Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

0.029902441 = product of:
  0.119609766 = sum of:
    0.119609766 = weight(_text_:social in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.119609766 = score(doc=1656,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.6475021 = fieldWeight in 1656, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1656)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Efforts towards internationalization have become increasingly important in scientific environments. As for content-based indexing of scientific research data, however, standards leading to internationally coherent indexing which is vital for retrieval purposes are not yet sufficiently developed. Even concerning the concrete use of indexing instruments, launched by initiatives on an international scale, there are still no binding policies and guidelines. Against this backdrop, essential criteria which internationally applicable indexing systems should meet will be outlined. These will be illustrated through the multilingual European Language Social Science Thesaurus (ELSST), originally based on the UK Data Archive's (UKDA) Humanities and Social Science Electronic Thesaurus (HASSET) and ultimately developed by the Council of European Social Science Data Archives (CESSDA). Additionally, the general pros and cons of using international versus national indexing languages will be weighed using the ELSST and the Thesaurus for the Social Sciences (TSS) developed by GESIS - Leibniz-Institute for the Social Sciences. In this light, the benefit of vocabulary crosswalks for supporting a combined use of international and national indexing systems will be discussed.

0.028484445 = product of:
  0.11393778 = sum of:
    0.11393778 = weight(_text_:social in 7538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11393778 = score(doc=7538,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.6167971 = fieldWeight in 7538, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7538)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Social science information studies. 2(1982), S.211-214

0.0142422225 = product of:
  0.05696889 = sum of:
    0.05696889 = weight(_text_:social in 237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05696889 = score(doc=237,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 237, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=237)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper reports a part of an on-going PhD study on problems related to multicultural social science thesaurus construction in the general frame of information science. The main analysis methods used are discourse analysis and co-word analysis. In theoretical framework the emphasis is on communicative equivalence theories and different aims of thesaurus translation are discussed. Some examples are given how co-word analysis can be used to study contextual equivalence.

0.012938853 = product of:
  0.051755413 = sum of:
    0.051755413 = product of:
      0.10351083 = sum of:
        0.10351083 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10351083 = score(doc=5217,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.4943606 = fieldWeight in 5217, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5217)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An attempt is made to compare the existing standards and guidelines for thesaurus consruction and development, focussing particularly on the ISO, BSI standards as well as on the guidelines suggested by Aitchison and Gilchrist, and UNISIST. The different facets/aspects considered are: linguistic aspects of thesauri; formal requirements suggested by the standards/guidelines with special emphasis on problems associated with the compound terms, homographs, forms of terms, etc.; semantic relationships between terms - synonymy, BT/NT, and associativity; problems peculiar to multilingual thesauri, especially the problem of inexact equivalence between terms; and presentation and arrangement of terms in a thesaurus

0.01220762 = product of:
  0.04883048 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=3678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper explores the relationships between natural language lexicons in lexical semantics and thesauri in information retrieval research. These different areas of knowledge have different restrictions on use of vocabulary; thesauri are used only in information search and retrieval contexts, whereas lexicons are mental systems and generally applicable in all domains of life. A set of vocabulary requirements that defines the more concrete characteristics of vocabulary items in the 2 contexts can be derived from this framework: lexicon items have to be learnable, complex, transparent, etc., whereas thesaurus terms must be effective, current and relevant, searchable, etc. The differences in vocabulary properties correlate with 2 other factors, the well-known dimension of Control (deliberate, social activities of building and maintaining vocabularies), and Syntagmatization, which is less known and describes vocabulary items' varying formal preparedness to exit the thesaurus/lexicon, enter into linear syntactic constructions, and, finally, acquire communicative functionality. It is proposed that there is an inverse relationship between Control and Syntagmatization.

0.011509455 = product of:
  0.04603782 = sum of:
    0.04603782 = weight(_text_:social in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04603782 = score(doc=549,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.24922368 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

LCSH is known as such since 1975. It always has created headings to serve the LC collections instead of a theoretical basis. It started to replace cross reference codes by thesaural codes in 1986, in a mechanical fashion. It was in no way transformed into a thesaurus. Its encyclopedic coverage, its pre-coordinate concepts make it substantially distinct, considering that thesauri usually map a restricted field of knowledge and use uniterms. The questions raised are whether the new symbols comply with thesaurus standards and if they are true to one or to several models. Explanations and definitions from other lists of subject headings and thesauri, literature in the field of classification and subject indexing will provide some answers. For instance, see refers from a subject heading not used to another or others used. Exceptionally it will lead from a specific term to a more general one. Some equate a see reference with the equivalence relationship. Such relationships are pointed by USE in LCSH. See also references are made from the broader subject to narrower parts of it and also between associated subjects. They suggest lateral or vertical connexions as well as reciprocal relationships. They serve a coordination purpose for some, lay down a methodical search itinerary for others. Since their inception in the 1950's thesauri have been devised for indexing and retrieving information in the fields of science and technology. Eventually they attended to a number of social sciences and humanities. Research derived from thesauri was voluminous. Numerous guidelines are designed. They did not discriminate between the "hard" sciences and the social sciences. RT relationships are widely but diversely used in numerous controlled vocabularies. LCSH's aim is to achieve a list almost free of RT and SA references. It thus restricts relationships to BT/NT, USE and UF. This raises the question as to whether all fields of knowledge can "fit" in the Procrustean bed of RT/NT, i.e., genus/species relationships. Standard codes were devised. It was soon realized that BT/NT, well suited to the genus/species couple could not signal a whole-part relationship. In LCSH, BT and NT function as reciprocals, the whole-part relationship is taken into account by ISO. It is amply elaborated upon by authors. The part-whole connexion is sometimes studied apart. The decision to replace cross reference codes was an improvement. Relations can now be distinguished through the distinct needs of numerous fields of knowledge are not attended to. Topic inclusion, and topic-subtopic, could provide the missing link where genus/species or whole/part are inadequate. Distinct codes, BT/NT and whole/part, should be provided. Sorting relationships with mechanical means can only lead to confusion.

0.010456172 = product of:
  0.041824687 = sum of:
    0.041824687 = product of:
      0.083649375 = sum of:
        0.083649375 = weight(_text_:aspects in 7930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083649375 = score(doc=7930,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.39950368 = fieldWeight in 7930, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7930)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Gives an overview of recommendations given in the International and British Standards for construction of thesauri. Details: vocabulary control of monolingual thesauri, form and chooice of terms, homographs and polysemes, scope notes and definitions, compound terms, displaying and distinguishing basic relationships linking terms, multilingual aspects, thesaurus displays, and construction techniques. Outlines the future of the thesaurus and thesaurus standards

0.009414612 = product of:
  0.03765845 = sum of:
    0.03765845 = product of:
      0.0753169 = sum of:
        0.0753169 = weight(_text_:22 in 4483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0753169 = score(doc=4483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

15. 3.2000 10:22:37

0.009414612 = product of:
  0.03765845 = sum of:
    0.03765845 = product of:
      0.0753169 = sum of:
        0.0753169 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0753169 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

24. 8.2005 19:20:22

0.009149151 = product of:
  0.036596604 = sum of:
    0.036596604 = product of:
      0.07319321 = sum of:
        0.07319321 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07319321 = score(doc=1804,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.3495657 = fieldWeight in 1804, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1804)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Based on the premise that in a multilingual thesaurus all languages are equal, reviews the options and solutions offered by the guidelines to the developer of specialized thesauri. Introduces other problems of a sociocultural, and even of a truly political nature, which are a prominent features in the daily life of the thesaurus designer but with which the theory and the guidelines do not deal very well. Focuses in turn on semantic, managerial, and technological aspects of multilingual thesaurus construction, from the perspective of giving equal treatment to all languages involved

0.009149151 = product of:
  0.036596604 = sum of:
    0.036596604 = product of:
      0.07319321 = sum of:
        0.07319321 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07319321 = score(doc=3892,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.3495657 = fieldWeight in 3892, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Thesaurus data structures and exchange formats (ways of tagging and encoding thesauri for transfer between computer applications) are discussed. Single- and multiple-user thesaurus software is functionally similar, apart from scale. Several lists of requirements for such software have been published, and important aspects are summarized here, including input, editing, output, and the interfaces used by indexers and searchers. The way in which thesaurus software may be extended to cover other types of controlled vocabularies is covered briefly, followed by issues that arise in management and updating of thesauri, including changes to collections of documents indexed by previous versions and the mapping and merging of thesauri to provide a common search interface.

0.008138414 = product of:
  0.032553654 = sum of:
    0.032553654 = weight(_text_:social in 4221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032553654 = score(doc=4221,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 4221, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4221)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Social tagging

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=4724,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 4724, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4724)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=756,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 756, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=756)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Thesauri are frequently stated or indirectly treated as subtype of ontologies or vice versa while other definitions explicitly distinguish them. To encounter the lack of clarity this paper provides an in-depth comparison of these types of models. The comparison followed a semiotic approach and considered syntactic, semantic and pragmatic differences between ontologies and thesauri. For the comparison data models of thesauri and ontologies were produced that - in contrast to existing meta- and datamodels - are comparable with each other. The analysis revealed significant differences in the semiotic aspects of thesauri and ontologies. This finding challenges the treatment of ontologies and thesauri as type of one another. The comparison presented in this paper shall also provide input for standardization efforts in clarifying the relatedness of thesauri and ontologies.

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=4729,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 4729, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4729)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The task of an information architect is to create web sites where users can actually find the information they are looking for. As the ocean of information rises and leaves what we seek ever more deeply buried in what we don't seek, this discipline becomes ever more relevant. Information architecture involves many different aspects of web site creation and organization, but its principal tools are information organization techniques developed in other disciplines. Most of these techniques come from library science, such as thesauri, taxonomies, and faceted classification. Topic maps are a relative newcomer to this area and bring with them the promise of better-organized web sites, compared to what is possible with existing techniques. However, it is not generally understood how topic maps relate to the traditional techniques, and what advantages and disadvantages they have, compared to these techniques. The aim of this paper is to help build a better understanding of these issues.

0.0065351077 = product of:
  0.026140431 = sum of:
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=1462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 1462, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A thesaurus is a controlled vocabulary designed to allow for effective information retrieval. It con- sists of different kinds of semantic relationships, with the aim of guiding users to the choice of the most suitable index and search terms for expressing a certain concept. The relational semantics of a thesaurus deal with methods to connect terms with related meanings and arc intended to enhance information recall capabilities. In this paper, focused on hierarchical relations, different aspects of the relational semantics of thesauri, and among them the possibility of developing richer structures, are analyzed. Thesauri are viewed as semantic tools providing, for operational purposes, the representation of the meaning of the terms. The paper stresses how theories of semantics, holding different perspectives about the nature of meaning and how it is represented, affect the design of the relational semantics of thesauri. The need for tools capable of representing the complexity of knowledge and of the semantics of terms as it occurs in the literature of their respective subject fields is advocated. It is underlined how this would contribute to improving the retrieval of information. To achieve this goal, even though in a preliminary manner, we explore the possibility of setting against the framework of thesaurus design the notions of language games and hermeneutic horizon.

0.006276408 = product of:
  0.025105633 = sum of:
    0.025105633 = product of:
      0.050211266 = sum of:
        0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 3734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050211266 = score(doc=3734,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3734, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Searcher. 3(1995) no.8, S.18-22

0.006276408 = product of:
  0.025105633 = sum of:
    0.025105633 = product of:
      0.050211266 = sum of:
        0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050211266 = score(doc=4721,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

17. 1.2019 19:04:22

0.005491857 = product of:
  0.021967428 = sum of:
    0.021967428 = product of:
      0.043934856 = sum of:
        0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 3555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043934856 = score(doc=3555,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3555, 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=3555)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

25.12.1995 22:52:34

0.005491857 = product of:
  0.021967428 = sum of:
    0.021967428 = product of:
      0.043934856 = sum of:
        0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043934856 = score(doc=4042,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4042, 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=4042)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 4.1996 3:39:53