Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0023790773 = product of:
  0.0047581545 = sum of:
    0.0047581545 = product of:
      0.009516309 = sum of:
        0.009516309 = weight(_text_:a in 4455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009516309 = score(doc=4455,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 4455, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4455)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The amount of work to be done in rendering the digital information space more efficient and effective has attracted a wide range of disciplines which, in turn, has given rise to a degree of confusion in the terminology applied to information problems. This note seeks to shed some light on the three terms thesauri, taxonomies and ontologies as they are currently being used by, among others, information scientists, AI practitioners, and those working on the foundations of the semantic Web. The paper is not a review of the techniques themselves.

Type

a

0.0022338415 = product of:
  0.004467683 = sum of:
    0.004467683 = product of:
      0.008935366 = sum of:
        0.008935366 = weight(_text_:a in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008935366 = score(doc=2092,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2092, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2092)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It is nearly a century since Paul Otlet and Henri LaFontaine suggested the Universal Decimal Classification; and Melvil Dewey allowed them to build on his Decimal Classification. Despite problems of a nature common to many organisations, the scheme is alive and about to enter a new period of regeneration. On the one hand, the UDC has not enjoyed the popular appeal which might arise from appearing as MARC data, and on the other it has been attacked by the theorists for its pretensions. However, it should be remembered that the Medium Edition is some three times larger than the DDC (with greater power of synthesis) and is available in 21 languages. With growing interest in and need for, knowledge structures, it would be tragic if the UDC were neglected. Future plans for the UDC is discussed, including the finalisation of a currently available "machine-readable, multilingual, authority file for UDC maintenance."

Type

a

0.002149515 = product of:
  0.00429903 = sum of:
    0.00429903 = product of:
      0.00859806 = sum of:
        0.00859806 = weight(_text_:a in 6869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00859806 = score(doc=6869,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 6869, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0021060861 = product of:
  0.0042121722 = sum of:
    0.0042121722 = product of:
      0.0084243445 = sum of:
        0.0084243445 = weight(_text_:a in 4921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0084243445 = score(doc=4921,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 4921, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4921)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

During the Dorking international study conference on classification for informational retrieval in 1957 it was acknowledged that classification was only one contributing factor towards effective information retrieval. Today information embraces text, document, picture, and surrogate retrieval and must be seen in the total context of corporate information systems and the Internet. Draws attention to a conference on knowledge organization for information retrieval which will take place in 1997

Type

a

0.0020392092 = product of:
  0.0040784185 = sum of:
    0.0040784185 = product of:
      0.008156837 = sum of:
        0.008156837 = weight(_text_:a in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008156837 = score(doc=5585,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper forms part of the series "60 years of the best in information research", marking the 60th anniversary of the Journal of Documentation. It aims to review the influence of Brian Vickery's 1971 paper, "Structure and function in retrieval languages". The paper is not an update of Vickery's work, but a comment on a greatly changed environment, in which his analysis still has much validity. Design/methodology/approach - A commentary on selected literature illustrates the continuing relevance of Vickery's ideas. Findings - Generic survey and specific reference are still the main functions of retrieval languages, with minor functional additions such as relevance ranking. New structures are becoming increasingly significant, through developments such as XML. Future development in artificial intelligence hold out new prospects still. Originality/value - The paper shows the continuing relevance of "traditional" ideas of information science from the 1960s and 1970s.

Type

a

0.0019225847 = product of:
  0.0038451694 = sum of:
    0.0038451694 = product of:
      0.007690339 = sum of:
        0.007690339 = weight(_text_:a in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007690339 = score(doc=2615,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.001719612 = product of:
  0.003439224 = sum of:
    0.003439224 = product of:
      0.006878448 = sum of:
        0.006878448 = weight(_text_:a in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006878448 = score(doc=255,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.001719612 = product of:
  0.003439224 = sum of:
    0.003439224 = product of:
      0.006878448 = sum of:
        0.006878448 = weight(_text_:a in 1394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006878448 = score(doc=1394,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1394, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1394)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001719612 = product of:
  0.003439224 = sum of:
    0.003439224 = product of:
      0.006878448 = sum of:
        0.006878448 = weight(_text_:a in 130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006878448 = score(doc=130,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 130, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=130)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0015795645 = product of:
  0.003159129 = sum of:
    0.003159129 = product of:
      0.006318258 = sum of:
        0.006318258 = weight(_text_:a in 2375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006318258 = score(doc=2375,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2375, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2375)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Selected Papers from "Knowledge Organization, Making a Difference: ISKO-UK Biennial Conference, 13th-14th July 2015, London. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_42_2015_6.

Type

a

0.0015199365 = product of:
  0.003039873 = sum of:
    0.003039873 = product of:
      0.006079746 = sum of:
        0.006079746 = weight(_text_:a in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006079746 = score(doc=4593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)