Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.035305377 = product of:
  0.070610754 = sum of:
    0.070610754 = product of:
      0.14122151 = sum of:
        0.14122151 = weight(_text_:22 in 1630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14122151 = score(doc=1630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18250333 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052116565 = queryNorm
            0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1630, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

International classification. 8(1981), S.16-22

0.012482335 = product of:
  0.02496467 = sum of:
    0.02496467 = product of:
      0.04992934 = sum of:
        0.04992934 = weight(_text_:22 in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04992934 = score(doc=1493,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18250333 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052116565 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1493, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1493)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2014 19:01:18

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.012184594 = product of:
  0.024369188 = sum of:
    0.024369188 = product of:
      0.048738375 = sum of:
        0.048738375 = weight(_text_:g in 2103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048738375 = score(doc=2103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052116565 = queryNorm
            0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 2103, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

So far terminological work has been mainly directed towards defining very special concepts. The more general ones, e.g. those denoting subject-fields have been neglected with the result that communication on this level has been seriously hampered. There exists a great number of such terms and also a growing trend for the formation of new ones. In the FRG an R&D project was started in 1972 with the collection of names of subject fields, it is intended to assemble their definitions in a dictionary and to build a general concept system by computercomparison of their characteristics as provided by their definitions. The nature of subject-fields is explained, details on the German collection are given as well as some results from a formal analysis of their concepts. It is proposed to initiate similar projects in other linguistic regions as well; this could be done under the auspices of Infoterm. Some application-possibilities for a general concept-system (e. g. a broad system of ordering) are given. The annex displays a scheme of 9 subject areas and about 90 subareas for the sorting of names of subject fields

0.010153829 = product of:
  0.020307658 = sum of:
    0.020307658 = product of:
      0.040615316 = sum of:
        0.040615316 = weight(_text_:g in 2104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040615316 = score(doc=2104,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052116565 = queryNorm
            0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 2104, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2104)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

So far terminological work has been mainly directed towards defining very special concepts. The more general ones, e.g. those denoting subject-fields have been neglected with the result that communication on this level has been seriously hampered. There exists a great number of such terms and also a growing trend for the formation of new ones. In the FRG an R&D project was started in 1972 with the collection of names of subject fields, it is intended to assemble their definitions in a dictionary and to build a general concept system by computercomparison of their characteristics as provided by their definitions. The nature of subject-fields is explained, details on the German collection are given as well as some results from a formal analysis of their concepts. It is proposed to initiate similar projects in other linguistic regions as well; this could be done under the auspices of Infoterm. Some application-possibilities for a general concept-system (e. g. a broad system of ordering) are given. The annex displays a scheme of 9 subject areas and about 90 subareas for the sorting of names of subject fields.

0.008975235 = product of:
  0.01795047 = sum of:
    0.01795047 = product of:
      0.07180188 = sum of:
        0.07180188 = weight(_text_:authors in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07180188 = score(doc=2669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052116565 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 2669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2669)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The German standard on the construction and further development of classification systems is introduced with its background. The contents of its 8 chapters is described. A critical appraisal considers (1) the fact that the standard does not openly deal with the optimal form of CS, viz. faceted CS, but treats them as one possibility among others, although the authors seem to have had this kind in mind when recommending the section on steps of CS development and other sections of the standard; (2) that the standard does not give any recommendation on the computerization of the necessary activities in establishing CS; and (3) that a convergence of CS and thesauri in the form of faceted CS and faceted thesauri has not been taken into consideration. - Concludingly some doubts are raised whether a standard would be the best medium to provide recommendations or guidelines for the construction of such systems. More adequate ways for this should be explored