2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2007.06.032
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A weight-based approach to information retrieval and relevance feedback

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
3
1
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
(20 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Mapping text to lexical resources like ontologies, thesaurus,and dictionaries is the first and the most important effort to specify text semantic domain. Because this mapping not only formalize the text message [6], but also provides other algorithms with a formal basis to process the text and its message according to the knowledge formalized in the ontology. Regardless of secondary processing, the main purpose of the matching document to lexical resources is to solve the problem of natural language ambiguity.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mapping text to lexical resources like ontologies, thesaurus,and dictionaries is the first and the most important effort to specify text semantic domain. Because this mapping not only formalize the text message [6], but also provides other algorithms with a formal basis to process the text and its message according to the knowledge formalized in the ontology. Regardless of secondary processing, the main purpose of the matching document to lexical resources is to solve the problem of natural language ambiguity.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because this mapping not only formalize thetext message [7]- [10], but also provides other algorithms with a formal basis to process the text and its message according to the knowledge formalized in the ontology [1], [11], [12]. Regardless of secondary processing, the main purpose of the matching document to lexical resources is to solve the problem of natural language ambiguity [9], [10], [13].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%