Search (87 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  1. Boteram, F.: Semantische Relationen in Dokumentationssprachen : vom Thesaurus zum semantischen Netz (2010) 0.38 
    0.37753093 = product of:
  0.45303714 = sum of:
    0.04397137 = weight(_text_:und in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04397137 = score(doc=4792,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.41987535 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
    0.08565781 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08565781 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22876309 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.37443897 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
    0.0485416 = weight(_text_:des in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0485416 = score(doc=4792,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.3709667 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
    0.11969343 = weight(_text_:prinzips in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11969343 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27041927 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.44262168 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
    0.15517296 = sum of:
      0.110360265 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.110360265 = score(doc=4792,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04725067 = queryNorm
          0.50543046 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
      0.044812694 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044812694 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16546379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04725067 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
  0.8333333 = coord(5/6)
    Abstract
    Moderne Verfahren des Information Retrieval verlangen nach aussagekräftigen und detailliert relationierten Dokumentationssprachen. Der selektive Transfer einzelner Modellierungsstrategien aus dem Bereich semantischer Technologien für die Gestaltung und Relationierung bestehender Dokumentationssprachen wird diskutiert. In Form einer Taxonomie wird ein hierarchisch strukturiertes Relationeninventar definiert, welches sowohl hinreichend allgemeine als auch zahlreiche spezifische Relationstypen enthält, die eine detaillierte und damit aussagekräftige Relationierung des Vokabulars ermöglichen. Das bringt einen Zugewinn an Übersichtlichkeit und Funktionalität. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Ansätzen und Überlegungen zur Schaffung von Relationeninventaren entwickelt der vorgestellte Vorschlag das Relationeninventar aus der Begriffsmenge eines bestehenden Gegenstandsbereichs heraus.
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  2. Maculan, B.C.M. dos; Lima, G.A. de; Oliveira, E.D.: Conversion methods from thesaurus to ontologies : a review (2016) 0.30 
    0.29899406 = product of:
  0.3587929 = sum of:
    0.029013582 = weight(_text_:und in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029013582 = score(doc=4695,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 4695, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4695)
    0.097894646 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097894646 = score(doc=4695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22876309 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.42793027 = fieldWeight in 4695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4695)
    0.03202915 = weight(_text_:des in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03202915 = score(doc=4695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.24477452 = fieldWeight in 4695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4695)
    0.1367925 = weight(_text_:prinzips in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1367925 = score(doc=4695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27041927 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.50585335 = fieldWeight in 4695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4695)
    0.06306301 = product of:
      0.12612602 = sum of:
        0.12612602 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12612602 = score(doc=4695,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.5776348 = fieldWeight in 4695, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4695)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8333333 = coord(5/6)
    Footnote
    Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357053013_Conversion_Methods_from_Thesaurus_to_Ontologies_A_Review und DOI: 10.5771/9783956504389-300.
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  3. Bandholtz, T.; Schulte-Coerne, T.; Glaser, R.; Fock, J.; Keller, T.: iQvoc - open source SKOS(XL) maintenance and publishing tool (2010) 0.24 
    0.24195519 = product of:
  0.29034624 = sum of:
    0.017951237 = weight(_text_:und in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017951237 = score(doc=604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
    0.08565781 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08565781 = score(doc=604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22876309 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.37443897 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
    0.028025504 = weight(_text_:des in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028025504 = score(doc=604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.2141777 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
    0.11969343 = weight(_text_:prinzips in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11969343 = score(doc=604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27041927 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.44262168 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
    0.039018244 = product of:
      0.07803649 = sum of:
        0.07803649 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07803649 = score(doc=604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.3573933 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8333333 = coord(5/6)
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  4. Kless, D.; Milton, S.: Comparison of thesauri and ontologies from a semiotic perspective (2010) 0.21 
    0.20739017 = product of:
  0.24886821 = sum of:
    0.015386774 = weight(_text_:und in 756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015386774 = score(doc=756,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 756, 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=756)
    0.07342099 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07342099 = score(doc=756,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22876309 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.3209477 = fieldWeight in 756, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=756)
    0.02402186 = weight(_text_:des in 756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02402186 = score(doc=756,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.18358089 = fieldWeight in 756, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=756)
    0.10259437 = weight(_text_:prinzips in 756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10259437 = score(doc=756,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27041927 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.37939 = fieldWeight in 756, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=756)
    0.03344421 = product of:
      0.06688842 = sum of:
        0.06688842 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06688842 = score(doc=756,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.30633712 = fieldWeight in 756, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=756)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8333333 = coord(5/6)
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  5. Kless, D.; Milton, S.; Kazmierczak, E.; Lindenthal, J.: Thesaurus and ontology structure : formal and pragmatic differences and similarities (2015) 0.21 
    0.20648976 = product of:
  0.24778771 = sum of:
    0.012822312 = weight(_text_:und in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012822312 = score(doc=2036,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 2036, 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=2036)
    0.061184157 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061184157 = score(doc=2036,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22876309 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.2674564 = fieldWeight in 2036, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2036)
    0.020018218 = weight(_text_:des in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020018218 = score(doc=2036,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.15298408 = fieldWeight in 2036, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2036)
    0.08549531 = weight(_text_:prinzips in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08549531 = score(doc=2036,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27041927 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.31615835 = fieldWeight in 2036, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2036)
    0.06826771 = product of:
      0.13653542 = sum of:
        0.13653542 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13653542 = score(doc=2036,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.62530804 = fieldWeight in 2036, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2036)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8333333 = coord(5/6)
    Abstract
    Thesauri and other types of controlled vocabularies are increasingly re-engineered into ontologies described using the Web Ontology Language (OWL), particularly in the life sciences. This has led to the perception by some that thesauri are ontologies once they are described by using the syntax of OWL while others have emphasized the need to re-engineer a vocabulary to use it as ontology. This confusion is rooted in different perceptions of what ontologies are and how they differ from other types of vocabularies. In this article, we rigorously examine the structural differences and similarities between thesauri and meaning-defining ontologies described in OWL. Specifically, we conduct (a) a conceptual comparison of thesauri and ontologies, and (b) a comparison of a specific thesaurus and a specific ontology in the same subject field. Our results show that thesauri and ontologies need to be treated as 2 orthogonal kinds of models with superficially similar structures. An ontology is not a good thesaurus, nor is a thesaurus a good ontology. A thesaurus requires significant structural and other content changes to become an ontology, and vice versa.
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  6. Amirhosseini, M.: Theoretical base of quantitative evaluation of unity in a thesaurus term network based on Kant's epistemology (2010) 0.21 
    0.20648976 = product of:
  0.24778771 = sum of:
    0.012822312 = weight(_text_:und in 5854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012822312 = score(doc=5854,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 5854, 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=5854)
    0.061184157 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 5854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061184157 = score(doc=5854,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22876309 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.2674564 = fieldWeight in 5854, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5854)
    0.020018218 = weight(_text_:des in 5854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020018218 = score(doc=5854,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.15298408 = fieldWeight in 5854, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5854)
    0.08549531 = weight(_text_:prinzips in 5854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08549531 = score(doc=5854,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27041927 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.31615835 = fieldWeight in 5854, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5854)
    0.06826771 = product of:
      0.13653542 = sum of:
        0.13653542 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 5854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13653542 = score(doc=5854,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.62530804 = fieldWeight in 5854, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5854)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8333333 = coord(5/6)
    Abstract
    The quantitative evaluation of thesauri has been carried out much further since 1976. This type of evaluation is based on counting of special factors in thesaurus structure, some of which are counting preferred terms, non preferred terms, cross reference terms and so on. Therefore, various statistical tests have been proposed and applied for evaluation of thesauri. In this article, we try to explain some ratios in the field of unity quantitative evaluation in a thesaurus term network. Theoretical base of the ratios' indicators and indices construction, and epistemological thought in this type of quantitative evaluation, are discussed in this article. The theoretical base of quantitative evaluation is the epistemological thought of Immanuel Kant's Critique of pure reason. The cognition states of transcendental understanding are divided into three steps, the first is perception, the second combination and the third, relation making. Terms relation domains and conceptual relation domains can be analyzed with ratios. The use of quantitative evaluations in current research in the field of thesaurus construction prepares a basis for a restoration period. In modern thesaurus construction, traditional term relations are analyzed in detail in the form of new conceptual relations. Hence, the new domains of hierarchical and associative relations are constructed in the form of relations between concepts. The newly formed conceptual domains can be a suitable basis for quantitative evaluation analysis in conceptual relations.
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  7. Amirhosseini, M.: Quantitative evaluation of the movement from complexity toward simplicity in the structure of thesaurus descriptors (2015) 0.20 
    0.201533 = product of:
  0.2418396 = sum of:
    0.012822312 = weight(_text_:und in 3695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012822312 = score(doc=3695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 3695, 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=3695)
    0.061184157 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 3695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061184157 = score(doc=3695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22876309 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.2674564 = fieldWeight in 3695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3695)
    0.020018218 = weight(_text_:des in 3695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020018218 = score(doc=3695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.15298408 = fieldWeight in 3695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3695)
    0.08549531 = weight(_text_:prinzips in 3695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08549531 = score(doc=3695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27041927 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.31615835 = fieldWeight in 3695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3695)
    0.062319607 = product of:
      0.12463921 = sum of:
        0.12463921 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 3695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12463921 = score(doc=3695,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.5708255 = fieldWeight in 3695, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3695)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8333333 = coord(5/6)
    Abstract
    The concepts of simplicity and complexity play major roles in information storage and retrieval in knowledge organizations. This paper reports an investigation of these concepts in the structure of descriptors. The main purpose of simplicity is to decrease the number of words in the construction of descriptors as this idea affects semantic relations, recall and precision. ISO 25964 has affirmed the purpose of simplicity by requiring splitting compound terms into simpler concepts. This work aims to elaborate the standard methods of evaluation by providing a more detailed evaluation of the descriptors structure and identifying effective factors in simplicity and complexity results in the structure of thesauri descriptors. The research population is taken from the descriptors of the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Thesaurus, the Persian Cultural Thesaurus (ASFA) and the Chemical Thesaurus. This research was conducted using the statistical and content analysis method. In this research we propose a new quantitative approach as well as novel indicators and indices involving Simplicity and Factoring Ratios to evaluate the descriptors structure. The results will be useful in the verification, selection and maintenance purposes in knowledge organizations and the inquiry method can be further developed in the field of ontology evaluation.
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  8. Curras, E.: Ontologies, taxonomy and thesauri in information organisation and retrieval (2010) 0.19 
    0.18982713 = product of:
  0.22779256 = sum of:
    0.012822312 = weight(_text_:und in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012822312 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 3276, 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=3276)
    0.061184157 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061184157 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22876309 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.2674564 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
    0.020018218 = weight(_text_:des in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020018218 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.15298408 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
    0.08549531 = weight(_text_:prinzips in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08549531 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27041927 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.31615835 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
    0.048272558 = product of:
      0.096545115 = sum of:
        0.096545115 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096545115 = score(doc=3276,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.44215953 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8333333 = coord(5/6)
    Content
    Inhalt: 1. From classifications to ontologies Knowledge - A new concept of knowledge - Knowledge and information - Knowledge organisation - Knowledge organisation and representation - Cognitive sciences - Talent management - Learning systematisation - Historical evolution - From classification to knowledge organisation - Why ontologies exist - Ontologies - The structure of ontologies 2. Taxonomies and thesauri From ordering to taxonomy - The origins of taxonomy - Hierarchical and horizontal order - Correlation with classifications - Taxonomy in computer science - Computing taxonomy - Definitions - Virtual taxonomy, cybernetic taxonomy - Taxonomy in Information Science - Similarities between taxonomies and thesauri - ifferences between taxonomies and thesauri 3. Thesauri Terminology in classification systems - Terminological languages - Thesauri - Thesauri definitions - Conditions that a thesaurus must fulfil - Historical evolution - Classes of thesauri 4. Thesauri in (cladist) systematics Systematics - Systematics as a noun - Definitions and historic evolution over time - Differences between taxonomy and systematics - Systematics in thesaurus construction theory - Classic, numerical and cladist systematics - Classic systematics in information science - Numerical systematics in information science - Thesauri in cladist systematics - Systematics in information technology - Some examples 5. Thesauri in systems theory Historical evolution - Approach to systems - Systems theory applied to the construction of thesauri - Components - Classes of system - Peculiarities of these systems - Working methods - Systems theory applied to ontologies and taxonomies
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  9. Ma, X.; Carranza, E.J.M.; Wu, C.; Meer, F.D. van der; Liu, G.: ¬A SKOS-based multilingual thesaurus of geological time scale for interoperability of online geological maps (2011) 0.17 
    0.16883837 = product of:
  0.20260604 = sum of:
    0.01025785 = weight(_text_:und in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01025785 = score(doc=4800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.09795051 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
    0.048947323 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048947323 = score(doc=4800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22876309 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.21396513 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
    0.016014574 = weight(_text_:des in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016014574 = score(doc=4800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.12238726 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
    0.06839625 = weight(_text_:prinzips in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06839625 = score(doc=4800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27041927 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.25292668 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
    0.058990043 = product of:
      0.117980085 = sum of:
        0.117980085 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.117980085 = score(doc=4800,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.5403279 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8333333 = coord(5/6)
    Abstract
    The usefulness of online geological maps is hindered by linguistic barriers. Multilingual geoscience thesauri alleviate linguistic barriers of geological maps. However, the benefits of multilingual geoscience thesauri for online geological maps are less studied. In this regard, we developed a multilingual thesaurus of geological time scale (GTS) to alleviate linguistic barriers of GTS records among online geological maps. We extended the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) model to represent the ordinal hierarchical structure of GTS terms. We collected GTS terms in seven languages and encoded them into a thesaurus by using the extended SKOS model. We implemented methods of characteristic-oriented term retrieval in JavaScript programs for accessing Web Map Services (WMS), recognizing GTS terms, and making translations. With the developed thesaurus and programs, we set up a pilot system to test recognitions and translations of GTS terms in online geological maps. Results of this pilot system proved the accuracy of the developed thesaurus and the functionality of the developed programs. Therefore, with proper deployments, SKOS-based multilingual geoscience thesauri can be functional for alleviating linguistic barriers among online geological maps and, thus, improving their interoperability.
    Content
    Article Outline 1. Introduction 2. SKOS-based multilingual thesaurus of geological time scale 2.1. Addressing the insufficiency of SKOS in the context of the Semantic Web 2.2. Addressing semantics and syntax/lexicon in multilingual GTS terms 2.3. Extending SKOS model to capture GTS structure 2.4. Summary of building the SKOS-based MLTGTS 3. Recognizing and translating GTS terms retrieved from WMS 4. Pilot system, results, and evaluation 5. Discussion 6. Conclusions Vgl. unter: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_cid=271720&_user=3865853&_pii=S0098300411000744&_check=y&_origin=&_coverDate=31-Oct-2011&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlt-zSkzS&_valck=1&md5=e2c1daf53df72d034d22278212578f42&ie=/sdarticle.pdf.
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  10. Assem, M. van: Converting and integrating vocabularies for the Semantic Web (2010) 0.15 
    0.14595625 = product of:
  0.1751475 = sum of:
    0.01025785 = weight(_text_:und in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01025785 = score(doc=4639,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.09795051 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
    0.048947323 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048947323 = score(doc=4639,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22876309 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.21396513 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
    0.016014574 = weight(_text_:des in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016014574 = score(doc=4639,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.12238726 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
    0.06839625 = weight(_text_:prinzips in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06839625 = score(doc=4639,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27041927 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.25292668 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
    0.031531505 = product of:
      0.06306301 = sum of:
        0.06306301 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06306301 = score(doc=4639,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.2888174 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8333333 = coord(5/6)
    Object
    Art and architecture thesaurus
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  11. Hohmann, G.: ¬Die Anwendung des CIDOC-CRM für die semantische Wissensrepräsentation in den Kulturwissenschaften (2010) 0.10 
    0.1039958 = product of:
  0.1559937 = sum of:
    0.021760186 = weight(_text_:und in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021760186 = score(doc=4011,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.20778441 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
    0.07342099 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07342099 = score(doc=4011,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22876309 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.3209477 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
    0.04160709 = weight(_text_:des in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04160709 = score(doc=4011,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.31797147 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
    0.01920544 = product of:
      0.03841088 = sum of:
        0.03841088 = weight(_text_:22 in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03841088 = score(doc=4011,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16546379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4011, 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=4011)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(4/6)
    Abstract
    Das CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM) ist eine Ontologie für den Bereich des Kulturellen Erbes, die als ISO 21127 standardisiert ist. Inzwischen liegen auch OWL-DL-Implementationen des CRM vor, die ihren Einsatz auch im Semantic Web ermöglicht. OWL-DL ist eine entscheidbare Untermenge der Web Ontology Language, die vom W3C spezifiziert wurde. Lokale Anwendungsontologien, die ebenfalls in OWL-DL modelliert werden, können über Subklassenbeziehungen mit dem CRM als Referenzontologie verbunden werden. Dadurch wird es automatischen Prozessen ermöglicht, autonom heterogene Daten semantisch zu validieren, zueinander in Bezug zu setzen und Anfragen über verschiedene Datenbestände innerhalb der Wissensdomäne zu verarbeiten und zu beantworten.
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  12. Meyer, A.: Begriffsrelationen im Kategoriensystem der Wikipedia : Entwicklung eines Relationeninventars zur kollaborativen Anwendung (2010) 0.07 
    0.066061854 = product of:
  0.13212371 = sum of:
    0.036266975 = weight(_text_:und in 4429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036266975 = score(doc=4429,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.34630734 = fieldWeight in 4429, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4429)
    0.061184157 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 4429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061184157 = score(doc=4429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22876309 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.2674564 = fieldWeight in 4429, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4429)
    0.03467257 = weight(_text_:des in 4429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03467257 = score(doc=4429,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.2649762 = fieldWeight in 4429, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4429)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    Neben den bekannten Hyperlinks in Artikeltexten verfügt die Online-Enzyklopädie Wikipedia mit ihrem Kategoriensystem über ein weiteres Mittel zur Herstellung von Relationen zwischen Artikeln. Jeder Artikel ist einer oder mehreren Kategorien zugeordnet, die ihrerseits anderen Kategorien zugeordnet sind. Auf diese Weise entsteht eine systematische Ordnung von Artikeln und Kategorien. Betrachtet man nur die Artikel- und Kategoriennamen sowie diese Relationen, so stellt das Kategoriensystem ein gemeinschaftlich erstelltes Begriffssystem dar, das sämtliche von der Wikipedia abgedeckten Themenbereiche umfasst, jedoch - technisch betrachtet - ausschließlich hierarchische Relationen enthält. Aufgrund des Fehlens eines differenzierten Regelwerks zur Kategorisierung ist das Kategoriensystem derzeit jedoch inkonsistent, daneben sind, bedingt durch das Vorhandensein lediglich eines Relationstyps, viele Relationen wenig aussagekräftig. Dennoch besteht das Potenzial zur Schaffung eines stark und differenziert relationierten Begriffssystems aus dem bestehenden Kategoriensystem heraus. Die vorliegende Arbeit diskutiert die Anwendungsmöglichkeiten eines solchen Begriffssystems und die Option seiner gemeinschaftlichen Entwicklung aus dem bestehenden Vokabular des Kategoriensystems, mithin also der gemeinschaftlichen Relationierung von Begriffen anhand eines differenzierten Relationeninventars. Ausgehend von den Kategorien "Theater" und "Jagd" der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia wird ein hierarchisch strukturiertes Relationeninventar definiert, das sowohl spezifische als auch allgemeine Relationstypen enthält und damit die Möglichkeit zur Übertragung auf andere Gegenstandsbereiche bietet. Sämtliche Artikel- und Kategoriennamen, die unterhalb jener Kategorien erscheinen, werden unter Verwendung der neu entwickelten Relationstypen als Deskriptoren relationiert.
    Footnote
    Video des Vortrags auf der ISI_2011 in Hildesheim (www.eurospider.com/video-podcasts.html) unter: ..\videos\Meyer_ISI_2011.flv.
    Imprint
    Köln : Fachhochschule / Fakultät für Informations- und Kommunikationswissenschaften
  13. Semenova, E.: Ontologie als Begriffssystem : Theoretische Überlegungen und ihre praktische Umsetzung bei der Entwicklung einer Ontologie der Wissenschaftsdisziplinen (2010) 0.04 
    0.03991408 = product of:
  0.07982816 = sum of:
    0.026650677 = weight(_text_:und in 4095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026650677 = score(doc=4095,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.2544829 = fieldWeight in 4095, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4095)
    0.03397204 = weight(_text_:des in 4095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03397204 = score(doc=4095,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.25962257 = fieldWeight in 4095, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4095)
    0.01920544 = product of:
      0.03841088 = sum of:
        0.03841088 = weight(_text_:22 in 4095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03841088 = score(doc=4095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16546379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4095, 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=4095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    Das Konzept des Semantic Web befindet sich gegenwärtig auf dem Weg von der Vision zur Realisierung und ist "noch gestaltbar", ebenso wie eine seiner Grundkonzeptionen, die Ontologie. Trotz der stetig wachsenden Anzahl der Forschungsarbeiten werden Ontologien primär aus der Sicht semantischer Technologien untersucht, Probleme der Ontologie als Begriffssystem werden in der Ontologieforschung nur partiell angetastet - für die praktische Arbeit erweist sich dieses als bedeutender Mangel. In diesem Bericht wird die Notwendigkeit, eine Ontologie aus der Sicht der Dokumentationssprache zu erforschen, als Fragestellung formuliert, außerdem werden einige schon erarbeitete theoretische Ansätze skizzenhaft dargestellt. Als Beispiel aus der Praxis wird das Material des von der DFG geförderten und am Hermann von Helmholtz-Zentrum für Kulturtechnik der Humboldt Universität zu Berlin durchgeführten Projektes "Entwicklung einer Ontologie der Wissenschaftsdisziplinen" einbezogen.
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  14. Kless, D.: Erstellung eines allgemeinen Standards zur Wissensorganisation : Nutzen, Möglichkeiten, Herausforderungen, Wege (2010) 0.04 
    0.036144864 = product of:
  0.07228973 = sum of:
    0.036266975 = weight(_text_:und in 4422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036266975 = score(doc=4422,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.34630734 = fieldWeight in 4422, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4422)
    0.020018218 = weight(_text_:des in 4422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020018218 = score(doc=4422,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.15298408 = fieldWeight in 4422, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4422)
    0.016004534 = product of:
      0.03200907 = sum of:
        0.03200907 = weight(_text_:22 in 4422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03200907 = score(doc=4422,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16546379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4422, 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=4422)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    Zur Organisation und zum besseren Auffinden von Wissen werden häufig verschiedene Typen von Vokabularen verwendet. Aufgrund ihres Ursprungs in unterschiedlichen Communities werden die Vokabulare mit unterschiedlicher Terminologie sowie jeweils eigenen Methoden und Werkzeugen beschrieben und sind, wenn überhaupt, unterschiedlich stark und mit unterschiedlichem Fokus standardisiert. Um dieser Entwicklung zu entgegnen, müssen zum einen die Standards für die verschiedenen Vokabulartypen (weiter-)entwickelt werden und dabei auf gemeinsame, heute allgemein anerkannte Modellierungssprachen (z.B. UML) und XML-basierte Auszeichnungssprachen zurückgreifen. Zum anderen ist ein Meta-Standard nötig, der die Terminologie der verschiedenen Communities aufeinander abbildet und die Vokabulare vergleichbar macht. Dies würde nicht nur die qualifizierte Auswahl eines Vokabulartyps ermöglichen, sondern auch deren gegenseitiges Abbilden (Mappen) und allgemein der Wiederverwendung von Vokabularen nutzen. In Ansätzen wurde diese Strategie im jüngst veröffentlichten britischen Standard BS 8723 verfolgt, dessen Schwerpunkt (weiter) auf Thesauri liegt, der jedoch auch explizit Bezug zu anderen Vokabularen nimmt. Die im April 2007 begonnene Revision des Standards als internationale ISO-Norm 25964 erlaubt weitere, wenn auch vielleicht kleine Schritte hin zu einer langfristigen Vision von allgemeingültigen Standards zur Wissensorganisation.
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  15. Beßler, S.: Wissensrepräsentation musealer Bestände mittels semantischer Netze : Analyse und Annotation eines Teilbestands des Haus der Geschichte der BRD in Bonn (2010) 0.03 
    0.034123924 = product of:
  0.10237177 = sum of:
    0.048657253 = weight(_text_:und in 4024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048657253 = score(doc=4024,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.46462005 = fieldWeight in 4024, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4024)
    0.05371451 = weight(_text_:des in 4024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05371451 = score(doc=4024,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.41049933 = fieldWeight in 4024, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4024)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Semantische Netze unterstützen den Suchvorgang im Information Retrieval. Über ihre vielfältigen Relationen und Inferenzen unterstützen sie den Anwender und helfen Daten im Kontext zu präsentieren und zu erfassen. Die Relationen ermöglichen Suchanfragen die große Treffermengen produzieren zu verfeinern und so Treffermengen zu erreichen die möglichst genau das enthalten was gesucht wurde. Es wird, anhand eines Ausschnitts des Datenbestands des Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland in Bonn, aufgezeigt wie bestehende Datenbestände in semantische Netze überführt werden können und wie diese anschließend für das Retrieval eingesetzt werden können. Für die Modellierung des semantischen Netz wird die Open Source Software Protégé in den Versionen 3.4.4. und 4.1_beta eingesetzt, die Möglichkeiten des Retrieval werden anhand der Abfragesprachen DL Query und SPARQL sowie anhand der Software Ontology Browser und OntoGraf erläutert.
    Imprint
    Köln : Fachhochschule / Fakultät für Informations- und Kommunikationswissenschaften
  16. Haenelt, K.: Semantik im Wiki : am Beispiel des MediaWiki und Semantic MediaWiki (2011) 0.03 
    0.030651163 = product of:
  0.091953486 = sum of:
    0.035902474 = weight(_text_:und in 3166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035902474 = score(doc=3166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 3166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3166)
    0.05605101 = weight(_text_:des in 3166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05605101 = score(doc=3166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.4283554 = fieldWeight in 3166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3166)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
  17. Dietiker, S.: Cognitive Map einer Bibliothek : eine Überprüfung der Methodentauglichkeit im Bereich Bibliothekswissenschaft - am Beispiel der Kantonsbibliothek Graubünden (2016) 0.03 
    0.029951906 = product of:
  0.089855716 = sum of:
    0.02867156 = weight(_text_:und in 4570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02867156 = score(doc=4570,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.27378 = fieldWeight in 4570, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4570)
    0.061184157 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 4570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061184157 = score(doc=4570,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22876309 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.2674564 = fieldWeight in 4570, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4570)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Cognitive Maps sind mentale Karten, welche jeder Mensch besitzt. Es handelt sich dabei um eine Reflexion der jeweiligen Umwelt. Cognitive Mapping ist eine Methode, welche diese mentale Karte sichtbar macht. Aufgrund dieser Visualisierung können Erkenntnisse darüber gewonnen werden, was Menschen an einem Ort oder in einem Raum tun und wahrnehmen. Die Methode hat verschiede Anwendungstechniken, welche sich in sechs Kategorien teilen: Aufgabenlösung, Elemente orten, Sketch Map erstellen, Zonen und Gebiete einzeichnen, Weg- und Ortsbeschreibung sowie Kognitive Befragung. Anhand dieser lassen sich Untersuchungen beliebig kombinieren. Die Anwendung von Cognitive Mapping sowie eine einfache Befragung in der Kantonsbibliothek Graubünden hat ergeben, dass die Methode für Bibliotheken sinnvoll ist. Allerdings sollte bei zukünftigen Anwendungen die Punkte Gesamtaufwand, Untersuchungsaufbau, Teilnehmer-Zusammensetzung und Auswertungs-Aufwand angepasst werden.
    Content
    "Das Thema 'Cognitive Map einer Bibliothek' hat mich von Beginn an interessiert. Methoden anwenden, um den Bedürfnissen der Nutzer zu entsprechen, ist für Bibliotheken eine Möglichkeit sich auch in Zukunft als Wissensplatz zu positionieren. Das Spannende an dieser Arbeit war, sich zunächst in den vielen Anwendungsmöglichkeiten der Methode zurechtzufinden, einige davon auszuprobieren und schlussendlich herauszufinden, ob die Methode als sinnvoll für Bibliotheken bezeichnet werden kann."
  18. Spree, U.; Lindenthal, J.; Knaack, A.: Wortnetz Kultur : ein Thesaurusprojekt zur kollaborativen Erschließung von Fachinformationen des kulturellen Erbes (2012) 0.03 
    0.027868476 = product of:
  0.08360542 = sum of:
    0.04397137 = weight(_text_:und in 173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04397137 = score(doc=173,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.41987535 = fieldWeight in 173, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=173)
    0.03963405 = weight(_text_:des in 173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03963405 = score(doc=173,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.302893 = fieldWeight in 173, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=173)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Am Beispiel der Kooperation zwischen dem Department Information der HAW Hamburg und dem Landschaftsverband Rheinland in einem Thesaurusprojekt zur kollaborativen Erschließung von Fachinformationen des kulturellen Erbes wird gezeigt, wie unter den begrenzten Möglichkeiten der informations- und bibliothekswissenschaftlichen Fachbereiche an Fachhochschulen Forschungs- und Entwicklungsvorhaben in enger Kooperation mit der Praxis umgesetzt werden können. Es wird dargestellt, wie Domänenexperten und Informationsspezialisten beim Aufbau und der Pflege eines kontrollierten Fachvokabulars erfolgreich kooperieren können, aber auch welche Schwierigkeiten eine solche Zusammenarbeit zu überwinden hat.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.1, S.23-36
  19. Finke, M.; Risch, J.: "Match Me If You Can" : Sammeln und semantisches Aufbereiten von Fußballdaten (2017) 0.03 
    0.025967881 = product of:
  0.07790364 = sum of:
    0.0458745 = weight(_text_:und in 3723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0458745 = score(doc=3723,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.438048 = fieldWeight in 3723, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3723)
    0.03202915 = weight(_text_:des in 3723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03202915 = score(doc=3723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.24477452 = fieldWeight in 3723, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3723)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Interviews, Spielstatistiken oder Videoaufzeichnungen sind für Fußballfans zwar zahlreich im Internet verfügbar, aber auf viele verschiedene Websites verstreut. "Semantic Media Mining" verknüpft nun Fußballdaten aus unterschiedlichen Quellen, bereitet sie semantisch auf und führt sie auf einer einzigen Website zusammen. Dadurch dokumentieren und visualisieren wir mehr als 50 Jahre Fußballgeschichte mit über 500 Mannschaften und 40.000 Spielern der Champions League, sowie der 1. und 2. Bundesliga.
    Content
    Gewinnerbeitrag des Marianne-Englert-Preises 2017.
  20. Becker, H.-G.; Förster, F.: Vernetztes Wissen : Ereignisse in der bibliografischen Dokumentation (2010) 0.03 
    0.025830805 = product of:
  0.077492416 = sum of:
    0.043520372 = weight(_text_:und in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043520372 = score(doc=3494,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.41556883 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
    0.03397204 = weight(_text_:des in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03397204 = score(doc=3494,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.25962257 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Innerhalb der Gedächtnisinstitutionen Bibliothek, Museum und Archiv gibt es je eigene Beschreibungsmodelle der beherbergten Objekte und Materialien. Für eine genauere bibliografische Erschließung wurde im Bibliotheksbereich das von Benutzerbedürfnissen ausgehende, statische Modell "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records" (FRBR) geschaffen, dessen ungenauer »Werk«-Begriff ebenso thematisiert wird wie die schwer zu realisierende Übertragbarkeit des Modells auf Nicht-Buchmaterialien. Die Museumswelt orientiert die Darstellung ihrer Bestände am CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM), das sich hinsichtlich der Beschreibung heterogener Museumsobjekte, also Artefakten künstlerischer und intellektueller Gestaltung, als hilfreich erwiesen hat. In gegenseitigem Austausch zwischen IFLA und ICOM wurde FRBR mit CRM harmonisiert. Das Ergebnis, FRBRoo (objektorientiertes FRBR), zeigt seine Vorzüge zum einen in einer strengeren Interpretation der Entitäten der Gruppe 1 des FRBR-Modells und zum anderen in einer genaueren Abbildung von Prozessen bzw. Ereignissen. Beispiele zum Anwendungsbezug von FRBRoo zeigen dessen Zugewinn für die wissenschaftliche Erschließung hand-, druck- und online-schriftlicher Quellen, Werken der Darstellenden Kunst, Landkarten und Musikalien innerhalb einer CRM-basierten Datenbank.
    Source
    Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 57(2010) H.1, S.15-25

Authors

Languages

  • e 49
  • d 36
  • f 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 64
  • el 16
  • x 11
  • m 5
  • r 2
  • p 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications