Search (115 results, page 1 of 6)

0.102913074 = product of:
  0.20582615 = sum of:
    0.150175 = weight(_text_:java in 346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.150175 = score(doc=346,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.48216656 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.31145877 = fieldWeight in 346, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=346)
    0.055651147 = weight(_text_:und in 346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055651147 = score(doc=346,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.15174113 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.36675057 = fieldWeight in 346, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=346)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In der vorliegenden Arbeit soll einen Ansatz zur Implementation einer Wissensrepräsentation mit den in Abschnitt 1.1. skizzierten Eigenschaften und dem Semantic Web als Anwendungsbereich vorgestellt werden. Die Arbeit ist im Wesentlichen in zwei Bereiche gegliedert: dem Untersuchungsbereich (Kapitel 2-5), in dem ich die in Abschnitt 1.1. eingeführte Terminologie definiert und ein umfassender Überblick über die zugrundeliegenden Konzepte gegeben werden soll, und dem Implementationsbereich (Kapitel 6), in dem aufbauend auf dem im Untersuchungsbereich erarbeiteten Wissen einen semantischen Suchdienst entwickeln werden soll. In Kapitel 2 soll zunächst das Konzept der semantischen Interpretation erläutert und in diesem Kontext hauptsächlich zwischen Daten, Information und Wissen unterschieden werden. In Kapitel 3 soll Wissensrepräsentation aus einer kognitiven Perspektive betrachtet und in diesem Zusammenhang das Konzept der Unschärfe beschrieben werden. In Kapitel 4 sollen sowohl aus historischer als auch aktueller Sicht die Ansätze zur Wissensrepräsentation und -auffindung beschrieben und in diesem Zusammenhang das Konzept der Unschärfe diskutiert werden. In Kapitel 5 sollen die aktuell im WWW eingesetzten Modelle und deren Einschränkungen erläutert werden. Anschließend sollen im Kontext der Entscheidungsfindung die Anforderungen beschrieben werden, die das WWW an eine adäquate Wissensrepräsentation stellt, und anhand der Technologien des Semantic Web die Repräsentationsparadigmen erläutert werden, die diese Anforderungen erfüllen. Schließlich soll das Topic Map-Paradigma erläutert werden. In Kapitel 6 soll aufbauend auf die im Untersuchtungsbereich gewonnenen Erkenntnisse ein Prototyp entwickelt werden. Dieser besteht im Wesentlichen aus Softwarewerkzeugen, die das automatisierte und computergestützte Extrahieren von Informationen, das unscharfe Modellieren, sowie das Auffinden von Wissen unterstützen. Die Implementation der Werkzeuge erfolgt in der Programmiersprache Java, und zur unscharfen Wissensrepräsentation werden Topic Maps eingesetzt. Die Implementation wird dabei schrittweise vorgestellt. Schließlich soll der Prototyp evaluiert und ein Ausblick auf zukünftige Erweiterungsmöglichkeiten gegeben werden. Und schließlich soll in Kapitel 7 eine Synthese formuliert werden.

0.05110947 = product of:
  0.10221894 = sum of:
    0.018591745 = weight(_text_:und in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018591745 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15174113 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.12252277 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
    0.083627194 = weight(_text_:help in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083627194 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32182297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.25985464 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Thesauri are Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS), that arise from the consensus of wide communities. They have been in use for many years and are regularly updated. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals for indexing and searching, today there is a demand for conceptual vocabularies that enable inferencing by machines. The development of the Semantic Web has brought a new opportunity for thesauri, but thesauri also face the challenge of proving that they add value to it. The evolution of thesauri toward their integration with the Semantic Web is examined. Elements and structures in the thesaurus standard, ISO 25964, and SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System), the Semantic Web standard for representing KOS, are reviewed and compared. Moreover, the integrity rules of thesauri are contrasted with the axioms of SKOS. How SKOS has been applied to represent some real thesauri is taken into account. Three thesauri are chosen for this aim: AGROVOC, EuroVoc and the UNESCO Thesaurus. Based on the results of this comparison and analysis, the benefits that Semantic Web technologies offer to thesauri, how thesauri can contribute to the Semantic Web, and the challenges that would help to improve their integration with the Semantic Web are discussed.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.03754375 = product of:
  0.150175 = sum of:
    0.150175 = weight(_text_:java in 709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.150175 = score(doc=709,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.48216656 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.31145877 = fieldWeight in 709, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.0475073 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=709)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"Swoogle, the Semantic web search engine, is a research project carried out by the ebiquity research group in the Computer Science and Electrical Engineering Department at the University of Maryland. It's an engine tailored towards finding documents on the semantic web. The whole research paper is available here. Semantic web is touted as the next generation of online content representation where the web documents are represented in a language that is not only easy for humans but is machine readable (easing the integration of data as never thought possible) as well. And the main elements of the semantic web include data model description formats such as Resource Description Framework (RDF), a variety of data interchange formats (e.g. RDF/XML, Turtle, N-Triples), and notations such as RDF Schema (RDFS), the Web Ontology Language (OWL), all of which are intended to provide a formal description of concepts, terms, and relationships within a given knowledge domain (Wikipedia). And Swoogle is an attempt to mine and index this new set of web documents. The engine performs crawling of semantic documents like most web search engines and the search is available as web service too. The engine is primarily written in Java with the PHP used for the front-end and MySQL for database. Swoogle is capable of searching over 10,000 ontologies and indexes more that 1.3 million web documents. It also computes the importance of a Semantic Web document. The techniques used for indexing are the more google-type page ranking and also mining the documents for inter-relationships that are the basis for the semantic web. For more information on how the RDF framework can be used to relate documents, read the link here. Being a research project, and with a non-commercial motive, there is not much hype around Swoogle. However, the approach to indexing of Semantic web documents is an approach that most engines will have to take at some point of time. When the Internet debuted, there were no specific engines available for indexing or searching. The Search domain only picked up as more and more content became available. One fundamental question that I've always wondered about it is - provided that the search engines return very relevant results for a query - how to ascertain that the documents are indeed the most relevant ones available. There is always an inherent delay in indexing of document. Its here that the new semantic documents search engines can close delay. Experimenting with the concept of Search in the semantic web can only bore well for the future of search technology."

0.035480015 = product of:
  0.14192006 = sum of:
    0.14192006 = weight(_text_:help in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14192006 = score(doc=367,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32182297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.44098797 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article discusses how various controlled vocabularies, classification schemes and thesauri can serve as some of the building blocks of the Semantic Web. These vocabularies have been developed over the course of decades, and can be put to great use in the development of robust web services and Semantic Web technologies. The article covers how initial collaboration between the Semantic Web, Library and Metadata communities are creating partnerships to complete work in this area. It then discusses some cores principles of authority control before talking more specifically about subject and genre vocabularies and name authority. It is hoped that future systems for internationally shared authority data will link the world's authority data from trusted sources to benefit users worldwide. Finally, the article looks at how encoding and markup of vocabularies can help ensure compatibility with the current and future state of Semantic Web development and provides examples of how this work can help improve the findability and navigation of information on the World Wide Web.

0.029566681 = product of:
  0.118266724 = sum of:
    0.118266724 = weight(_text_:help in 4923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.118266724 = score(doc=4923,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32182297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.36749 = fieldWeight in 4923, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4923)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this lecture we will discuss and introduce challenges of integrating openly available Web data and how to solve them. Firstly, while we will address this topic from the viewpoint of Semantic Web research, not all data is readily available as RDF or Linked Data, so we will give an introduction to different data formats prevalent on the Web, namely, standard formats for publishing and exchanging tabular, tree-shaped, and graph data. Secondly, not all Open Data is really completely open, so we will discuss and address issues around licences, terms of usage associated with Open Data, as well as documentation of data provenance. Thirdly, we will discuss issues connected with (meta-)data quality issues associated with Open Data on the Web and how Semantic Web techniques and vocabularies can be used to describe and remedy them. Fourth, we will address issues about searchability and integration of Open Data and discuss in how far semantic search can help to overcome these. We close with briefly summarizing further issues not covered explicitly herein, such as multi-linguality, temporal aspects (archiving, evolution, temporal querying), as well as how/whether OWL and RDFS reasoning on top of integrated open data could be help.

0.029269518 = product of:
  0.11707807 = sum of:
    0.11707807 = weight(_text_:help in 3547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11707807 = score(doc=3547,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32182297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.3637965 = fieldWeight in 3547, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3547)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Without semantically enriched content, the Web cannot reach its full potential. The authors discuss tools and techniques for generating and processing such content, thus setting a foundation upon which to build the Semantic Web. In particular, they put a Semantic Web language through its paces and try to answer questions about how people can use it, such as, How do authors generate semantic descriptions? How do agents discover these descriptions? How can agents integrate information from different sites? How can users query the Semantic Web? The authors present a system that addresses these questions and describe tools that help users interact with the Semantic Web. They motivate the design of their system with a specific application: semantic markup for computer science.

0.029269518 = product of:
  0.11707807 = sum of:
    0.11707807 = weight(_text_:help in 1081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11707807 = score(doc=1081,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32182297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.3637965 = fieldWeight in 1081, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1081)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.025088158 = product of:
  0.10035263 = sum of:
    0.10035263 = weight(_text_:help in 391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10035263 = score(doc=391,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32182297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.31182557 = fieldWeight in 391, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=391)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article presents YAGO, a large ontology with high coverage and precision. YAGO has been automatically derived from Wikipedia and WordNet. It comprises entities and relations, and currently contains more than 1.7 million entities and 15 million facts. These include the taxonomic Is-A hierarchy as well as semantic relations between entities. The facts for YAGO have been extracted from the category system and the infoboxes of Wikipedia and have been combined with taxonomic relations from WordNet. Type checking techniques help us keep YAGO's precision at 95%-as proven by an extensive evaluation study. YAGO is based on a clean logical model with a decidable consistency. Furthermore, it allows representing n-ary relations in a natural way while maintaining compatibility with RDFS. A powerful query model facilitates access to YAGO's data.

0.025088158 = product of:
  0.10035263 = sum of:
    0.10035263 = weight(_text_:help in 955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10035263 = score(doc=955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32182297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.31182557 = fieldWeight in 955, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=955)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The role of vocabularies is critical in the long overdue synergy between the Web and Library heritage. The Semantic Web should leverage existing vocabularies instead of reinventing them, but the specific features of library vocabularies make them more or less portable to the Semantic Web. Based on preliminary results in the framework of the TELplus project, we suggest guidelines for needed evolutions in order to make vocabularies usable and efficient in the Semantic Web realm, assess choices made so far by large libraries to publish vocabularies conformant to standards and good practices, and review how Semantic Web tools can help managing those vocabularies.

0.025088158 = product of:
  0.10035263 = sum of:
    0.10035263 = weight(_text_:help in 1662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10035263 = score(doc=1662,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32182297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.31182557 = fieldWeight in 1662, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1662)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The concept of Linked Data has made its entrance in the cultural heritage sector due to its potential use for the integration of heterogeneous collections and deriving additional value out of existing metadata. However, practitioners and researchers alike need a better understanding of what outcome they can reasonably expect of the reconciliation process between their local metadata and established controlled vocabularies which are already a part of the Linked Data cloud. This paper offers an in-depth analysis of how a locally developed vocabulary can be successfully reconciled with the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and the Arts and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) through the help of a general-purpose tool for interactive data transformation (OpenRefine). Issues negatively affecting the reconciliation process are identified and solutions are proposed in order to derive maximum value from existing metadata and controlled vocabularies in an automated manner.

0.023653343 = product of:
  0.09461337 = sum of:
    0.09461337 = weight(_text_:help in 385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09461337 = score(doc=385,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32182297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.29399198 = fieldWeight in 385, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=385)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - To show how semantic web techniques can help address semantic interoperability issues in the broad cultural heritage domain, allowing users an integrated and seamless access to heterogeneous collections. Design/methodology/approach - This paper presents the heterogeneity problems to be solved. It introduces semantic web techniques that can help in solving them, focusing on the representation of controlled vocabularies and their semantic alignment. It gives pointers to some previous projects and experiments that have tried to address the problems discussed. Findings - Semantic web research provides practical technical and methodological approaches to tackle the different issues. Two contributions of interest are the simple knowledge organisation system model and automatic vocabulary alignment methods and tools. These contributions were demonstrated to be usable for enabling semantic search and navigation across collections. Research limitations/implications - The research aims at designing different representation and alignment methods for solving interoperability problems in the context of controlled subject vocabularies. Given the variety and technical richness of current research in the semantic web field, it is impossible to provide an in-depth account or an exhaustive list of references. Every aspect of the paper is, however, given one or several pointers for further reading. Originality/value - This article provides a general and practical introduction to relevant semantic web techniques. It is of specific value for the practitioners in the cultural heritage and digital library domains who are interested in applying these methods in practice.

0.023653343 = product of:
  0.09461337 = sum of:
    0.09461337 = weight(_text_:help in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09461337 = score(doc=1425,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32182297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.29399198 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The degree of structure of Web content is the determining factor for the types of functionality that search engines can provide. The more well structured the Web content is, the easier it is for search engines to understand Web content and provide advanced functionality, such as faceted filtering or the aggregation of content from multiple Web sites, based on this understanding. Today, most Web sites are generated from structured data that is stored in relational databases. Thus, it does not require too much extra effort for Web sites to publish this structured data directly on the Web in addition to HTML pages, and thus help search engines to understand Web content and provide improved functionality. An early approach to realize this idea and help search engines to understand Web content is Microformats, a technique for markingup structured data about specific types on entities-such as tags, blog posts, people, or reviews-within HTML pages. As Microformats are focused on a few entity types, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) started in 2004 to standardize RDFa as an alternative, more generic language for embedding any type of data into HTML pages. Today, major search engines such as Google, Yahoo, and Bing extract Microformat and RDFa data describing products, reviews, persons, events, and recipes from Web pages and use the extracted data to improve the user's search experience. The search engines have started to aggregate structured data from different Web sites and augment their search results with these aggregated information units in the form of rich snippets which combine, for instance, data This chapter gives an overview of the topology of the Web of Data that has been created by publishing data on the Web using the microformats RDFa, Microdata and Linked Data publishing techniques.

0.020906799 = product of:
  0.083627194 = sum of:
    0.083627194 = weight(_text_:help in 1231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083627194 = score(doc=1231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32182297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.25985464 = fieldWeight in 1231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1231)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.020906799 = product of:
  0.083627194 = sum of:
    0.083627194 = weight(_text_:help in 3277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083627194 = score(doc=3277,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32182297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.25985464 = fieldWeight in 3277, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3277)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Data munging, or the work of remediating, enhancing and transforming library datasets for new or improved uses, has become more important and staff-inclusive in many library technology discussions and projects. Many times we know how we want our data to look, as well as how we want our data to act in discovery interfaces or when exposed, but we are uncertain how to make the data we have into the data we want. This article introduces and compares two library data munging tools that can help: LODRefine (OpenRefine with the DERI RDF Extension) and Catmandu. The strengths and best practices of each tool are discussed in the context of metadata munging use cases for an institution's metadata migration workflow. There is a focus on Linked Open Data modeling and transformation applications of each tool, in particular how metadataists, catalogers, and programmers can create metadata quality reports, enhance existing data with LOD sets, and transform that data to a RDF model. Integration of these tools with other systems and projects, the use of domain specific transformation languages, and the expansion of vocabulary reconciliation services are mentioned.

0.020906799 = product of:
  0.083627194 = sum of:
    0.083627194 = weight(_text_:help in 4297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083627194 = score(doc=4297,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32182297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.25985464 = fieldWeight in 4297, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4297)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.020696675 = product of:
  0.0827867 = sum of:
    0.0827867 = weight(_text_:help in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0827867 = score(doc=409,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32182297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.25724298 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7038717 = idf(docFreq=1093, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We saw in the introduction how the Semantic Web makes possible a new generation of knowledge management tools. We now turn our attention more specifically to Semantic Web based support for virtual communities of practice. The notion of communities of practice has attracted much attention in the field of knowledge management. Communities of practice are groups within (or sometimes across) organizations who share a common set of information needs or problems. They are typically not a formal organizational unit but an informal network, each sharing in part a common agenda and shared interests or issues. In one example it was found that a lot of knowledge sharing among copier engineers took place through informal exchanges, often around a water cooler. As well as local, geographically based communities, trends towards flexible working and globalisation have led to interest in supporting dispersed communities using Internet technology. The challenge for organizations is to support such communities and make them effective. Provided with an ontology meeting the needs of a particular community of practice, knowledge management tools can arrange knowledge assets into the predefined conceptual classes of the ontology, allowing more natural and intuitive access to knowledge. Knowledge management tools must give users the ability to organize information into a controllable asset. Building an intranet-based store of information is not sufficient for knowledge management; the relationships within the stored information are vital. These relationships cover such diverse issues as relative importance, context, sequence, significance, causality and association. The potential for knowledge management tools is vast; not only can they make better use of the raw information already available, but they can sift, abstract and help to share new information, and present it to users in new and compelling ways.
In this chapter, we describe the OntoShare system which facilitates and encourages the sharing of information between communities of practice within (or perhaps across) organizations and which encourages people - who may not previously have known of each other's existence in a large organization - to make contact where there are mutual concerns or interests. As users contribute information to the community, a knowledge resource annotated with meta-data is created. Ontologies defined using the resource description framework (RDF) and RDF Schema (RDFS) are used in this process. RDF is a W3C recommendation for the formulation of meta-data for WWW resources. RDF(S) extends this standard with the means to specify domain vocabulary and object structures - that is, concepts and the relationships that hold between them. In the next section, we describe in detail the way in which OntoShare can be used to share and retrieve knowledge and how that knowledge is represented in an RDF-based ontology. We then proceed to discuss in Section 10.3 how the ontologies in OntoShare evolve over time based on user interaction with the system and motivate our approach to user-based creation of RDF-annotated information resources. The way in which OntoShare can help to locate expertise within an organization is then described, followed by a discussion of the sociotechnical issues of deploying such a tool. Finally, a planned evaluation exercise and avenues for further research are outlined.

0.019675652 = product of:
  0.078702606 = sum of:
    0.078702606 = weight(_text_:und in 20) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.078702606 = score(doc=20,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.15174113 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.51866364 = fieldWeight in 20, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=20)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Der Artikel führt in semantische Technologien ein und gewährt Einblick in unterschiedliche Entwicklungsrichtungen. Insbesondere werden Business Semantics vorgestellt und vom Semantic Web abgegrenzt. Die Stärken von Business Semantics werden speziell an den Praxisbeispielen des Knowledge Portals und dem Projekt "Knowledge Base" der Wienerberger AG veranschaulicht. So werden die Anforderungen - was brauchen Anwendungen in Unternehmen heute - und die Leistungsfähigkeit von Systemen - was bieten Business Semantics - konkretisiert und gegenübergestellt.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.6/7, S.359-366

0.019521331 = product of:
  0.078085326 = sum of:
    0.078085326 = weight(_text_:und in 439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.078085326 = score(doc=439,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.15174113 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.5145956 = fieldWeight in 439, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=439)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die schnelle Entwicklung der Internet- und Web-Technologie verändert den Stand der Technik in der Kommunikation von Wissen oder Forschungsergebnissen. Insbesondere werden semantische Technologien, verknüpfte und offene Daten zu entscheidenden Faktoren für einen erfolgreichen und effizienten Forschungsfortschritt. Zuerst definiere ich den Research Data Service (RDS) und diskutiere typische aktuelle und mögliche zukünftige Nutzungsszenarien mit RDS. Darüber hinaus bespreche ich den Stand der Technik in den Bereichen semantische Dienstleistung und Datenanmerkung und API-Konstruktion sowie infrastrukturelle Lösungen, die für die RDS-Realisierung anwendbar sind. Zum Schluss werden noch innovative Methoden der Online-Verbreitung, Förderung und effizienten Kommunikation der Forschung diskutiert.

Source

Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 70(2017) H.2, S.157-169

0.019321108 = product of:
  0.07728443 = sum of:
    0.07728443 = weight(_text_:und in 1105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07728443 = score(doc=1105,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15174113 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.50931764 = fieldWeight in 1105, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1105)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

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

0.018591745 = product of:
  0.07436698 = sum of:
    0.07436698 = weight(_text_:und in 242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07436698 = score(doc=242,freq=128.0), product of:
        0.15174113 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06841661 = queryNorm
        0.4900911 = fieldWeight in 242, product of:
          11.313708 = tf(freq=128.0), with freq of:
            128.0 = termFreq=128.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=242)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Semantic Web ist Vision, Konzept und Programm für die nächste Generation des Internets. Semantik ist dabei ein wesentliches Element in der Transformation von Information in Wissen, sei es um eine effizientere Maschine-Maschine-Kommunikation zu ermöglichen oder um Geschäftsprozess-Management, Wissensmanagement und innerbetriebliche Kooperation durch Modellierung zu verbessern. Der Band richtet sich gleichermaßen an ein praxisorientiertes und wissenschaftliches Publikum, das nicht nur aus der technischen Perspektive einen Zugang zum Thema sucht. Der praktische Nutzen wird in der Fülle von Anwendungsbeispielen offensichtlich, in denen semantische Technologien zum Einsatz kommen. Praxisorientierung ist auch das Leitthema der Semantic Web School, die sich zum Ziel gesetzt hat, den Wissenstransfer zu semantischen Technologien anzukurbeln und den interdisziplinären Diskurs über deren Nutzen und Folgen zu intensivieren. Der vorliegende Band vereinigt 33 Beiträge von 57 Autoren aus 35 Institutionen zu einem virulenten und multidisziplinären Thema. Der Band richtet sich gleichermaßen an interessierte Laien und fachfremde Experten, die nicht nur aus der technischen Perspektive einen Zugang zum Thema suchen. Denn obwohl das Thema Semantic Web zu überwiegendem Maße ein technisches ist, sollen hier bewusst jene Aspekte angesprochen werden. die außerhalb einer ingenieurswissenschaftlichen Perspektive von Relevanz sind und vor allem die praktischen Aspekte semantischer Technologien adressieren. Dieser Anforderung wird durch die vielen Praxisbezüge und Anwendungsbeispiele innerhalb der einzelnen Beiträge Rechnung getragen. Hierbei ist es den Herausgebern jedoch wichtig darauf hinzuweisen, das Semantic Web und semantische Technologien nicht als verheißungsvolles Allheilmittel der durch Informationstechnologien heraufbeschworenen Probleme und Herausforderungen zu betrachten. Ganz im Gegenteil plädieren die Herausgeber für eine verstärkte Auseinandersetzung mit dem Thema unter Einbeziehung einer großen Vielfalt an Experten aus den unterschiedlichsten Fachbereichen, die einen reflektierten und kritischen Beitrag zu den positiven und negativen Effekten semantischer Technologien beitragen sollen.

Content

Inhalt: Im ersten Teil wird neben der begrifflichen Klärung eine Reihe von Einstiegspunkten angeboten, ohne dass der Leser das Semantic Web in seiner Systematik und Funktionsweise kennen muss. Im Beitrag von Andreas Blumauer und Tassilo Pellegrini werden die zentralen Begriffe rund um semantische Technologien vorgestellt und zentrale Konzepte überblicksartig dargestellt. Die Arbeitsgruppe um Bernardi et al. leitet über in den Themenbereich der Arbeitsorganisation und diskutieret die Bedingungen für den Einsatz semantischer Technologien aus der Perspektive der Wissensarbeit. Dem Thema Normen und Standards wurden sogar zwei Beiträge gewidmet. Während Christian Galinski die grundsätzliche Notwendigkeit von Normen zu Zwecken der Interoperabilität aus einer Top-DownPerspektive beleuchtet, eröffnet Klaus Birkenbihl einen Einblick in die technischen Standards des Semantic Web aus der Bottom-Up-Perspektive des World Wide Web Consortiums (W3C). Mit einem Beitrag zum Innovationsgrad semantischer Technologien in der ökonomischen Koordination betreten Michael Weber und Karl Fröschl weitgehend theoretisches Neuland und legen ein Fundament für weiterführende Auseinandersetzungen. Abgerundet wird der erste Teil noch mit einem Beitrag von Bernd Wohlkinger und Tassilo Pellegrini über die technologiepolitischen Dimensionen der Semantic Web Forschung in der europäischen Union.
Im zweiten Teil steht der Anwender des Semantic Web im Mittelpunkt, womit auch die erste Ebene der systematischen Auseinandersetzung mit semantischen Technologien angesprochen wird. Nicola Henze zeigt auf, welchen Beitrag semantische Technologien für die Personalisierung von Informationssystemen leisten. Stefanie Lindstaedt und Armin Ulbrich diskutieren die Möglichkeiten der Zusammenführung von Arbeiten und Lernen zu Zwecken der Kompetenzentwicklung in Arbeitsprozessen. Leo Sauermann stellt daraufhin mit der Metapher des "Semantic Desktop" ein innovatives Konzept für den Arbeitsplatz der Zukunft vor und fragt - nicht ohne eine gewisse Ironie -, ob dieser Arbeitsplatz tatsächlich auf einen physischen Ort begrenzt ist. Mark Buzinkay zeigt aus einer historischen Perspektive, wie semantische Strukturen die Navigation sowohl im Web als auch auf einzelnen Webseiten verändert haben und noch werden. Michael Schuster und Dieter Rappold adressieren die Konvergenz von Social Software und Semantic Web entlang der persönlichen Aneignung von Informationstechnologien zu Zwecken der sozialen Vernetzung. Remo Burkhard plädiert dafür, Wissensvisualisierung als Brückenfunktion zwischen technischer Infrastruktur und Nutzer wahrzunehmen und demonstriert das Potential der Wissensvisualisierung zur zielgruppengerechten Kommunikation komplexer Zusammenhänge. Abschließend zeigt Gabriele Sauberer, welche Informationskompetenzen und Schlüsselqualifikationen in der modernen Informationsgesellschaft von Bedeutung sein werden, in der der Einsatz semantische Technologien zur täglichen Wissensarbeit gehören wird.
Der dritte Teil des Bandes thematisiert die organisationalen Dimensionen des Semantic Web und demonstriert unter dem Stichwort "Wissensmanagement" eine Reihe von Konzepten und Anwendungen im betrieblichen und kollaborativen Umgang mit Information. Der Beitrag von Andreas Blumauer und Thomas Fundneider bietet einen Überblick über den Einsatz semantischer Technologien am Beispiel eines integrierten Wissensmanagement-Systems. Michael John und Jörg Drescher zeichnen den historischen Entwicklungsprozess des IT-Einsatzes für das Management von Informations- und Wissensprozessen im betrieblichen Kontext. Vor dem Hintergrund der betrieblichen Veränderungen durch Globalisierung und angeheizten Wettbewerb zeigt Heiko Beier, welche Rollen, Prozesse und Instrumente in wissensbasierten Organisationen die effiziente Nutzung von Wissen unterstützen. Mit dem Konzept des kollaborativen Wissensmanagement präsentiert das Autorenteam Schmitz et al. einen innovativen WissensmanagementAnsatz auf Peer-to-Peer-Basis mit dem Ziel der kollaborativen Einbindung und Pflege von dezentralisierten Wissensbasen. York Sure und Christoph Tempich demonstrieren anhand der Modellierungsmethode DILIGENT, welchen Beitrag Ontologien bei der Wissensvernetzung in Organisationen leisten können. Hannes Werthner und Michael Borovicka adressieren die Bedeutung semantischer Technologien für eCommerce und demonstrieren am Beispiel HARMONISE deren Einsatz im Bereich des eTourismus. Erweitert wird diese Perspektive durch den Beitrag von Fill et al., in dem das Zusammenspiel zwischen Web-Services und Geschäftsprozessen aus der Perspektive der Wirtschaftsinformatik analysiert wird. Abschließend präsentiert das Autorenteam Angele et al. eine Reihe von realisierten Anwendungen auf Basis semantischer Technologien und identifiziert kritische Faktoren für deren Einsatz.
Im vierten Teil des Bandes stehen die technischen und infrastrukturellen Aspekte im Mittelpunkt des Interesses, die für den Aufbau und Betrieb semantischer Systeme von Relevanz sind. Wolfgang Kienreich und Markus Strohmaier identifizieren die Wissensmodellierung als Basis für den Einsatz semantischer Technologien für das Knowledge Engineering und stellen zwei grundlegende Modellierungsparadigmen vor. Andreas Koller argumentiert, dass die strukturierte Ablage von Content in Content Management Systemen den Lift-Off des Semantic Web stützen wird und zeigt eine Reihe von einfachen Maßnahmen auf, wie CMS Semantic Web tauglich gemacht werden können. Alois Reitbauer gibt einen leicht verständlichen Überblick über technische Fragestellungen der IT-Integration und demonstriert anhand von Beispielen die Vorteile semantischer Technologien gegenüber konventionellen Methoden. Gerald Reif veranschaulicht die Einsatzgebiete und Leistungsfähigkeit der semantischen Annotation und stellt Tools vor, die den Nutzer bei der Dokumentenverschlagwortung unterstützen. Robert Baumgartner stellt die Funktionsweise von Wrappertechnologien zur Extraktion von Daten aus unstrukturierten Dokumenten vor und demonstriert den Nutzen am Beispiel eines B2B-Szenarios. Michael Granitzer bietet einen Überblick über statistische Verfahren der Textanalyse und zeigt, welchen Beitrag diese zur Wartung von Ontologien leisten können.
Gerhard Budin geht auf die zentrale Rolle des Terminologiemanagements bei der Ordnung und Intersubjektivierung komplexer Wissensstrukturen ein und gibt Anleitung für die Entwicklung von terminologischen Metamodellen. Marc Ehrig und Rudi Studer thematisieren Prinzipien und Herausforderungen der semantischen Integration von Ontologien zu Zwecken der Herstellung von Interoperabilität von Web Services. Wolfgang May gibt eine Einführung in das Thema Reasoning im und für das Semantic Web und zeigt auf, welche Mechanismen und Konzepte in naher Zukunft für das Semantic Web relevant werden. Abschließend führt die Autorengruppe um Polleres et al. in das junge Thema der semantischen Beschreibung von Web Services ein und adressiert Fragestellungen der Service Komposition und Automatisierung von Geschäftsprozessen. In einem Nachwort widmet sich Rafael Capurro der Frage, wie es in Zeiten eines auftauchenden semantischen Web um die philosophische Hermeneutik bestellt ist. Und er kommt zu dem Schluss, dass das Semantic Web als ein weltpolitisches Projekt verstanden werden sollte, das zu wichtig ist, um es alleine den Technikern oder den Politikern zu überlassen.