Search (51 results, page 1 of 3)

0.092324466 = product of:
  0.18464893 = sum of:
    0.18464893 = sum of:
      0.08582799 = weight(_text_:web in 8365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08582799 = score(doc=8365,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 8365, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8365)
      0.09882093 = weight(_text_:22 in 8365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09882093 = score(doc=8365,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 8365, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8365)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2015 16:08:38

0.061869845 = product of:
  0.12373969 = sum of:
    0.12373969 = sum of:
      0.07432922 = weight(_text_:web in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07432922 = score(doc=759,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
      0.049410466 = weight(_text_:22 in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049410466 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 759, 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=759)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

XML will have a profound impact on the way data is exchanged on the Internet. An important feature of this language is the separation of content from presentation, which makes it easier to select and/or reformat the data. However, due to the likelihood of numerous industry and domain specific DTDs, those who wish to integrate information will still be faced with the problem of semantic interoperability. In this paper we discuss why this problem is not solved by XML, and then discuss why the Resource Description Framework is only a partial solution. We then present the SHOE language, which we feel has many of the features necessary to enable a semantic web, and describe an existing set of tools that make it easy to use the language.

Date

11. 5.2013 19:22:18

Theme

Semantic Web

0.048338976 = product of:
  0.09667795 = sum of:
    0.09667795 = sum of:
      0.03678342 = weight(_text_:web in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03678342 = score(doc=1967,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
      0.059894532 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059894532 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

Source

Beyond libraries - subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web. IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn

0.04718572 = product of:
  0.09437144 = sum of:
    0.09437144 = sum of:
      0.052019615 = weight(_text_:web in 4183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052019615 = score(doc=4183,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 4183, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4183)
      0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 4183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042351827 = score(doc=4183,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4183, 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=4183)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Der Begriff der semantischen Interoperabilität ist aufgetreten mit dem Semantic Web, einer Konzeption von Tim Berners-Lee, der sagt, das zunehmend die Computer miteinander über hochstandardisierte Sprachen, die wenig mit Natürlichsprachlichkeit zu tun haben, kommunizieren werden. Was er nicht sieht, ist dass rein technische Interoperabilität nicht ausreicht, um die semantische Interoperabilität herzustellen." ... "Der Begriff der semantischen Interoperabilität ist aufgetreten mit dem Semantic Web, einer Konzeption von Tim Berners-Lee, der sagt, das zunehmend die Computer miteinander über hochstandardisierte Sprachen, die wenig mit Natürlichsprachlichkeit zu tun haben, kommunizieren werden. Was er nicht sieht, ist dass rein technische Interoperabilität nicht ausreicht, um die semantische Interoperabilität herzustellen."

Date

22. 1.2011 10:16:32

0.03297302 = product of:
  0.06594604 = sum of:
    0.06594604 = sum of:
      0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030652853 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3628, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3628)
      0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03529319 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3628, 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=3628)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose: To develop a prototype middleware framework between different terminology resources in order to provide a subject cross-browsing service for library portal systems. Design/methodology/approach: Nine terminology experts were interviewed to collect appropriate knowledge to support the development of a theoretical framework for the research. Based on this, a simplified software-based prototype system was constructed incorporating the knowledge acquired. The prototype involved mappings between the computer science schedule of the Dewey Decimal Classification (which acted as a spine) and two controlled vocabularies UKAT and ACM Computing Classification. Subsequently, six further experts in the field were invited to evaluate the prototype system and provide feedback to improve the framework. Findings: The major findings showed that given the large variety of terminology resources distributed on the web, the proposed middleware service is essential to integrate technically and semantically the different terminology resources in order to facilitate subject cross-browsing. A set of recommendations are also made outlining the important approaches and features that support such a cross browsing middleware service.

Content

This paper is a pre-print version presented at the ISKO UK 2009 conference, 22-23 June, prior to peer review and editing. For published proceedings see special issue of Aslib Proceedings journal.

0.021175914 = product of:
  0.042351827 = sum of:
    0.042351827 = product of:
      0.084703654 = sum of:
        0.084703654 = weight(_text_:22 in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084703654 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 126, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=126)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.017646596 = product of:
  0.03529319 = sum of:
    0.03529319 = product of:
      0.07058638 = sum of:
        0.07058638 = weight(_text_:22 in 1287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07058638 = score(doc=1287,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1287, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1287)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.016963245 = product of:
  0.03392649 = sum of:
    0.03392649 = product of:
      0.06785298 = sum of:
        0.06785298 = weight(_text_:web in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06785298 = score(doc=318,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.39907828 = fieldWeight in 318, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=318)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Seit Bestehen der Menschheit sammelt der Mensch Informationen, seit Bestehen des Internets stellt der Mensch Informationen ins Web, seit Bestehen des Semantic Webs sollen auch Maschinen in die Lage versetzt werden mit diesen Informationen umzugehen. Das Bibliothekswesen ist einer der Sammler. Seit Jahrhunderten werden Kataloge und Bibliografien sowie Inventarnachweise geführt. Mit der Aufgabe des Zettelkatalogs hin zum Onlinekatalog wurde es Benutzern plötzlich möglich in Beständen komfortabel zu suchen. Durch die Bereitstellung von Daten aus dem Bibliothekswesen im Semantic Web sollen nicht nur die eigenen Katalogsysteme Zugriff auf diese Informationen erhalten, sondern jede beliebige Anwendung, die auf das Web zugreifen kann. Darüber hinaus ist die Vorstellung, dass sich die im Web befindenden Daten - in sofern möglich - miteinander verlinken und zu einem gigantischen semantischen Netz werden, das als ein großer Datenpool verwendet werden kann. Die Voraussetzung hierfür ist wie beim Übergang zum Onlinekatalog die Aufbereitung der Daten in einem passenden Format. Normdaten dienen im Bibliothekswesen bereits dazu eine Vernetzung der unterschiedlichen Bestände zu erlauben. Bei der Erschließung eines Buches wird nicht bloß gesagt, dass jemand, der Thomas Mann heißt, der Autor ist - es wird eine Verknüpfung vom Katalogisat zu dem Thomas Mann erzeugt, der am 6. Juni 1875 in Lübeck geboren und am 12. August 1955 in Zürich verstorben ist. Der Vorteil von Normdateneintragungen ist, dass sie zum eindeutigen Nachweis der Verfasserschaft oder Mitwirkung an einem Werk beitragen. Auch stehen Normdateneintragungen bereits allen Bibliotheken für die Nachnutzung bereit - der Schritt ins Semantic Web wäre somit die Öffnung der Normdaten für alle denkbaren Nutzergruppen.
Die Gemeinsame Normdatei (GND) ist seit April 2012 die Datei, die die im deutschsprachigen Bibliothekswesen verwendeten Normdaten enthält. Folglich muss auf Basis dieser Daten eine Repräsentation für die Darstellung als Linked Data im Semantic Web etabliert werden. Neben der eigentlichen Bereitstellung von GND-Daten im Semantic Web sollen die Daten mit bereits als Linked Data vorhandenen Datenbeständen (DBpedia, VIAF etc.) verknüpft und nach Möglichkeit kompatibel sein, wodurch die GND einem internationalen und spartenübergreifenden Publikum zugänglich gemacht wird. Dieses Dokument dient vor allem zur Beschreibung, wie die GND-Linked-Data-Repräsentation entstand und dem Weg zur Spezifikation einer eignen Ontologie. Hierfür werden nach einer kurzen Einführung in die GND die Grundprinzipien und wichtigsten Standards für die Veröffentlichung von Linked Data im Semantic Web vorgestellt, um darauf aufbauend existierende Vokabulare und Ontologien des Bibliothekswesens betrachten zu können. Anschließend folgt ein Exkurs in das generelle Vorgehen für die Bereitstellung von Linked Data, wobei die so oft zitierte Open World Assumption kritisch hinterfragt und damit verbundene Probleme insbesondere in Hinsicht Interoperabilität und Nachnutzbarkeit aufgedeckt werden. Um Probleme der Interoperabilität zu vermeiden, wird den Empfehlungen der Library Linked Data Incubator Group [LLD11] gefolgt.
Im Kapitel Anwendungsprofile als Basis für die Ontologieentwicklung wird die Spezifikation von Dublin Core Anwendungsprofilen kritisch betrachtet, um auszumachen wann und in welcher Form sich ihre Verwendung bei dem Vorhaben Bereitstellung von Linked Data anbietet. In den nachfolgenden Abschnitten wird die GND-Ontologie, welche als Standard für die Serialisierung von GND-Daten im Semantic Web dient, samt Modellierungsentscheidungen näher vorgestellt. Dabei wird insbesondere der Technik des Vocabulary Alignment eine prominente Position eingeräumt, da darin ein entscheidender Mechanismus zur Steigerung der Interoperabilität und Nachnutzbarkeit gesehen wird. Auch wird sich mit der Verlinkung zu externen Datensets intensiv beschäftigt. Hierfür wurden ausgewählte Datenbestände hinsichtlich ihrer Qualität und Aktualität untersucht und Empfehlungen für die Implementierung innerhalb des GND-Datenbestandes gegeben. Abschließend werden eine Zusammenfassung und ein Ausblick auf weitere Schritte gegeben.

0.016092747 = product of:
  0.032185495 = sum of:
    0.032185495 = product of:
      0.06437099 = sum of:
        0.06437099 = weight(_text_:web in 5903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06437099 = score(doc=5903,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.37859887 = fieldWeight in 5903, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5903)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

RDF - the Resource Description Framework - is a foundation for processing metadata; it provides interoperability between applications that exchange machine-understandable information on the Web. RDF emphasizes facilities to enable automated processing of Web resources. RDF metadata can be used in a variety of application areas; for example: in resource discovery to provide better search engine capabilities; in cataloging for describing the content and content relationships available at a particular Web site, page, or digital library; by intelligent software agents to facilitate knowledge sharing and exchange; in content rating; in describing collections of pages that represent a single logical "document"; for describing intellectual property rights of Web pages, and in many others. RDF with digital signatures will be key to building the "Web of Trust" for electronic commerce, collaboration, and other applications. Metadata is "data about data" or specifically in the context of RDF "data describing web resources." The distinction between "data" and "metadata" is not an absolute one; it is a distinction created primarily by a particular application. Many times the same resource will be interpreted in both ways simultaneously. RDF encourages this view by using XML as the encoding syntax for the metadata. The resources being described by RDF are, in general, anything that can be named via a URI. The broad goal of RDF is to define a mechanism for describing resources that makes no assumptions about a particular application domain, nor defines the semantics of any application domain. The definition of the mechanism should be domain neutral, yet the mechanism should be suitable for describing information about any domain. This document introduces a model for representing RDF metadata and one syntax for expressing and transporting this metadata in a manner that maximizes the interoperability of independently developed web servers and clients. The syntax described in this document is best considered as a "serialization syntax" for the underlying RDF representation model. The serialization syntax is XML, XML being the W3C's work-in-progress to define a richer Web syntax for a variety of applications. RDF and XML are complementary; there will be alternate ways to represent the same RDF data model, some more suitable for direct human authoring. Future work may lead to including such alternatives in this document.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.015927691 = product of:
  0.031855382 = sum of:
    0.031855382 = product of:
      0.063710764 = sum of:
        0.063710764 = weight(_text_:web in 3392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063710764 = score(doc=3392,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 3392, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3392)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Im August 2009 wurde SKOS "Simple Knowledge Organization System" als neuer Standard für web-basierte kontrollierte Vokabulare durch das W3C veröffentlicht1. SKOS dient als Datenmodell, um kontrollierte Vokabulare über das Web anzubieten sowie technisch und semantisch interoperabel zu machen. Perspektivisch kann die heterogene Landschaft der Erschließungsvokabulare über SKOS vereinheitlicht und vor allem die Inhalte der klassischen Datenbanken (Bereich Fachinformation) für Anwendungen des Semantic Web, beispielsweise als Linked Open Data2 (LOD), zugänglich und stär-ker miteinander vernetzt werden. Vokabulare im SKOS-Format können dabei eine relevante Funktion einnehmen, indem sie als standardisiertes Brückenvokabular dienen und semantische Verlinkung zwischen erschlossenen, veröffentlichten Daten herstellen. Die folgende Fallstudie skizziert ein Szenario mit drei thematisch verwandten Thesauri, die ins SKOS-Format übertragen und inhaltlich über Crosskonkordanzen aus dem Projekt KoMoHe verbunden werden. Die Mapping Properties von SKOS bieten dazu standardisierte Relationen, die denen der Crosskonkordanzen entsprechen. Die beteiligten Thesauri der Fallstudie sind a) TheSoz (Thesaurus Sozialwissenschaften, GESIS), b) STW (Standard-Thesaurus Wirtschaft, ZBW) und c) IBLK-Thesaurus (SWP).

0.015326426 = product of:
  0.030652853 = sum of:
    0.030652853 = product of:
      0.061305705 = sum of:
        0.061305705 = weight(_text_:web in 3152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061305705 = score(doc=3152,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 3152, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Table of Contents Part I: Accepted Papers Christoph Tempich and Raphael Volz: Towards a benchmark for Semantic Web reasoners - an analysis of the DAML ontology library M. Carmen Suarez-Figueroa and Asuncion Gomez-Perez: Results of Taxonomic Evaluation of RDF(S) and DAML+OIL ontologies using RDF(S) and DAML+OIL Validation Tools and Ontology Platforms import services Volker Haarslev and Ralf Möller: Racer: A Core Inference Engine for the Semantic Web Mikhail Kazakov and Habib Abdulrab: DL-workbench: a metamodeling approach to ontology manipulation Thorsten Liebig and Olaf Noppens: OntoTrack: Fast Browsing and Easy Editing of Large Ontologie Frederic Fürst, Michel Leclere, and Francky Trichet: TooCoM : a Tool to Operationalize an Ontology with the Conceptual Graph Model Naoki Sugiura, Masaki Kurematsu, Naoki Fukuta, Noriaki Izumi, and Takahira Yamaguchi: A domain ontology engineering tool with general ontologies and text corpus Howard Goldberg, Alfredo Morales, David MacMillan, and Matthew Quinlan: An Ontology-Driven Application to Improve the Prescription of Educational Resources to Parents of Premature Infants Part II: Experiment Contributions Domain natural language description for the experiment Raphael Troncy, Antoine Isaac, and Veronique Malaise: Using XSLT for Interoperability: DOE and The Travelling Domain Experiment Christian Fillies: SemTalk EON2003 Semantic Web Export / Import Interface Test Óscar Corcho, Asunción Gómez-Pérez, Danilo José Guerrero-Rodríguez, David Pérez-Rey, Alberto Ruiz-Cristina, Teresa Sastre-Toral, M. Carmen Suárez-Figueroa: Evaluation experiment of ontology tools' interoperability with the WebODE ontology engineering workbench Holger Knublauch: Case Study: Using Protege to Convert the Travel Ontology to UML and OWL Franz Calvo and John Gennari: Interoperability of Protege 2.0 beta and OilEd 3.5 in the Domain Knowledge of Osteoporosis

Theme

Semantic Web

0.015326426 = product of:
  0.030652853 = sum of:
    0.030652853 = product of:
      0.061305705 = sum of:
        0.061305705 = weight(_text_:web in 3367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061305705 = score(doc=3367,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 3367, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3367)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ontology mapping is one of the core tasks for ontology interoperability. It is aimed to find semantic relationships between entities (i.e. concept, attribute, and relation) of two ontologies. It benefits many applications, such as integration of ontology based web data sources, interoperability of agents or web services. To reduce the amount of users' effort as much as possible, (semi-) automatic ontology mapping is becoming more and more important to bring it into fruition. In the existing literature, many approaches have found considerable interest by combining several different similar/mapping strategies (namely multi-strategy based mapping). However, experiments show that the multi-strategy based mapping does not always outperform its single-strategy counterpart. In this paper, we mainly aim to deal with two problems: (1) for a new, unseen mapping task, should we select a multi-strategy based algorithm or just one single-strategy based algorithm? (2) if the task is suitable for multi-strategy, then how to select the strategies into the final combined scenario? We propose an approach of multiple strategies detections for ontology mapping. The results obtained so far show that multi-strategy detection improves on precision and recall significantly.

Content

Beitrag anlässlich: Workshop on The Semantic Computing Initiative (SeC 2005) --- From Semantic Web to Semantic World --- to be held in conjunction with The 14th Int'l Conf. on World Wide Web (WWW2005); vgl.: http://www.instsec.org/2005ws/.

0.015326426 = product of:
  0.030652853 = sum of:
    0.030652853 = product of:
      0.061305705 = sum of:
        0.061305705 = weight(_text_:web in 125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061305705 = score(doc=125,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 125, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Beitrag eines Schwerpunktthemas: Semantic Web and Reasoning for Cultural Heritage and Digital Libraries: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/instance-based-semantic-interoperability-cultural-heritage http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/sites/default/files/swj157_1.pdf.

Source

Semantic Web journal. 3(2012) no.1, S.45-64

0.015326426 = product of:
  0.030652853 = sum of:
    0.030652853 = product of:
      0.061305705 = sum of:
        0.061305705 = weight(_text_:web in 130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061305705 = score(doc=130,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 130, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=130)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Beitrag eines Schwerpunktthemas: Semantic Web and Reasoning for Cultural Heritage and Digital Libraries: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/systemic-approach-eff%0Bective-semantic-access-cultural-content http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/sites/default/files/swj147_3.pdf.

Source

Semantic Web journal. 3(2012) no.1, S.65-83

0.015326426 = product of:
  0.030652853 = sum of:
    0.030652853 = product of:
      0.061305705 = sum of:
        0.061305705 = weight(_text_:web in 1721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061305705 = score(doc=1721,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 1721, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1721)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.015326426 = product of:
  0.030652853 = sum of:
    0.030652853 = product of:
      0.061305705 = sum of:
        0.061305705 = weight(_text_:web in 4232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061305705 = score(doc=4232,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 4232, product of:
              5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                32.0 = termFreq=32.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4232)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

After the launch of the World Wide Web, it became clear that searching documentson the Web would not be trivial. Well-known engines to search the web, like Google, focus on search in web documents using keywords. The documents are structured and indexed to ensure keywords match documents as accurately as possible. However, searching by keywords does not always suice. It is oen the case that users do not know exactly how to formulate the search query or which keywords guarantee retrieving the most relevant documents. Besides that, it occurs that users rather want to browse information than looking up something specific. It turned out that there is need for systems that enable more interactivity and facilitate the gradual refinement of search queries to explore the Web. Users expect more from the Web because the short keyword-based queries they pose during search, do not suffice for all cases. On top of that, the Web is changing structurally. The Web comprises, apart from a collection of documents, more and more linked data, pieces of information structured so they can be processed by machines. The consequently applied semantics allow users to exactly indicate machines their search intentions. This is made possible by describing data following controlled vocabularies, concept lists composed by experts, published uniquely identifiable on the Web. Even so, it is still not trivial to explore data on the Web. There is a large variety of vocabularies and various data sources use different terms to identify the same concepts.
This PhD-thesis describes how to effectively explore linked data on the Web. The main focus is on scenarios where users want to discover relationships between resources rather than finding out more about something specific. Searching for a specific document or piece of information fits in the theoretical framework of information retrieval and is associated with exploratory search. Exploratory search goes beyond 'looking up something' when users are seeking more detailed understanding, further investigation or navigation of the initial search results. The ideas behind exploratory search and querying linked data merge when it comes to the way knowledge is represented and indexed by machines - how data is structured and stored for optimal searchability. Queries and information should be aligned to facilitate that searches also reveal connections between results. This implies that they take into account the same semantic entities, relevant at that moment. To realize this, we research three techniques that are evaluated one by one in an experimental set-up to assess how well they succeed in their goals. In the end, the techniques are applied to a practical use case that focuses on forming a bridge between the Web and the use of digital libraries in scientific research. Our first technique focuses on the interactive visualization of search results. Linked data resources can be brought in relation with each other at will. This leads to complex and diverse graphs structures. Our technique facilitates navigation and supports a workflow starting from a broad overview on the data and allows narrowing down until the desired level of detail to then broaden again. To validate the flow, two visualizations where implemented and presented to test-users. The users judged the usability of the visualizations, how the visualizations fit in the workflow and to which degree their features seemed useful for the exploration of linked data.
The ideas behind exploratory search and querying linked data merge when it comes to the way knowledge is represented and indexed by machines - how data is structured and stored for optimal searchability. eries and information should be aligned to facilitate that searches also reveal connections between results. This implies that they take into account the same semantic entities, relevant at that moment. To realize this, we research three techniques that are evaluated one by one in an experimental set-up to assess how well they succeed in their goals. In the end, the techniques are applied to a practical use case that focuses on forming a bridge between the Web and the use of digital libraries in scientific research.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.015172388 = product of:
  0.030344777 = sum of:
    0.030344777 = product of:
      0.060689554 = sum of:
        0.060689554 = weight(_text_:web in 2471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060689554 = score(doc=2471,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 2471, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2471)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Der vorliegende Artikel möchte einen Ansatz vorstellen, der aufzeigt, wie die Bibliothek der Universität Konstanz - und andere Bibliotheken mit einer Haussystematik - bei ihrer eigenen Systematik bleiben und trotzdem von der Sacherschließungsarbeit anderer Bibliotheken profitieren können. Vorgestellt wird ein Konzept, das zeigt, wie mithilfe von Semantic-Web-Technologie Ähnlichkeitsrelationen zwischen verbaler Sacherschließung, RVK, DDC und hauseigenen Systematiken erstellt werden können, die das Übersetzen von Sacherschließungsinformationen in andere Ordnungssysteme erlauben und damit Automatisierung in der Sacherschließung möglich machen.

0.014117276 = product of:
  0.028234553 = sum of:
    0.028234553 = product of:
      0.056469105 = sum of:
        0.056469105 = weight(_text_:22 in 7411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056469105 = score(doc=7411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7411, 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=7411)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7.11.2008 10:40:22

0.014117276 = product of:
  0.028234553 = sum of:
    0.028234553 = product of:
      0.056469105 = sum of:
        0.056469105 = weight(_text_:22 in 541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056469105 = score(doc=541,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 541, 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=541)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:46

0.014117276 = product of:
  0.028234553 = sum of:
    0.028234553 = product of:
      0.056469105 = sum of:
        0.056469105 = weight(_text_:22 in 2227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056469105 = score(doc=2227,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2227, 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=2227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7.11.2008 10:40:22