Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.026935253 = product of:
  0.12569785 = sum of:
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 7712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=7712,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 7712, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7712)
    0.08532297 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 7712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08532297 = score(doc=7712,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.7299458 = fieldWeight in 7712, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7712)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 7712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=7712,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 7712, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7712)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Reports results of a study, conducted by Maryland University, College of Library and Information Services, to establish the basic logical design of large scale bibliographic databases using the entity relationship (ER) model, with a view to the eventual conversion of the ER based conceptual schemas into relational databases. A fully normalized relational bibliographic database promises relief from the update, insertion, and deletion anomalies that plague bibliographic databases using MARC formats and USMARC formats internally. Presents the conceptual design of a full scale bibliographic database (inclusing bibliographic, authority, holdings, and classification data), based on entity relationship modelling. This design translates easily into a logical relational design. Discusses the treatment of format integration and the differentiation between the intellectual and bibliographic levels of description and between collective and individual levels of description. Unfortunately, the complexities of bibliographic data result in a tension between the semantic integrity of the relatioal approach and the inefficiencies of normalization and decomposition. Outlines compromise approaches to the dilemma

0.019980384 = product of:
  0.13986269 = sum of:
    0.06993134 = weight(_text_:classification in 2104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06993134 = score(doc=2104,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.731335 = fieldWeight in 2104, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2104)
    0.06993134 = weight(_text_:classification in 2104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06993134 = score(doc=2104,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.731335 = fieldWeight in 2104, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2104)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Classification research for knowledge representation and organization. Proc. 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991. Ed. by N.J. Williamson u. M. Hudon

0.012545095 = product of:
  0.08781566 = sum of:
    0.036007844 = weight(_text_:subject in 3724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036007844 = score(doc=3724,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 3724, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3724)
    0.051807817 = product of:
      0.103615634 = sum of:
        0.103615634 = weight(_text_:texts in 3724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.103615634 = score(doc=3724,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.6294744 = fieldWeight in 3724, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3724)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The assumption of topic matching between user needs and texts topically relevant to those needs is often erroneous. Reports an emprical investigantion of the question 'what relationship types actually account for topical relevance'? In order to avoid the bias to topic matching search strategies, user needs are back generated from a randomly selected subset of the subject headings employed in a user oriented topical concordance. The corresponding relevant texts are those indicated in the concordance under the subject heading. Compares the topics of the user needs with the topics of the relevant texts to determine the relationships between them. Topical relevance relationships include a large variety of relationships, only some of which are matching relationships. Others are examples of paradigmatic or syntagmatic relationships. There appear to be no constraints on the kinds of relationships that can function as topical relevance relationships. They are distinguishable from other types of relationships only on functional grounds

0.010875943 = product of:
  0.0761316 = sum of:
    0.0380658 = weight(_text_:classification in 2093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0380658 = score(doc=2093,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.39808834 = fieldWeight in 2093, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2093)
    0.0380658 = weight(_text_:classification in 2093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0380658 = score(doc=2093,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.39808834 = fieldWeight in 2093, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2093)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Classification research for knowledge representation and organization. Proc. 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991. Ed. by N.J. Williamson u. M. Hudon

0.0043541198 = product of:
  0.060957674 = sum of:
    0.060957674 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060957674 = score(doc=3685,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.52149844 = fieldWeight in 3685, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3685)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The significant differences that exist between the print and digital worlds are sometimes felt to diminish the need for bibliographic description in the electronic world. An analysis of these differences, especially with respect to (1) the control of production and distribution of documents and (2) the need for software intermediation, coupled with a discussion of the functions of bibliographic description in the task of document retrieval argue, however, for an increased role for bibliographic description in the electronic world

0.0021365185 = product of:
  0.029911257 = sum of:
    0.029911257 = product of:
      0.059822515 = sum of:
        0.059822515 = weight(_text_:texts in 3722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059822515 = score(doc=3722,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.36342722 = fieldWeight in 3722, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3722)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Presents conceptual background. Since topicality is a major factor in relevance, it is crucial to identify the range of relationship types that occur between the topics of user needs and the topics of texts relevant to those needs. Assumes that a single relationship type obtains i.e. that the 2 topics match. Evidence from the analysis of recall failures, citation analysis, and knowledge synthesis suggests otherwise: topical relevance relationships are not limited to topic matching relationships; to the contrary, in certain circumstances they are quite likely not to be matching relationships. Relationships are 1 of the 2 fundamental components of human conceptual systems. Attempts to classify them usually accept a distinction between relationships that occur by virute of the combination of component units (syntagmatic relationships) and relationships that are bulit into the language system (paradigmatic relationships). Given the variety of relationship types previously identified, empirical research is needed to determine the subset that actually account for topical relevance

0.0018186709 = product of:
  0.02546139 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=474,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 474, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=474)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The paper is divided into 3 parts. The 1st develops a framework for evaluating the indexing needs of the humanities with reference to 4 sets of contrasts: user (need)-oriented vs. document-oriented indexing; subject indexing vs. attribute indexing; scientific writing vs. humanistic writing; and topical relevance vs. logical relevance vs. evidential relevance vs. aesthetic relevance. The indexing needs for the humanities range broadly across these contrasts. The 2nd part establishes the centrality of relationships to the communication of indexable matter and examines the advantages and disadvantages of means used for their expression inboth natural languages and indexing languages. The use of relational structure, such as a frame, is shown to represent perhaps the best available option. The 3rd part illustrates where the use of relational structures in humanities indexing would help meet some of the needs previously identified. Although not a panacea, the adoption of frame-based indexing in the humanities might substantially improve the retrieval of its literature

0.0018186709 = product of:
  0.02546139 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Develops a framework for evaluating the indexing needs of the humanities with reference to 4 set of contrasts: user-oriented vs. document oriented indexing; subject indexing vs. attribute indexing; scientific writing vs. humanistic writing; and topical relevance vs. logical relevance vs. evidential relevance vs. aesthetic relevance. The indexing needs of the humanities range broadly across these contrasts. Established the centrality of relationship to the communication of indexable matter and examines the advantages and disadvantages of means used for their expression in both natural languages and index languages. The use of a relational structure, such as a frame, is shown to represent perhaps the best available option. Illustrates where the use of relational structures in humanities indexing would help meet some of the needs previously identified. The adoption of frame-based indexing in the humanities might substantially improve the retrieval of its literature