Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"McCulloch, E."
  1. McCulloch, E.; Shiri, A.; Nicholson, A.D.: Subject searching requirements : the HILT II experience (2004) 0.00 
    0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 4758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=4758,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 4758, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4758)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The HILT Phase II project aimed to develop a pilot terminologies server with a view to improving cross-sectoral information retrieval. In order to inform this process, it was first necessary to examine how a representative group of users approached a range of information-related tasks. This paper focuses on exploratory interviews conducted to investigate the proposed ideal and actual strategies of a group of 30 users in relation to eight separate information tasks. In addition, users were asked to give examples of search terms they may employ and to describe how they would formulate search queries in each scenario. The interview process undertaken and the results compiled are outlined, and associated implications for the development of a pilot terminologies server are discussed.
    Type
    a
  2. McCulloch, E.; Macgregor, G.: Analysis of equivalence mapping for terminology services (2008) 0.00 
    0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=550,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 550, 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=550)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper assesses the range of equivalence or mapping types required to facilitate interoperability in the context of a distributed terminology server. A detailed set of mapping types were examined, with a view to determining their validity for characterizing relationships between mappings from selected terminologies (AAT, LCSH, MeSH, and UNESCO) to the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) scheme. It was hypothesized that the detailed set of 19 match types proposed by Chaplan in 1995 is unnecessary in this context and that they could be reduced to a less detailed conceptually-based set. Results from an extensive mapping exercise support the main hypothesis and a generic suite of match types are proposed, although doubt remains over the current adequacy of the developing Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) Core Mapping Vocabulary Specification (MVS) for inter-terminology mapping.
    Type
    a
  3. McCulloch, E.: Thesauri: practical guidance for construction (2005) 0.00 
    0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 4724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=4724,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4724, 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=4724)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - With the growing recognition that thesauri aid information retrieval, organisations are beginning to adopt, and in many cases, create thesauri. This paper offers some guidance on the construction process. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece with a practical focus, based on recent experiences gleaned from consultancy work. Findings - A number of steps can be taken to ensure any thesaurus under construction is fit for purpose. Due consideration is therefore given to aspects such as term selection, structure and notation, thesauri standards, software and Web display issues, thesauri evaluation and maintenance. This paper also notes that creating new subject schemes from scratch, however attractive, contributes to the plethora of terminologies currently in existence and can limit user searching within particular contexts. The decision to create a "new" thesaurus should therefore be taken carefully and observance of standards is paramount. Practical implications - This paper offers advice to assist practitioners in the development of thesauri. Originality/value - Useful guidance for those practitioners new to the area of thesaurus construction is provided, together with an overview of selected key processes involved in the construction of a thesaurus.
    Type
    a
  4. Macgregor, G.; McCulloch, E.: Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool (2006) 0.00 
    0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=764,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to provide an overview of the collaborative tagging phenomenon and explore some of the reasons for its emergence. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reviews the related literature and discusses some of the problems associated with, and the potential of, collaborative tagging approaches for knowledge organisation and general resource discovery. A definition of controlled vocabularies is proposed and used to assess the efficacy of collaborative tagging. An exposition of the collaborative tagging model is provided and a review of the major contributions to the tagging literature is presented. Findings - There are numerous difficulties with collaborative tagging systems (e.g. low precision, lack of collocation, etc.) that originate from the absence of properties that characterise controlled vocabularies. However, such systems can not be dismissed. Librarians and information professionals have lessons to learn from the interactive and social aspects exemplified by collaborative tagging systems, as well as their success in engaging users with information management. The future co-existence of controlled vocabularies and collaborative tagging is predicted, with each appropriate for use within distinct information contexts: formal and informal. Research limitations/implications - Librarians and information professional researchers should be playing a leading role in research aimed at assessing the efficacy of collaborative tagging in relation to information storage, organisation, and retrieval, and to influence the future development of collaborative tagging systems. Practical implications - The paper indicates clear areas where digital libraries and repositories could innovate in order to better engage users with information. Originality/value - At time of writing there were no literature reviews summarising the main contributions to the collaborative tagging research or debate.
    Type
    a
  5. McCulloch, E.: Multiple terminologies : an obstacle to information retrieval (2004) 0.00 
    0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 2798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=2798,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2798, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2798)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    An issue currently at the forefront of digital library research is the prevalence of disparate terminologies and the associated limitations imposed on user searching. It is thought that semantic interoperability is achievable by improving the compatibility between terminologies and classification schemes, enabling users to search multiple resources simultaneously and improve retrieval effectiveness through the use of associated terms drawn from several schemes. This column considers the terminology issue before outlining various proposed methods of tackling it, with a particular focus on terminology mapping.
    Type
    a

Authors

Themes