-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.: ¬The Information Retrieval Thesaurus (2019)
0.07
0.07134171 = product of:
0.107012555 = sum of:
0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 5210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016003672 = score(doc=5210,freq=2.0), product of:
0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 5210, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5210)
0.09100889 = product of:
0.18201777 = sum of:
0.18201777 = weight(_text_:demand in 5210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18201777 = score(doc=5210,freq=4.0), product of:
0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.5847471 = fieldWeight in 5210, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5210)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- In the post-war period before computers were readily available, urgent demand for scientific and industrial develop-ment stimulated research and development (R&D) that led to the birth of the information retrieval thesaurus. This article traces the early history, speciation and progressive improvement of the thesaurus to reach the state now conveyed by guidelines in inter-national and national standards. Despite doubts about the effec-tiveness of the thesaurus throughout this period, and notwith-standing the dominance of Google and other search engines in the information retrieval (IR) scene today, the thesaurus still plays a complementary part in the organization of knowledge and in-formation resources. Success today depends on interoperability, and is opening up opportunities in linked data applications. At the same time, the IR demand from workers in the knowledge society drives interest in hybrid forms of knowledge organization system (KOS) that may pool the genes of thesauri with those of ontologies and classification schemes.
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.; Gilchrist, A.; Will, L.: Revision and extension of thesaurus standards (2004)
0.04
0.038660273 = product of:
0.057990406 = sum of:
0.015088406 = weight(_text_:on in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015088406 = score(doc=2615,freq=4.0), product of:
0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.13746344 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
0.042902 = product of:
0.085804 = sum of:
0.085804 = weight(_text_:demand in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.085804 = score(doc=2615,freq=2.0), product of:
0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.2756524 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The current standards for monolingual and multilingual thesauri are long overdue for an update. This applies to the international standards ISO 2788 and ISO 5964, as well as the corresponding national standards in several countries and the American standard ANSI/NISO Z39.19. Work is now under way in the UK and in the USA to revise and extend the standards, with particular emphasis on interoperability needs in our world of vast electronic networks. Work in the UK is starting with the British Standards, in the hope of leading on to one international standard to serve all. Some of the issues still under discussion include the treatment of facet analysis, coverage of additional types of controlled vocabulary such as classification schemes, taxonomies and ontologies, and mapping from one vocabulary to another. 1. Are thesaurus standards still needed? Since the 1960s, even before the renowned Cranfield experiments (Cleverdon et al., 1966; Cleverdon, 1967) arguments have raged over the usefulness or otherwise of controlled vocabularies. The case has never been proved definitively one way or the other. At the same time, a recognition has become widespread that no one search method can answer all retrieval requirements. In today's environment of very large networks of resources, the skilled information professional uses a range of techniques. Among these, controlled vocabularies are valued alongside others. The first international standard for monolingual thesauri was issued in 1974. In those days, the main application was for postcoordinate indexing and retrieval from document collections or bibliographic databases. For many information professionals the only practicable alternative to a thesaurus was a classification scheme. And so the thesaurus developed a strong following. After computer systems with full text search capability became widely available, however, the arguments against controlled vocabularies gained more followers. The cost of building and maintaining a thesaurus or a classification scheme was a strong disincentive. Today's databases are typically immense compared with those three decades ago. Full text searching is taken for granted, not just in discrete databases but across all the resources in an intranet or even the Internet. But intranets have brought particular frustration as users discover that despite all the computer power, they cannot find items which they know to be present an the network. So the trend against controlled vocabularies is now being reversed, as many information professionals are turning to them for help. Standards to guide them are still in demand.
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Thesauri, topics and other structures in knowledge management software (2000)
0.02
0.024192145 = product of:
0.036288217 = sum of:
0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016003672 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
0.020284547 = product of:
0.040569093 = sum of:
0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040569093 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Different Knowledge Management Software (KMS) suites approach information retrieval in different ways. Some of them have in-built knowledge structures, and some of those structures may be called a "thesaurus". But they are not thesauri as defined by the standard ISO 2788. This paper describes the types of knowledge structure which are provided for in the Verity search engine, namely "Thesaurus" and "Topics". An examination of how they are constructed shows strengths and weaknesses, and their potential to be applied to automatic categorization of search results. Unfortunately it is difficult to quantify the performance benefits of any of these knowledge structures, or even compare them with the benefits of using the traditional techniques of vocabulary control. However, the problems of retrieving information on many intranets has led some practitioners to apply simple vocabulary control to complement the functionality of their chosen KMS
- Date
- 22. 9.2007 15:45:45
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Challenges and opportunities for KOS standards (2007)
0.02
0.01577687 = product of:
0.04733061 = sum of:
0.04733061 = product of:
0.09466122 = sum of:
0.09466122 = weight(_text_:22 in 4643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09466122 = score(doc=4643,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4643, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4643)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 9.2007 15:41:14
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Thesaural relationships (2001)
0.01
0.007888435 = product of:
0.023665305 = sum of:
0.023665305 = product of:
0.04733061 = sum of:
0.04733061 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04733061 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 9.2007 15:45:57
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Evolution towards ISO 25964 : an international standard with guidelines for thesauri and other types of controlled vocabulary (2007)
0.01
0.007888435 = product of:
0.023665305 = sum of:
0.023665305 = product of:
0.04733061 = sum of:
0.04733061 = weight(_text_:22 in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04733061 = score(doc=749,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 749, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=749)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 8.12.2007 19:25:22
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.; Vernau, J.: Questions and answers on current developments inspired by the thesaurus tradition : points of view (2016)
0.01
0.007112743 = product of:
0.021338228 = sum of:
0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 2914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021338228 = score(doc=2914,freq=2.0), product of:
0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 2914, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2914)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
-
Aitchison, J.; Dextre Clarke, S.G.: ¬The Thesaurus : a historical viewpoint, with a look to the future (2004)
0.01
0.0067615155 = product of:
0.020284547 = sum of:
0.020284547 = product of:
0.040569093 = sum of:
0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040569093 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5005, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5005)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 9.2007 15:46:13
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Origins and trajectory of the long thesaurus debate (2016)
0.01
0.0062868367 = product of:
0.01886051 = sum of:
0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 2913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01886051 = score(doc=2913,freq=4.0), product of:
0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 2913, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2913)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The information retrieval thesaurus emerged in the 1950s, settled down to a more-or-less standard format in the 1970s and has continued to evolve marginally since then. Throughout its whole lifetime, doubts have been expressed about its efficacy with emphasis latterly on cost-effectiveness. Prolonged testing of different styles of index language in the 1970s failed to settle the doubts. The arena occupied by the debate has moved from small isolated databases in the post-war era to diverse situations nowadays with the whole Internet at one extreme and small in-house collections at the other. Sophisticated statistical techniques now dominate the retrieval landscape on the Internet but leave opportunities for the thesaurus and other knowledge organization techniques in niches such as image libraries and corporate intranets. The promise of an ontology-driven semantic web with linked data resources opens another opportunity. Thus much scope remains for research to establish the usefulness of the thesaurus in these places and to inspire its continuing evolution.
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Overview of ISO NP 25964 : structured vocabularies for information retrieval (2007)
0.01
0.0053345575 = product of:
0.016003672 = sum of:
0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016003672 = score(doc=535,freq=2.0), product of:
0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 535, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=535)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- ISO 2788 and ISO 5964, the international standards for monolingual and multilingual thesauri respectively dated 1986 and 1985, are very much in need of revision. A proposal to revise them was recently approved by the relevant subcommittee, ISO TC46/SC9. The work will be based on BS 8723, a five part standard of which Parts 1 and 2 were published in 2005, Parts 3 and 4 are scheduled for publication in 2007, and Part 5 is still in draft. This subsession will address aspects of the whole revision project. It is conceived as a panel session starting with a brief overview from the project leader. Then there are three presentations of 15 minutes, plus 5 minutes each for specific questions. At the end we have 20 minutes for questions to any or all of the panel, and discussion of issues from the workshop participants.
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.: ¬The last 50 years of knowledge organization : a journey through my personal archives (2009)
0.01
0.0053345575 = product of:
0.016003672 = sum of:
0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 4344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016003672 = score(doc=4344,freq=2.0), product of:
0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4344, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4344)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- At the time when the Institute of Information Scientists was launched, well established principles of classification, especially faceted classification, provided an excellent springboard for developments in knowledge organization thereafter. The principles of thesaurus construction and use were worked out during the first two decades of the Institute's existence. Up until the end of the 1980s, most practical systems to exploit any of these vocabularies were held on cards, some of them highly ingenious. The subsequent arrival of the desktop computer, soon followed by the growth of networks providing access to an almost unimaginable quantity and variety of resources, has stimulated evolution of the knowledge organization schemes to exploit the technology available. Anecdotes of events and practical applications of controlled vocabularies illustrate this account of developments over the period.
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.: In pursuit of interoperability : can we standardize mapping types? (2011)
0.01
0.0053345575 = product of:
0.016003672 = sum of:
0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 4788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016003672 = score(doc=4788,freq=2.0), product of:
0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4788, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4788)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Concepts in context: Proceedings of the Cologne Conference on Interoperability and Semantics in Knowledge Organization July 19th - 20th, 2010. Eds.: F. Boteram, W. Gödert u. J. Hubrich
