Search (97 results, page 1 of 5)

0.08306804 = product of:
  0.16613609 = sum of:
    0.16613609 = sum of:
      0.10966698 = weight(_text_:web in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10966698 = score(doc=4685,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.6450079 = fieldWeight in 4685, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4685)
      0.056469105 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056469105 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4685, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4685)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This document contains and presents test cases for the Web Ontology Language (OWL) approved by the Web Ontology Working Group. Many of the test cases illustrate the correct usage of the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and the formal meaning of its constructs. Other test cases illustrate the resolution of issues considered by the Working Group. Conformance for OWL documents and OWL document checkers is specified.

Date

14. 8.2011 13:33:22

Theme

Semantic Web

0.07726393 = product of:
  0.15452786 = sum of:
    0.15452786 = sum of:
      0.10511739 = weight(_text_:web in 4330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10511739 = score(doc=4330,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.6182494 = fieldWeight in 4330, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4330)
      0.049410466 = weight(_text_:22 in 4330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049410466 = score(doc=4330,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4330, 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=4330)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

One vision of the Semantic Web is that it will be much like the Web we know today, except that documents will be enriched by annotations in machine understandable markup. These annotations will provide metadata about the documents as well as machine interpretable statements capturing some of the meaning of document content. We discuss how the information retrieval paradigm might be recast in such an environment. We suggest that retrieval can be tightly bound to inference. Doing so makes today's Web search engines useful to Semantic Web inference engines, and causes improvements in either retrieval or inference to lead directly to improvements in the other.

Date

12. 2.2011 17:35:22

Theme

Semantic Web

0.07635105 = product of:
  0.1527021 = sum of:
    0.1527021 = sum of:
      0.110350266 = weight(_text_:web in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.110350266 = score(doc=4649,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.64902663 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
      0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042351827 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4649, 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=4649)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

More and more cultural heritage institutions publish their collections, vocabularies and metadata on the Web. The resulting Web of linked cultural data opens up exciting new possibilities for searching and browsing through these cultural heritage collections. We report on ongoing work in which we investigate the estimation of relevance in this Web of Culture. We study existing measures of semantic distance and how they apply to two use cases. The use cases relate to the structured, multilingual and multimodal nature of the Culture Web. We distinguish between measures using the Web, such as Google distance and PMI, and measures using the Linked Data Web, i.e. the semantic structure of metadata vocabularies. We perform a small study in which we compare these semantic distance measures to human judgements of relevance. Although it is too early to draw any definitive conclusions, the study provides new insights into the applicability of semantic distance measures to the Web of Culture, and clear starting points for further research.

Date

26.12.2011 13:40:22

Theme

Semantic Web

0.044192746 = product of:
  0.08838549 = sum of:
    0.08838549 = sum of:
      0.053092297 = weight(_text_:web in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053092297 = score(doc=4553,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
      0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03529319 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4553, 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=4553)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Semantic Web knowledge representation standards, and in particular RDF and OWL, often come endowed with a formal semantics which is considered to be of fundamental importance for the field. Reasoning, i.e., the drawing of logical inferences from knowledge expressed in such standards, is traditionally based on logical deductive methods and algorithms which can be proven to be sound and complete and terminating, i.e. correct in a very strong sense. For various reasons, though, in particular the scalability issues arising from the ever increasing amounts of Semantic Web data available and the inability of deductive algorithms to deal with noise in the data, it has been argued that alternative means of reasoning should be investigated which bear high promise for high scalability and better robustness. From this perspective, deductive algorithms can be considered the gold standard regarding correctness against which alternative methods need to be tested. In this paper, we show that it is possible to train a Deep Learning system on RDF knowledge graphs, such that it is able to perform reasoning over new RDF knowledge graphs, with high precision and recall compared to the deductive gold standard.

Date

16.11.2018 14:22:01

Theme

Semantic Web

0.02838494 = product of:
  0.05676988 = sum of:
    0.05676988 = product of:
      0.11353976 = sum of:
        0.11353976 = weight(_text_:web in 4329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11353976 = score(doc=4329,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.6677857 = fieldWeight in 4329, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Plenty of contemporary attempts to search exist that are associated with the area of Semantic Web. But which of them qualify as information retrieval for the Semantic Web? Do such approaches exist? To answer these questions we take a look at the nature of the Semantic Web and Semantic Desktop and at definitions for information and data retrieval. We survey current approaches referred to by their authors as information retrieval for the Semantic Web or that use Semantic Web technology for search.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.026009807 = product of:
  0.052019615 = sum of:
    0.052019615 = product of:
      0.10403923 = sum of:
        0.10403923 = weight(_text_:web in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10403923 = score(doc=243,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Theme

Semantic Web

0.026009807 = product of:
  0.052019615 = sum of:
    0.052019615 = product of:
      0.10403923 = sum of:
        0.10403923 = weight(_text_:web in 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10403923 = score(doc=105,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 105, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=105)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Semantic Web - Taxonomie und Thesaurus - SKOS - Historie - Klassen und Eigenschaften - Beispiele - Generierung - automatisiert - per Folksonomie - Fazit und Ausblick

Theme

Semantic Web

0.025416005 = product of:
  0.05083201 = sum of:
    0.05083201 = product of:
      0.10166402 = sum of:
        0.10166402 = weight(_text_:web in 231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10166402 = score(doc=231,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.59793836 = fieldWeight in 231, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As an extension to the current Web, Semantic Web will not only contain structured data with machine understandable semantics but also textual information. While structured queries can be used to find information more precisely on the Semantic Web, keyword searches are still needed to help exploit textual information. It thus becomes very important that we can combine precise structured queries with imprecise keyword searches to have a hybrid query capability. In addition, due to the huge volume of information on the Semantic Web, the hybrid query must be processed in a very scalable way. In this paper, we define such a hybrid query capability that combines unary tree-shaped structured queries with keyword searches. We show how existing information retrieval (IR) index structures and functions can be reused to index semantic web data and its textual information, and how the hybrid query is evaluated on the index structure using IR engines in an efficient and scalable manner. We implemented this IR approach in an engine called Semplore. Comprehensive experiments on its performance show that it is a promising approach. It leads us to believe that it may be possible to evolve current web search engines to query and search the Semantic Web. Finally, we briefy describe how Semplore is used for searching Wikipedia and an IBM customer's product information.

Source

Proceeding ISWC'07/ASWC'07 : Proceedings of the 6th international The semantic web and 2nd Asian conference on Asian semantic web conference. Ed.: K. Aberer et al

Theme

Semantic Web

0.024522282 = product of:
  0.049044564 = sum of:
    0.049044564 = product of:
      0.09808913 = sum of:
        0.09808913 = weight(_text_:web in 3063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09808913 = score(doc=3063,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 3063, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3063)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Resource Description Framework (RDF) integrates a variety of applications from library catalogs and world-wide directories to syndication and aggregation of news, software, and content to personal collections of music, photos, and events using XML as an interchange syntax. The RDF specifications provide a lightweight ontology system to support the exchange of knowledge on the Web. The W3C Semantic Web Activity Statement explains W3C's plans for RDF, including the RDF Core WG, Web Ontology and the RDF Interest Group.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.024522282 = product of:
  0.049044564 = sum of:
    0.049044564 = product of:
      0.09808913 = sum of:
        0.09808913 = weight(_text_:web in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09808913 = score(doc=4686,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This document specifies usage scenarios, goals and requirements for a web ontology language. An ontology formally defines a common set of terms that are used to describe and represent a domain. Ontologies can be used by automated tools to power advanced services such as more accurate web search, intelligent software agents and knowledge management.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.024233207 = product of:
  0.048466414 = sum of:
    0.048466414 = product of:
      0.09693283 = sum of:
        0.09693283 = weight(_text_:web in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09693283 = score(doc=3297,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ontologies have proven to be an essential element in many applications. They are used in agent systems, knowledge management systems, and e-commerce platforms. They can also generate natural language, integrate intelligent information, provide semantic-based access to the Internet, and extract information from texts in addition to being used in many other applications to explicitly declare the knowledge embedded in them. However, not only are ontologies useful for applications in which knowledge plays a key role, but they can also trigger a major change in current Web contents. This change is leading to the third generation of the Web-known as the Semantic Web-which has been defined as "the conceptual structuring of the Web in an explicit machine-readable way."1 This definition does not differ too much from the one used for defining an ontology: "An ontology is an explicit, machinereadable specification of a shared conceptualization."2 In fact, new ontology-based applications and knowledge architectures are developing for this new Web. A common claim for all of these approaches is the need for languages to represent the semantic information that this Web requires-solving the heterogeneous data exchange in this heterogeneous environment. Here, we don't decide which language is best of the Semantic Web. Rather, our goal is to help developers find the most suitable language for their representation needs. The authors analyze the most representative ontology languages created for the Web and compare them using a common framework.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.023989651 = product of:
  0.047979303 = sum of:
    0.047979303 = product of:
      0.095958605 = sum of:
        0.095958605 = weight(_text_:web in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095958605 = score(doc=3060,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5643819 = fieldWeight in 3060, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3060)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The OWL 2 Web Ontology Language, informally OWL 2, is an ontology language for the Semantic Web with formally defined meaning. OWL 2 ontologies provide classes, properties, individuals, and data values and are stored as Semantic Web documents. OWL 2 ontologies can be used along with information written in RDF, and OWL 2 ontologies themselves are primarily exchanged as RDF documents. This document serves as an introduction to OWL 2 and the various other OWL 2 documents. It describes the syntaxes for OWL 2, the different kinds of semantics, the available profiles (sub-languages), and the relationship between OWL 1 and OWL 2.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.023989651 = product of:
  0.047979303 = sum of:
    0.047979303 = product of:
      0.095958605 = sum of:
        0.095958605 = weight(_text_:web in 4684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095958605 = score(doc=4684,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5643819 = fieldWeight in 4684, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4684)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Web Ontology Language OWL is a semantic markup language for publishing and sharing ontologies on the World Wide Web. OWL is developed as a vocabulary extension of RDF (the Resource Description Framework) and is derived from the DAML+OIL Web Ontology Language. This document contains a structured informal description of the full set of OWL language constructs and is meant to serve as a reference for OWL users who want to construct OWL ontologies.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.023989651 = product of:
  0.047979303 = sum of:
    0.047979303 = product of:
      0.095958605 = sum of:
        0.095958605 = weight(_text_:web in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095958605 = score(doc=80,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5643819 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Semantic Web and ontologies can help archaeologists combine and share data, making it more open and useful. Archaeologists create diverse types of data, using a wide variety of technologies and methodologies. Like all research domains, these data are increasingly digital. The creation of data that are now openly and persistently available from disparate sources has also inspired efforts to bring archaeological resources together and make them more interoperable. This allows functionality such as federated cross-search across different datasets, and the mapping of heterogeneous data to authoritative structures to build a single data source. Ontologies provide the structure and relationships for Semantic Web data, and have been developed for use in cultural heritage applications generally, and archaeology specifically. A variety of online resources for archaeology now incorporate Semantic Web principles and technologies.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.022525156 = product of:
  0.04505031 = sum of:
    0.04505031 = product of:
      0.09010062 = sum of:
        0.09010062 = weight(_text_:web in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09010062 = score(doc=4640,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5299281 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ontologies will play a central role in the development of the Semantic Web. It is unrealistic to assume that such ontologies will be developed from scratch. Rather, we assume that existing resources such as thesauri and lexical data bases will be reused in the development of ontologies for the Semantic Web. In this paper we describe a method for converting existing source material to a representation that is compatible with Semantic Web languages such as RDF(S) and OWL. The method is illustrated with three case studies: converting Wordnet, AAT and MeSH to RDF(S) and OWL.

Source

Proceedings of the First European Semantic Web Symposium (ESWS2004), Eds.: C. Bussler, J. Davies, D. Fensel and R. Studer. 2004. S.299-311

Theme

Semantic Web

0.022525156 = product of:
  0.04505031 = sum of:
    0.04505031 = product of:
      0.09010062 = sum of:
        0.09010062 = weight(_text_:web in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09010062 = score(doc=4798,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5299281 = fieldWeight in 4798, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4798)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Seven years on from OWL becoming a W3C recommendation, and two years on from the more recent OWL 2 W3C recommendation, OWL has still experienced only patchy uptake on the Web. Although certain OWL features (like owl:sameAs) are very popular, other features of OWL are largely neglected by publishers in the Linked Data world. This may suggest that despite the promise of easy implementations and the proposal of tractable profiles suggested in OWL's second version, there is still no "right" standard fragment for the Linked Data community. In this paper, we (1) analyse uptake of OWL on the Web of Data, (2) gain insights into the OWL fragment that is actually used/usable on the Web, where we arrive at the conclusion that this fragment is likely to be a simplified profile based on OWL RL, (3) propose and discuss such a new fragment, which we call OWL LD (for Linked Data).

Content

Beitrag des Workshops: Linked Data on the Web (LDOW2012), April 16, 2012 Lyon, France; vgl.: http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2012/.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.022525156 = product of:
  0.04505031 = sum of:
    0.04505031 = product of:
      0.09010062 = sum of:
        0.09010062 = weight(_text_:web in 4802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09010062 = score(doc=4802,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5299281 = fieldWeight in 4802, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4802)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The power of search is with no doubt one of the main aspects for the success of the Web. Currently available search engines on the Web allow to return results with a high precision. Nevertheless, if we limit our attention only to lookup search we are missing another important search task. In exploratory search, the user is willing not only to find documents relevant with respect to her query but she is also interested in learning, discovering and understanding novel knowledge on complex and sometimes unknown topics. In the paper we address this issue presenting LED, a web based system that aims to improve (lookup) Web search by enabling users to properly explore knowledge associated to her query. We rely on DBpedia to explore the semantics of keywords within the query thus suggesting potentially interesting related topics/keywords to the user.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.02167484 = product of:
  0.04334968 = sum of:
    0.04334968 = product of:
      0.08669936 = sum of:
        0.08669936 = weight(_text_:web in 4327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08669936 = score(doc=4327,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 4327, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4327)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Part I. Analyzing the state of the art - What is semantic search? Part II. The proposal - An ontology-based IR model - Semantic retrieval on the Web Part III. Extensions - Semantic knowledge gateway - Coping with knowledge incompleteness

Theme

Semantic Web

0.02167484 = product of:
  0.04334968 = sum of:
    0.04334968 = product of:
      0.08669936 = sum of:
        0.08669936 = weight(_text_:web in 51) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08669936 = score(doc=51,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 51, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=51)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The increasingly pervasive nature of the Web, expanding to devices and things in everydaylife, along with new trends in Artificial Intelligence call for new paradigms and a new look onKnowledge Representation and Processing at scale for the Semantic Web. The emerging, but stillto be concretely shaped concept of "Knowledge Graphs" provides an excellent unifying metaphorfor this current status of Semantic Web research. More than two decades of Semantic Webresearch provides a solid basis and a promising technology and standards stack to interlink data,ontologies and knowledge on the Web. However, neither are applications for Knowledge Graphsas such limited to Linked Open Data, nor are instantiations of Knowledge Graphs in enterprises- while often inspired by - limited to the core Semantic Web stack. This report documents theprogram and the outcomes of Dagstuhl Seminar 18371 "Knowledge Graphs: New Directions forKnowledge Representation on the Semantic Web", where a group of experts from academia andindustry discussed fundamental questions around these topics for a week in early September 2018,including the following: what are knowledge graphs? Which applications do we see to emerge?Which open research questions still need be addressed and which technology gaps still need tobe closed?

Theme

Semantic Web

0.021456998 = product of:
  0.042913996 = sum of:
    0.042913996 = product of:
      0.08582799 = sum of:
        0.08582799 = weight(_text_:web in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08582799 = score(doc=3061,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This document describes in brief how to express the content and structure of a classification scheme, and metadata about a classification scheme, in RDF using the SKOS vocabulary. RDF allows data to be linked to and/or merged with other RDF data by semantic web applications. The Semantic Web, which is based on the Resource Description Framework (RDF), provides a common framework that allows data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries. Publishing classifications schemes in SKOS will unify the great many of existing classification efforts in the framework of the Semantic Web.