-
Dahlberg, I.: Normung und Klassifikation (1978)
0.01
0.011221418 = product of:
0.05610709 = sum of:
0.05610709 = product of:
0.11221418 = sum of:
0.11221418 = weight(_text_:22 in 1612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11221418 = score(doc=1612,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1450166 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041411664 = queryNorm
0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1612, 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=1612)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Source
- DK-Mitteilungen. 22(1978) Nr.5/6, S.13-18
-
Dahlberg, I.: Kolloquium Einheitsklassifikation (1975)
0.01
0.011221418 = product of:
0.05610709 = sum of:
0.05610709 = product of:
0.11221418 = sum of:
0.11221418 = weight(_text_:22 in 1625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11221418 = score(doc=1625,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1450166 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041411664 = queryNorm
0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1625, 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=1625)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Source
- Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 26(1975), S.22-25
-
Dahlberg, I.: ¬The terminology of subject-fields (1975)
0.01
0.009260482 = product of:
0.046302408 = sum of:
0.046302408 = product of:
0.092604816 = sum of:
0.092604816 = weight(_text_:german in 2103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.092604816 = score(doc=2103,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24051933 = queryWeight, product of:
5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
0.041411664 = queryNorm
0.38502026 = fieldWeight in 2103, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2103)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- 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