters, I."
  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  1. Peters, I.; Weller. K.: Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations in knowledge organization systems (2008) 0.01 
    0.005513504 = product of:
  0.01378376 = sum of:
    0.008258085 = weight(_text_:a in 1593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008258085 = score(doc=1593,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1593, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1593)
    0.005525676 = product of:
      0.011051352 = sum of:
        0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 1593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011051352 = score(doc=1593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1593, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Classical knowledge representation methods have been successfully working for years with established - but in a way restricted and vague - relations such as synonymy, hierarchy (meronymy, hyponymy) and unspecified associations. Recent developments like ontologies and folksonomies show new forms of collaboration, indexing and knowledge representation and encourage the reconsideration of standard knowledge relationships for practical use. In a summarizing overview we show which relations are currently used in knowledge organization systems (controlled vocabularies, ontologies and folksonomies) and which relations are expressed explicitly or which may be inherently hidden in them.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 59(2008) H.2, S.100-107
    Type
    a
  2. Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval (2008) 0.00 
    0.0049910345 = product of:
  0.012477586 = sum of:
    0.005779455 = weight(_text_:a in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005779455 = score(doc=1597,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
    0.0066981306 = product of:
      0.013396261 = sum of:
        0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013396261 = score(doc=1597,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Die populären Web 2.0-Dienste werden von Prosumern - Produzenten und gleichsam Konsumenten - nicht nur dazu genutzt, Inhalte zu produzieren, sondern auch, um sie inhaltlich zu erschließen. Folksonomies erlauben es dem Nutzer, Dokumente mit eigenen Schlagworten, sog. Tags, zu beschreiben, ohne dabei auf gewisse Regeln oder Vorgaben achten zu müssen. Neben einigen Vorteilen zeigen Folksonomies aber auch zahlreiche Schwächen (u. a. einen Mangel an Präzision). Um diesen Nachteilen größtenteils entgegenzuwirken, schlagen wir eine Interpretation der Tags als natürlichsprachige Wörter vor. Dadurch ist es uns möglich, Methoden des Natural Language Processing (NLP) auf die Tags anzuwenden und so linguistische Probleme der Tags zu beseitigen. Darüber hinaus diskutieren wir Ansätze und weitere Vorschläge (Tagverteilungen, Kollaboration und akteurspezifische Aspekte) hinsichtlich eines Relevance Rankings von getaggten Dokumenten. Neben Vorschlägen auf ähnliche Dokumente ("more like this!") erlauben Folksonomies auch Hinweise auf verwandte Nutzer und damit auf Communities ("more like me!").
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 59(2008) H.2, S.77-90
    Type
    a
  3. Weller, K.; Peters, I.: Reconsidering relationships for knowledge representation (2007) 0.00 
    0.001541188 = product of:
  0.00770594 = sum of:
    0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00770594 = score(doc=216,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 216, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=216)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Classical knowledge representation methods traditionally work with established relations such as synonymy, hierarchy and unspecified associations. Recent developments like ontologies and folksonomies show new forms of collaboration, indexing and knowledge representation and encourage the reconsideration of standard knowledge relationships. In a summarizing overview we show which relations are currently utilized in elaborated knowledge representation methods and which may be inherently hidden in folksonomies and ontologies.
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

Themes