Rafferty, P.; Hidderley, R.: ¬A survey of Image trieval tools (2004)
0.02
0.01642145 = product of:
0.11495014 = sum of:
0.11495014 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 2670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11495014 = score(doc=2670,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = queryNorm
0.5370168 = fieldWeight in 2670, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2670)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- Issues regarding interpretation and the locus of meaning in the image sign (objectivist, constructionist or subjectivist) are clearly important in relation to reading images and are well documented in the literature (Svenonius, 1994; Shatford, 1984,1986; Layne, 1994; Enser, 1991, 1995; Rafferty Brown & Hidderley, 1996). The same issues of interpretation and reading pertain to image indexing tools which themselves are the result of choice, design and construction. Indexing becomes constrained and specific when a particular controlled vocabulary is adhered to. Indexing tools can often work better for one type of document than another. In this paper we discuss the different 'flavours' of three image retrieval tools: the Art and Architecture Thesaurus, Iconclass and the Library of Congress Thesaurus for Graphic Materials.
