Property:Text
From Semantic Portal Wiki
(previous 25) (next 25)
Pages using the property "Text"
Showing 25 pages using this property.
A | |
|---|---|
| Anyanwu2005semrank question 1 by lebo + | The authors propose a few interesting metr … The authors propose a few interesting metrics for ranking a set of semantic paths. A semantic path is an instance of a Semantic Association, which is a sequence of (RDF) properties. In the Background/Motivation section, the authors illustrate and define three example Property Sequences: rho-pathAssociation, rho-joinAssociation, and rho-isoAssociation. # Are there compelling reasons for recognizing these types of semantic paths, i.e., are these structures applicable in real-world analysis? # Are there other Property Sequences that are typical in the Semantic Association research area? # Although these examples are helpful in understanding the purpose of analyzing semantic paths, it is unclear how these identified three relate to the metrics introduced in the remaining sections of the paper. Is there a deeper relationship between these three Property Sequences and the metrics proposed? operty Sequences and the metrics proposed? |
| Anyanwu2005semrank question 2 by lebo + | The information content I(ps) is the addit … The information content I(ps) is the addition of three terms: a ROC-aware min, a ROC-aware avg, and a non-ROC-aware max. The refraction count RC(PS) relies on the Semantic Summary, which in turn relies on the ROCs. The S-Match(property,keyword) metric relies on a property hierarchy. The final SEMRANK metric involves a (modulated) composition of five terms, four of which rely on a schema to be defined. # Is this reliance a strength or a weakness? # How do the metrics change as the presence, completeness, and quality of the schema changes? teness, and quality of the schema changes? |
C | |
| Carroll2005named question 1 by lebo + | When comparing TriX to RDF/XML, the author … When comparing TriX to RDF/XML, the authors state, "The URI at which an RDF/XML document is published is used for three different purposes: as a retrieval address, with an operational semantics; as a means of identifying the document; and as a means of identifying the graph described by the document. There is potential for confusion between these three uses." The URIRef for a named graph performs only the latter function (identifying the graph). # When encountering a URIref in a set of triples (e.g., ":G1 pr:disallowedUsage pr:Marketing ." in section 5.3), how does a crawler know that the URIRef identifies a named graph? # When a crawler determines that a URIRef names a named graph (e.g., 'ng') , how does it obtain the rdfgraph(ng)? Would the process require anything different from the proposed methods for obtaining descriptions for a "plain old" rdfs:Resource? criptions for a "plain old" rdfs:Resource? |
| Cattuto2008semantic question 2 by lebo + | The introduction motivates the investigati … The introduction motivates the investigation of relatedness measures: "We believe that a deeper insight into the semantic properties of relatedness measures is an important prerequisite for the design of ontology learning procedures..." Although relatedness measures may be necessary for a "Ontology Learning" capability, they are arguably insufficient on their own. # What other components are required to achieve Ontology Learning? # Is this work already being done? rning? # Is this work already being done? |
| Cattuto2008semantic question 3 by lebo + | The paper compares five relatedness metric … The paper compares five relatedness metrics. We could sit down and make up ten more. # What does a "good" metric look like? # How do we avoid a subjective evaluation of a metric's results? (e.g.,"An interesting observation is also that ''java'' and ''python'' could be considered as siblings in some suitable concept hierarchy") # If we had the perfect metric (m*), what would we do with it? ect metric (m*), what would we do with it? |
| Cattuto2008semantic question 4 by lebo + | # Could you explain the difference between one-mode, two-mode, and three-mode analysis? # What challenges are introduced when attempting three-mode analysis? |
| Cattuto2008semantic question 5 by lebo + | Notation nit: <math>R^T</math> and <math>R^n</math> seem to be used synonymously -- what is the distinction? Shouldn't <math>R^T</math> be <math>R^ |
| Cattuto2008semantic question 6 by lebo + | I don't understand the statement "The reas … I don't understand the statement "The reason for giving weight zero between a node and itself is that we want two tags to be considered related when they occur in a '''similar context''', and not when they '''occur together'''. # What is the difference between "similar context" and "occur together"? I would think that they are the same. # Isn't "occurrence" the only "context" that the Folksonomy formalism provides? t" that the Folksonomy formalism provides? |
| Cattuto2008semantic question 7 by lebo + | The description of FolkRank mentions "random surfer vector" but does not introduce the term or it's purpose. # Could you describe the random surfer vector? |
E | |
| Eiter2008combining question 1 by lebo + | The paper describes a "conservative extens … The paper describes a "conservative extension" to the combination of DL's first-order semantics and logic programming's answer set semantics, where knowledge can be transferred between a DL knowledge base and a logic programming program. When describing how dl-programs can express the closed-world assumption "on top" of an external DL knowledge base, negation is asserted despite its DL provability. # Could an inconsistency arise when the CWA assertions are shared with the DL knowledge base? # I'm not familiar with logic programming and answer sets -- and reading the paper left me interested, impressed, and confused. Could you explain the gist of logic programming and how answer set semantics differs from description logic semantics? It sounds pretty cool. on logic semantics? It sounds pretty cool. |
F | |
| Fokoue2006summary question 1 by lebo + | The summary of an Abox takes advantage of … The summary of an Abox takes advantage of redundant assertions w.r.t consistency checking by collapsing individuals that are members of the same concept sets and are /not/ explicitly asserted to be different from each other. The authors note, "Any explicit assertions that two individuals are different from each other are maintained in the summary Abox." # Would an exhaustive enumeration of "differentFrom" for each instance in the Abox render the summary method useless? he Abox render the summary method useless? |
G | |
| Gil2007towards question 1 by lebo + | The results of the simulation compare the … The results of the simulation compare the Mean Squared Error, k-sum, and Edit Distance to a 'baseline', which is "a ... search engine ... that ranks search results by topic and popularity, ... without taking trust into account." A lot of assumptions are made to model the trust users have for associations and resources, and the simulation used 1,000 queries generated from 1,000 generated resources, 10,000 generated associations, and 1,000 generated users. # Although the paper is trying to compare their trust-based ordering against 'traditional' search engines, are they not just comparing their technique to random performance instead? r technique to random performance instead? |
| Grau2007history question 1 by lebo + | The authors open the abstract by stating, … The authors open the abstract by stating, "The development of ontologies involves continuous but relatively small modifications." A reasonable first step to reduce the ontology development cycle is to tackle the problem addressed in the paper: classify ontology O^2 by reusing the "evidences" from the classification of O^1, the set of added axioms, and the set of removed axioms. Their "module" technique can then be applied at each committed change. This addresses the '''relatively small modifications''' aspect of ontology development, # but what about the '''continuous''' aspect? # Could "modules" be determined using a history longer than only the previous step? istory longer than only the previous step? |
| Gutierrez2007introducing question 1 by lebo + | # How does the work presented in this paper differ from OWL Time? # Could OWL Time be used to extend the temporal labels used by Gutierrez et al.? |
| Gutierrez2007introducing question 2 by lebo + | According to Footnote 3, the authors "chos … According to Footnote 3, the authors "chose not to ((use the standard reification vocabulary of RDF)) to stress the fact that the notions presented in this paper are independent of any view one may have about the concept of reification in RDF." Yet the "temporal label" is constructed in the exact same way the standard reification vocabulary would do it (:tsubj rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:subject . :tpred rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:predicate . :tobj rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:object.). # How can the authors reproduce the standard reification approach while pretending to stay at arms length from the standard? to stay at arms length from the standard? |
H | |
| Hu2007discovering question 1 by lebo + | In '''Definition 3''', a mapping ''m'' is … In '''Definition 3''', a mapping ''m'' is a 5-tuple ''<id,u,v,t,f>'', where ''u'' is an element of the relational schema, ''v'' is an element of the ontology, ''t'' is a relationship (e.g., equivalence or subsumption), and ''f'' is a confidence measure. '''Phase II''' of the matching process views each element of the relational schema and ontology as a "virtual document" that is compared to the other elements' "virtual documents" using the the TF/IDF cosine measure. In a mapping ''m'', ''id, u, v'', and ''f'' are providing in this process. # How is ''t'' (equivalence/subsumption) determined for a given mapping? # Does the use the subsequent third Phase, '''Validity Mapping Consistency''', indicate a lack of confidence in the previous stage's ability to match? What else "doesn't make sense" in the matching that ''hasn't'' been filtered out? atching that ''hasn't'' been filtered out? |
J | |
| Janik2005brahms question 1 by lebo + | #How many implementations of the ''depth- … #How many implementations of the ''depth-first search'' and ''bi-directional breadth-first exhaustive search'' algorithms were used in the evaluation? # Three languages were used (C++ (BRAHMS), C (Redland), and Java (Jena and Sesame)) among the four triple stores. If multiple implementations were used, what assurances were made that they performed similarly before incorporating the triple store? rly before incorporating the triple store? |
| Janik2005brahms question 2 by lebo + | # Did the authors repeat the load and execution tests to demonstrate reproducability? # How much variability in the results could we expect? |
L | |
| Lin2008discovering question 1 by lebo + | The authors make a very good point regardi … The authors make a very good point regarding the "ill defined" nature of using probabilistic measures for a deterministic graph structure. The two Random Experiments that they propose are unique, intuitive, and probabilistically sound methods for obtaining probabilistic measures. But from the time that they propose the method, they do not discuss the methods' computational expense until the last paragraph of the paper, "an important future direction is to improve the scalability of the system. What is most expensive is the computation of feature values, since it requires the system to count a potentially large number of paths." # How long should the Random Experiments be reasonably run to obtain characterize the input while trading off the time required to do so? le trading off the time required to do so? |
M | |
| Moreau2007open question 1 by lebo + | It is clear that the intent of this paper … It is clear that the intent of this paper is to introduce the start of a common model for provenance and NOT to motivate the use of provenance systems. The need for a common model for any mutual interest is self-evident. However, some motivation for the use of provenance would be helpful. # What applications require ''any'' provenance representation, # what are the benefits for its use, and # how many provenance models are in use today (e.g., how many systems need to reconcile with the common model)? need to reconcile with the common model)? |
N | |
| Noy2008collecting question 1 by lebo + | The ability to provide a "One-stop shoppin … The ability to provide a "One-stop shopping for ontology resources" remains overdue. # Why do you think it has taken so long to establish this type of capability and why is it not the norm? # It seems that after a lot of hard work by a team, ontologies are dead-on-arrival when they hit the web. What is preventing the Web philosophy from nurturing continued use and development of existing ontologies? se and development of existing ontologies? |
| Noy2008collecting question 2 by lebo + | # Is reification used to represent the Mapping <C_s,C_t,R,M>? # If so, have your experiences with reification been positive or negative? If not, how did reification not scratch the itch for your application? |
| Noy2008collecting question 3 by lebo + | The authors state "One mapping can depend on another: 'If X is Y, then A is B'." # How is this dependency mapping modeled? |
| Noy2008collecting question 4 by lebo + | (diagram nit) Fig. 2 is great for illustra … (diagram nit) Fig. 2 is great for illustrating the connectivity between ontologies. Making the nodes' size proportional to the size of the ontologies they represent might be more communicative, since the cardinality between two ontologies could usefully be considered with respect to the sizes of each ontology. ith respect to the sizes of each ontology. |
| Noy2008collecting question 5 by lebo + | Claims of "complete domain-independence" are often overstatements. # To what extent is this technology domain-independent, and in what areas is it not? |
