Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  1. Held, C.; Cress, U.: Social Tagging aus kognitionspsychologischer Sicht (2008) 0.10 
    0.10203447 = product of:
  0.20406894 = sum of:
    0.20406894 = product of:
      0.4081379 = sum of:
        0.4081379 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4081379 = score(doc=2885,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.3698132 = fieldWeight in 2885, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2885)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Der vorliegende Artikel beschreibt Social-Tagging-Systeme aus theoretisch-kognitionspsychologischer Perspektive und zeigt einige Parallelen und Analogien zwischen Social Tagging und der individuellen kognitiven bedeutungsbezogenen Wissensrepräsentation auf. Zuerst werden wesentliche Aspekte von Social Tagging vorgestellt, die für eine psychologische Betrachtungsweise von Bedeutung sind. Danach werden Modelle und empirische Befunde der Kognitionswissenschaften bezüglich der Speicherung und des Abrufs von Inhalten des Langzeitgedächtnisses beschrieben. Als Drittes werden Parallelen und Unterschiede zwischen Social Tagging und der internen Wissensrepräsentation erläutert und die Möglichkeit von individuellen Lernprozessen durch Social-Tagging-Systeme aufgezeigt.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  2. Derntl, M.; Hampel, T.; Motschnig, R.; Pitner, T.: Social Tagging und Inclusive Universal Access (2008) 0.10 
    0.0966886 = product of:
  0.1933772 = sum of:
    0.1933772 = product of:
      0.3867544 = sum of:
        0.3867544 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3867544 = score(doc=2864,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.2980448 = fieldWeight in 2864, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2864)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Der vorliegende Artikel beleuchtet und bewertet Social Tagging als aktuelles Phänomen des Web 2.0 im Kontext bekannter Techniken der semantischen Datenorganisation. Tagging wird in einen Raum verwandter Ordnungs- und Strukturierungsansätze eingeordnet, um die fundamentalen Grundlagen des Social Tagging zu identifizieren und zuzuweisen. Dabei wird Tagging anhand des Inclusive Universal Access Paradigmas bewertet, das technische als auch menschlich-soziale Kriterien für die inklusive und barrierefreie Bereitstellung und Nutzung von Diensten definiert. Anhand dieser Bewertung werden fundamentale Prinzipien des "Inclusive Social Tagging" hergeleitet, die der Charakterisierung und Bewertung gängiger Tagging-Funktionalitäten in verbreiteten Web-2.0-Diensten dienen. Aus der Bewertung werden insbesondere Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten von Social Tagging und unterstützenden Diensten erkennbar.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  3. Voß, J.: Vom Social Tagging zum Semantic Tagging (2008) 0.10 
    0.09619903 = product of:
  0.19239806 = sum of:
    0.19239806 = product of:
      0.3847961 = sum of:
        0.3847961 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3847961 = score(doc=2884,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.2914723 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Social Tagging als freie Verschlagwortung durch Nutzer im Web wird immer häufiger mit der Idee des Semantic Web in Zusammenhang gebracht. Wie beide Konzepte in der Praxis konkret zusammenkommen sollen, bleibt jedoch meist unklar. Dieser Artikel soll hier Aufklärung leisten, indem die Kombination von Social Tagging und Semantic Web in Form von Semantic Tagging mit dem Simple Knowledge Organisation System dargestellt und auf die konkreten Möglichkeiten, Vorteile und offenen Fragen der Semantischen Indexierung eingegangen wird.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  4. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.08 
    0.0788182 = product of:
  0.1576364 = sum of:
    0.1576364 = sum of:
      0.11661082 = weight(_text_:tagging in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11661082 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.39137518 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
      0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041025586 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, 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=3387)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
    Theme
    Social tagging
  5. Braun, S.; Schmidt, A.; Walter, A.; Zacharias, V.: Von Tags zu semantischen Beziehungen : kollaborative Ontologiereifung (2008) 0.07 
    0.06518744 = product of:
  0.13037488 = sum of:
    0.13037488 = product of:
      0.26074976 = sum of:
        0.26074976 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26074976 = score(doc=2896,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.8751416 = fieldWeight in 2896, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2896)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Die Popularität von Tagging-Ansätzen hat gezeigt, dass dieses Ordnungsprinzip für Nutzer insbesondere auf kollaborativen Plattformen deutlich zugänglicher ist als strukturierte und kontrollierte Vokabulare. Allerdings stoßen Tagging-Ansätze oft an ihre Grenzen, wo sie keine ausreichende semantische Präzision ausbilden können. Umgekehrt können ontologiebasierte Ansätze zwar die semantische Präzision erreichen, werden jedoch (besonders aufgrund der schwerfälligen Pflegeprozesse) von den Nutzern kaum akzeptiert. Wir schlagen eine Verbindung beider Welten vor, die auf einer neuen Sichtweise auf die Entstehung von Ontologien fußt: die Ontologiereifung. Anhand zweier Werkzeuge aus dem Bereich des Social Semantic Bookmarking und der semantischen Bildsuche zeigen wir, wie Anwendungen aussehen können, die eine solche Ontologiereifung (in die jeweiligen Nutzungsprozesse integriert) ermöglichen und fördern.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  6. Stojanovic, N.: Ontology-based Information Retrieval : methods and tools for cooperative query answering (2005) 0.03 
    0.02671839 = product of:
  0.05343678 = sum of:
    0.05343678 = product of:
      0.16031033 = sum of:
        0.16031033 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16031033 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4278608 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F1627&ei=tAtYUYrBNoHKtQb3l4GYBw&usg=AFQjCNHeaxKkKU3-u54LWxMNYGXaaDLCGw&sig2=8WykXWQoDKjDSdGtAakH2Q&bvm=bv.44442042,d.Yms.
  7. King, B.E.; Reinold, K.: Finding the concept, not just the word : a librarian's guide to ontologies and semantics (2008) 0.03 
    0.025246985 = product of:
  0.05049397 = sum of:
    0.05049397 = product of:
      0.10098794 = sum of:
        0.10098794 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10098794 = score(doc=2863,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.3389409 = fieldWeight in 2863, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2863)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Aimed at students and professionals within Library and Information Services (LIS), this book is about the power and potential of ontologies to enhance the electronic search process. The book will compare search strategies and results in the current search environment and demonstrate how these could be transformed using ontologies and concept searching. Simple descriptions, visual representations, and examples of ontologies will bring a full understanding of how these concept maps are constructed to enhance retrieval through natural language queries. Readers will gain a sense of how ontologies are currently being used and how they could be applied in the future, encouraging them to think about how their own work and their users' search experiences could be enhanced by the creation of a customized ontology. Key Features Written by a librarian, for librarians (most work on ontologies is written and read by people in computer science and knowledge management) Written by a librarian who has created her own ontology and performed research on its capabilities Written in easily understandable language, with concepts broken down to the basics The Author Ms. King is the Information Specialist at the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital Boston. She is a graduate of Smith College (B.A.) and Simmons College (M.L.I.S.). She is an active member of the Special Libraries Association, and was the recipient of the 2005 SLA Innovation in Technology Award for the creation of a customized media effects ontology used for semantic searching. Readership The book is aimed at practicing librarians and information professionals as well as graduate students of Library and Information Science. Contents Introduction Part 1: Understanding Ontologies - organising knowledge; what is an ontology? How are ontologies different from other knowledge representations? How are ontologies currently being used? Key concepts Ontologies in semantic search - determining whether a search was successful; what does semantic search have to offer? Semantic techniques; semantic searching behind the scenes; key concepts Creating an ontology - how to create an ontology; key concepts Building an ontology from existing components - choosing components; customizing your knowledge structure; key concepts Part 2: Semantic Technologies Natural language processing - tagging parts of speech; grammar-based NLP; statistical NLP; semantic analysis,; current applications of NLP; key concepts Using metadata to add semantic information - structured languages; metadata tagging; semantic tagging; key concepts Other semantic capabilities - semantic classification; synsets; topic maps; rules and inference; key concepts Part 3: Case Studies: Theory into Practice Biogen Idec: using semantics in drug discovery research - Biogen Idec's solution; the future The Center on Media and Child Health: using an ontology to explore the effects of media - building the ontology; choosing the source; implementing and comparing to Boolean search; the future Partners HealthCare System: semantic technologies to improve clinical decision support - the medical appointment; partners healthcare system's solution; lessons learned; the future MINDSWAP: using ontologies to aid terrorism; intelligence gathering - building, using and maintaining the ontology; sharing information with other experts; future plans Part 4: Advanced Topics Languages for expressing ontologies - XML; RDF; OWL; SKOS; Ontology language features - comparison chart Tools for building ontologies - basic criteria when evaluating ontologies Part 5: Transitions to the Future
  8. Tudhope, D.; Hodge, G.: Terminology registries (2007) 0.02 
    0.017093996 = product of:
  0.03418799 = sum of:
    0.03418799 = product of:
      0.06837598 = sum of:
        0.06837598 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06837598 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, 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=539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:22:07
  9. Haller, S.H.M.: Mappingverfahren zur Wissensorganisation (2002) 0.02 
    0.017093996 = product of:
  0.03418799 = sum of:
    0.03418799 = product of:
      0.06837598 = sum of:
        0.06837598 = weight(_text_:22 in 3406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06837598 = score(doc=3406,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3406, 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=3406)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    30. 5.2010 16:22:35
  10. Synak, M.; Dabrowski, M.; Kruk, S.R.: Semantic Web and ontologies (2009) 0.01 
    0.013675196 = product of:
  0.027350392 = sum of:
    0.027350392 = product of:
      0.054700784 = sum of:
        0.054700784 = weight(_text_:22 in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054700784 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3376, 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=3376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    31. 7.2010 16:58:22
  11. OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases (2004) 0.01 
    0.013675196 = product of:
  0.027350392 = sum of:
    0.027350392 = product of:
      0.054700784 = sum of:
        0.054700784 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054700784 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    14. 8.2011 13:33:22
  12. Priss, U.: Faceted information representation (2000) 0.01 
    0.011965796 = product of:
  0.023931593 = sum of:
    0.023931593 = product of:
      0.047863185 = sum of:
        0.047863185 = weight(_text_:22 in 5095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047863185 = score(doc=5095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5095, 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=5095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 17:47:06
  13. Knorz, G.; Rein, B.: Semantische Suche in einer Hochschulontologie (2005) 0.01 
    0.011965796 = product of:
  0.023931593 = sum of:
    0.023931593 = product of:
      0.047863185 = sum of:
        0.047863185 = weight(_text_:22 in 1852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047863185 = score(doc=1852,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1852, 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=1852)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    11. 2.2011 18:22:58
  14. Knorz, G.; Rein, B.: Semantische Suche in einer Hochschulontologie : Ontologie-basiertes Information-Filtering und -Retrieval mit relationalen Datenbanken (2005) 0.01 
    0.011965796 = product of:
  0.023931593 = sum of:
    0.023931593 = product of:
      0.047863185 = sum of:
        0.047863185 = weight(_text_:22 in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047863185 = score(doc=4324,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4324, 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=4324)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    11. 2.2011 18:22:25
  15. Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (2003) 0.01 
    0.010256397 = product of:
  0.020512793 = sum of:
    0.020512793 = product of:
      0.041025586 = sum of:
        0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 1652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041025586 = score(doc=1652,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1652, 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=1652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    6. 8.2010 14:22:28
  16. Gendt, M. van; Isaac, I.; Meij, L. van der; Schlobach, S.: Semantic Web techniques for multiple views on heterogeneous collections : a case study (2006) 0.01 
    0.010256397 = product of:
  0.020512793 = sum of:
    0.020512793 = product of:
      0.041025586 = sum of:
        0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041025586 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2418, 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=2418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006
  17. Renear, A.H.; Wickett, K.M.; Urban, R.J.; Dubin, D.; Shreeves, S.L.: Collection/item metadata relationships (2008) 0.01 
    0.010256397 = product of:
  0.020512793 = sum of:
    0.020512793 = product of:
      0.041025586 = sum of:
        0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041025586 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2623, 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=2623)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  18. Bittner, T.; Donnelly, M.; Winter, S.: Ontology and semantic interoperability (2006) 0.01 
    0.010256397 = product of:
  0.020512793 = sum of:
    0.020512793 = product of:
      0.041025586 = sum of:
        0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 4820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041025586 = score(doc=4820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4820, 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=4820)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    3.12.2016 18:39:22
  19. Beppler, F.D.; Fonseca, F.T.; Pacheco, R.C.S.: Hermeneus: an architecture for an ontology-enabled information retrieval (2008) 0.01 
    0.010256397 = product of:
  0.020512793 = sum of:
    0.020512793 = product of:
      0.041025586 = sum of:
        0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 3261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041025586 = score(doc=3261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3261, 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=3261)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    28.11.2016 12:43:22
  20. Zeng, M.L.; Fan, W.; Lin, X.: SKOS for an integrated vocabulary structure (2008) 0.01 
    0.009669824 = product of:
  0.019339647 = sum of:
    0.019339647 = product of:
      0.038679294 = sum of:
        0.038679294 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038679294 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.21886435 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In order to transfer the Chinese Classified Thesaurus (CCT) into a machine-processable format and provide CCT-based Web services, a pilot study has been conducted in which a variety of selected CCT classes and mapped thesaurus entries are encoded with SKOS. OWL and RDFS are also used to encode the same contents for the purposes of feasibility and cost-benefit comparison. CCT is a collected effort led by the National Library of China. It is an integration of the national standards Chinese Library Classification (CLC) 4th edition and Chinese Thesaurus (CT). As a manually created mapping product, CCT provides for each of the classes the corresponding thesaurus terms, and vice versa. The coverage of CCT includes four major clusters: philosophy, social sciences and humanities, natural sciences and technologies, and general works. There are 22 main-classes, 52,992 sub-classes and divisions, 110,837 preferred thesaurus terms, 35,690 entry terms (non-preferred terms), and 59,738 pre-coordinated headings (Chinese Classified Thesaurus, 2005) Major challenges of encoding this large vocabulary comes from its integrated structure. CCT is a result of the combination of two structures (illustrated in Figure 1): a thesaurus that uses ISO-2788 standardized structure and a classification scheme that is basically enumerative, but provides some flexibility for several kinds of synthetic mechanisms Other challenges include the complex relationships caused by differences of granularities of two original schemes and their presentation with various levels of SKOS elements; as well as the diverse coordination of entries due to the use of auxiliary tables and pre-coordinated headings derived from combining classes, subdivisions, and thesaurus terms, which do not correspond to existing unique identifiers. The poster reports the progress, shares the sample SKOS entries, and summarizes problems identified during the SKOS encoding process. Although OWL Lite and OWL Full provide richer expressiveness, the cost-benefit issues and the final purposes of encoding CCT raise questions of using such approaches.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

Authors

Languages

  • e 13
  • d 8

Types

Themes

Classifications