Ontology extension Clause Samples

Ontology extension. We begin by evaluating the ontology extension techniques (Section 5). Two evaluations were performed on the taxonomies. The first measured the cohesion of the item clustering, and the second gathered human judgements of the relations that were found between child- parent concept pairs in the taxonomy. For both evaluations online surveys were created using an in-house crowdsourcing interface. Links to the surveys were sent out to a mailing list comprising staff and students at a large university.
View Source
Ontology extension. There is a general demand for taxonomies to organise large collections of documents into categories for browsing and exploration. In WP2 we examined four existing taxonomies that have been manually created, along with two methods for deriving taxonomies automatically from data items. We used these taxonomies to organise items from a large online cultural heritage collection automatically. We then performed two human evaluations of the taxonomies. The first measured the cohesion of the taxonomies to determine how well they group together similar items under the same concept node. The second analysed the concept relations in the taxonomies. The results show that the manual taxonomies have high quality well defined relations. However, the novel automatic method is found to generate very high cohesion. The results of the analysis are detailed in D2.2, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. (2012) and a summary is also presented here. The Library of Congress Subject Headings taxonomy has been manually created for the purpose of organising library collections and so might be the obvious choice to organise CH data online. However the results show that the relations within LCSH are defined less clearly than that of the Wikipedia derived taxonomies. WordNet domains performs at a similar level to the LCSH in terms of the quality of the relations. The LDA topic hierarchy gave poor results in terms of the identified topics. The topic pairs were often unrelated, and had no general-to- specific structure as would be desirable for this application. The WikiFreq hierarchy performed slightly better in this regard. Just over half the concept pairs were judged to be related. Just under a third were labelled as ‘Don’t know’ which may reflect the obscurity of the concept nodes identified. It was hoped that organising the frequency counts of the links would organise the hierarchy into a general-to-specific direction. This was not achieved, although the hierarchy does have the benefit of providing the user with an overview of the collection by immediately seeing which kind of items are most prevalent. In terms of cohesion, all the taxonomies achieved similar results except for the WikiFreq taxonomy, which achieved almost perfect cohesion. This shows how effective the Wikipedia links are in grouping together similar items. In conclusion, it was decided that a mixture of WikiFreq (for mapping items to Wikipedia categories) and the Wikipedia taxonomy to yield the taxonomy would give the best results. The...
View Source

Related to Ontology extension

  • Renewal, Extension The renewal or extension of any Letter of Credit shall, for purposes hereof, be treated in all respects the same as the issuance of a new Letter of Credit hereunder.

  • Contract Extension The Contract is extended for a period of six (6) months pursuant to the same terms and conditions of the contract and any executed written amendments, with a new Contract expiration date of May 31, 2025.

  • Modification, Extension The issuance of any supplement, modification, amendment, renewal, or extension to any Letter of Credit shall, for purposes hereof, be treated in all respects the same as the issuance of a new Letter of Credit hereunder.

  • Territorial Extension At the time of signature of this Agreement, or at any time thereafter, the provisions of this Agreement may be extended to such territories for whose international relations the Government of the United Kingdom are responsible as may be agreed between the Contracting Parties in an Exchange of Notes.

  • Time Extension CONTRACTOR shall provide a time extension request on completion of Task Order for delays caused by others (Permitting Agencies, COUNTY or Contract Cities, or unforeseen conditions such as inclement weather, etc.) and at no fault by CONTRACTOR, subject to approval by COUNTY. COUNTY will review the request and determine in its sole discretion whether the situation warrant a time extension at no-cost or with costs. If CONTRACTOR completes the Task Order beyond the stipulated completion date without COUNTY’s specific written approval for time extension, CONTRACTOR will be subject to liquidated damages and may be construed as non-responsive, which may affect CONTRACTOR for considerations for future Task Orders or projects.