Search (104 results, page 1 of 6)

0.024690958 = product of:
  0.086418346 = sum of:
    0.065530434 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065530434 = score(doc=3807,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.5671716 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
    0.020887908 = product of:
      0.06266372 = sum of:
        0.06266372 = weight(_text_:29 in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06266372 = score(doc=3807,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

18. 5.2002 17:29:00

Theme

Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval
Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.021324981 = product of:
  0.07463743 = sum of:
    0.038226083 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038226083 = score(doc=2558,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 2558, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2558)
    0.036411345 = weight(_text_:internet in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036411345 = score(doc=2558,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.32290122 = fieldWeight in 2558, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2558)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This article provides an overview of recent developments relating to the application of thesauri in information organisation and retrieval on the World Wide Web. It describes some recent thesaurus projects undertaken to facilitate resource description and discovery and access to wide-ranging information resources on the Internet. Types of thesauri available on the Web, thesauri integrated in databases and information retrieval systems, and multiple-thesaurus systems for cross-database searching are also discussed. Collective efforts and events in addressing the standardisation and novel applications of thesauri are briefly reviewed.

Theme

Internet

0.019153435 = product of:
  0.067037016 = sum of:
    0.046337012 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046337012 = score(doc=4483,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 4483, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4483)
    0.020700004 = product of:
      0.06210001 = sum of:
        0.06210001 = weight(_text_:22 in 4483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06210001 = score(doc=4483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

15. 3.2000 10:22:37

0.017233187 = product of:
  0.060316153 = sum of:
    0.030891342 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030891342 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
    0.02942481 = weight(_text_:internet in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02942481 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.2609436 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The latest thesaurus guidelines, ISO 2788 and ANSI/NISO Z39.19-1993, were published before many recent changes in the nature of databases, and before the full impact of the Internet on information storage and retrieval. The major changes are addressed in light of implications for reconsideration and possible revision of the guidelines

0.01698542 = product of:
  0.059448965 = sum of:
    0.033440858 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033440858 = score(doc=2913,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2913, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2913)
    0.026008105 = weight(_text_:internet in 2913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026008105 = score(doc=2913,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.23064373 = fieldWeight in 2913, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2913)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The information retrieval thesaurus emerged in the 1950s, settled down to a more-or-less standard format in the 1970s and has continued to evolve marginally since then. Throughout its whole lifetime, doubts have been expressed about its efficacy with emphasis latterly on cost-effectiveness. Prolonged testing of different styles of index language in the 1970s failed to settle the doubts. The arena occupied by the debate has moved from small isolated databases in the post-war era to diverse situations nowadays with the whole Internet at one extreme and small in-house collections at the other. Sophisticated statistical techniques now dominate the retrieval landscape on the Internet but leave opportunities for the thesaurus and other knowledge organization techniques in niches such as image libraries and corporate intranets. The promise of an ontology-driven semantic web with linked data resources opens another opportunity. Thus much scope remains for research to establish the usefulness of the thesaurus in these places and to inspire its continuing evolution.

Content

Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].

0.014821502 = product of:
  0.051875256 = sum of:
    0.04317196 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04317196 = score(doc=2703,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.37365708 = fieldWeight in 2703, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2703)
    0.008703294 = product of:
      0.026109882 = sum of:
        0.026109882 = weight(_text_:29 in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026109882 = score(doc=2703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2703, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2703)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

When consumers search for health information, a major obstacle is their unfamiliarity with the medical terminology. Even though medical thesauri such as the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and related tools (e.g., the MeSH Browser) were created to help consumers find medical term definitions, the lack of direct and explicit integration of these help tools into a health retrieval system prevented them from effectively achieving their objectives. To explore this issue, we conducted an empirical study with two systems: One is a simple interface system supporting query-based searching; the other is an augmented system with two new components supporting MeSH term searching and MeSH tree browsing. A total of 45 subjects were recruited to participate in the study. The results indicated that the augmented system is more effective than the simple system in terms of improving user-perceived topic familiarity and question-answer performance, even though we did not find users spend more time on the augmented system. The two new MeSH help components played a critical role in participants' health information retrieval and were found to allow them to develop new search strategies. The findings of the study enhanced our understanding of consumers' search behaviors and shed light on the design of future health information retrieval systems.

Date

25. 1.2016 18:43:29

Theme

Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval

0.014403056 = product of:
  0.050410695 = sum of:
    0.038226083 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038226083 = score(doc=5096,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 5096, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5096)
    0.0121846115 = product of:
      0.036553834 = sum of:
        0.036553834 = weight(_text_:29 in 5096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036553834 = score(doc=5096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 5096, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5096)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Part of a special issue on hypertext and information retrieval. Conventional information retrieval systems provide little support for browsing. Browsing is the major method of searching in hypertext system but users can become disoriented even when browsing small information space. If hypertext is to be used to support browsing in bibliographic databases navigational assistance will be required. Examines the role of thesauri as navigational aids for subject domains of Bibliographic databases. Presents the design of an experimental hypertext-based browsing inference for a thesaurus and its implementation using a commercially available hypertext program. Examines strategies for linking the thesaurus to a database

Source

Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.3, S.345-357

0.01437174 = product of:
  0.050301086 = sum of:
    0.038226083 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038226083 = score(doc=4042,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 4042, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4042)
    0.012075002 = product of:
      0.036225006 = sum of:
        0.036225006 = weight(_text_:22 in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036225006 = score(doc=4042,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The benefits of a well constructed thesaurus to an information retrieval system have long been recognised by both researchers and practitioners in the field. Examines both early and current approaches to automatic thesaurus construction and describes an approach to the automatic generation of global thesauri based on the term discrimination value model of Salton Yang, and Yu and on an appropriate clustering algorithm. This method has been implemented and applied to 2 document collections. Preliminary results indicate that this method, which produces improvements in retrieval performance in excess of 10 and 15% in the test collections, is viable and worthy of continued investigation.

Date

22. 4.1996 3:39:53

0.013029643 = product of:
  0.04560375 = sum of:
    0.030891342 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030891342 = score(doc=2766,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
    0.014712405 = weight(_text_:internet in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014712405 = score(doc=2766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.1304718 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Thesauri have been important information and knowledge organisation tools for more than three decades. The recent emergence and phenomenal growth of the World Wide Web has created new opportunities to introduce thesauri as information search and retrieval aids to end user communities. While the number of web-based and hypertextual thesauri continues to grow, few investigations have yet been carried out to evaluate how end-users, for whom all these efforts are ostensibly made, interact with and make use of thesauri for query building and expansion. The present paper reports a pilot study carried out to determine the extent to which a thesaurus-enhanced search interface to a web-based database aided end-users in their selection of search terms. The study also investigated the ways in which users interacted with the thesaurus structure, terms, and interface. Thesaurusbased searching and browsing behaviours adopted by users while interacting with the thesaurus-enhanced search interface were also examined. 1. Introduction The last decade has witnessed the emergence of a broad range of applications for knowledge structures in general and thesauri in particular. A number of researchers have predicted that thesauri will increasingly be used in retrieval rather than for indexing (Milstead, 1998; Aitchison et al., 1997) and that their application in information retrieval systems will become more diverse due to the growth of fulltext databases accessed over the Internet (Williamson, 2000). Some researchers have emphasised the need for tailoring the structure and content of thesauri as tools for end-user searching (Bates, 1986; Strong and Drott, 1986; Anderson and Rowley, 1991; Lopez-Huertas, 1997) while others have suggested thesaurus-enhanced user interfaces to support query formulation and expansion (Pollitt et.al., 1994; Jones et.al., 1995; Beaulieu, 1997). The recent phenomenal growth of the World Wide Web has created new opportunities to introduce thesauri as information search and retrieval aids to end user communities. While the number of web-based and hypertextual thesauri continues to grow, few investigations have been carried out to evaluate the ways in which end-users interact with and make use of online thesauri for query building and expansion. The work reported here expands an a pilot study (Shiri and Revie, 2001) carried out to investigate user - thesaurus interaction in the domains of biology and veterinary medicine.

0.012947198 = product of:
  0.04531519 = sum of:
    0.019307088 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019307088 = score(doc=2916,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2916, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2916)
    0.026008105 = weight(_text_:internet in 2916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026008105 = score(doc=2916,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.23064373 = fieldWeight in 2916, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2916)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Thesauri have triumphed in many domains that require precise and exhaustive information because of their representational power, their capability to integrate the concept-based and alphabetical approaches to organizing information, and their standardization and, more recently, formalization. Nevertheless, there is room to improve their relevance in the digital age by embracing the open linked data initiatives and by taking advantage of their structural and functional proximity to some of the big collaborative knowledge repositories in the Internet, notably the Wikipedia environment. With a focus on its implications for enhanced interoperability, this structural proximity is analysed, and the benefits of such collaboration for the different potential stakeholders are considered. It is proposed that better devices for ensuring semantic browsing are provided when necessary, and that an open hub for thesauri interconnection is developed, perhaps using existing big open Internet semantic facilities, such as Wikipedia.

Content

Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].

0.01292489 = product of:
  0.045237113 = sum of:
    0.023168506 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023168506 = score(doc=3485,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3485, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3485)
    0.022068607 = weight(_text_:internet in 3485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022068607 = score(doc=3485,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 3485, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3485)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Thesauri are knowledge models commonly used for information classication and retrieval whose structure is dened by standards that describe the main features the concepts and relations must have. However, following these standards requires a deep knowledge of the field the thesaurus is going to cover and experience in their creation. To help in this task, this paper describes a software processing chain that provides dierent validation components that evaluates the quality of the main thesaurus features.

Series

Information Systems and Applications, incl. Internet/Web, and HCI; 10151

0.012768957 = product of:
  0.044691347 = sum of:
    0.030891342 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030891342 = score(doc=3734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 3734, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3734)
    0.013800003 = product of:
      0.041400008 = sum of:
        0.041400008 = weight(_text_:22 in 3734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041400008 = score(doc=3734,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Source

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

Theme

Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval

0.012345479 = product of:
  0.043209173 = sum of:
    0.032765217 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032765217 = score(doc=5813,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 5813, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5813)
    0.010443954 = product of:
      0.03133186 = sum of:
        0.03133186 = weight(_text_:29 in 5813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03133186 = score(doc=5813,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5813, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5813)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Shows that it is possible to construct a lexical database by combining material from a number of machine-readable sources. Discusses the kind of lexical information required for applications in information retrieval and in other natural language processing areas, such as database interfaces and automatic filing systems. Describes the organization of the lexical database which is stored in an Oracle relational database management system and the design of the tables that comprise the database. In addition to the traditional alphabetic listing, access is privided from roots to derived forms and from derived forms to roots, and also through lexical and semantic relations between words, so that the database functions as a thesaurus as well as a dictionary. The database is designed to be open-ended and self-defined. Every attribute of every table is defined in the database itself. The lexical database can easily be extended through an SQL forms interface that facilitates additions to the tables

Source

Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.5, S.415-431

0.012345479 = product of:
  0.043209173 = sum of:
    0.032765217 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032765217 = score(doc=1330,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 1330, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1330)
    0.010443954 = product of:
      0.03133186 = sum of:
        0.03133186 = weight(_text_:29 in 1330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03133186 = score(doc=1330,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1330, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1330)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This paper provides a review of the literature related to the application of domain-specific thesauri in the search and retrieval process. Focusing an studies that adopt a user-centred approach, the review presents a survey of the methodologies and results from empirical studies undertaken an the use of thesauri as sources of term selection for query formulation and expansion during the search process. It summarises the ways in which domain-specific thesauri from different disciplines have been used by various types of users and how these tools aid users in the selection of search terms. The review consists of two main sections: first, studies an thesaurus-aided search term selection; and second, studies dealing with query expansion using thesauri. Both sections are illustrated with case studies that have adopted a user-centred approach.

Source

Knowledge organization. 29(2002) no.1, S.1-19

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.011172837 = product of:
  0.039104927 = sum of:
    0.027029924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027029924 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
    0.012075002 = product of:
      0.036225006 = sum of:
        0.036225006 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036225006 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

A thesaurus in the controlled vocabulary environment is a tool designed to support effective infonnation retrieval (IR) by guiding indexers and searchers consistently to choose the same terms for expressing a given concept or combination of concepts. Terms in the thesaurus are linked by relationships of three well-known types: equivalence, hierarchical, and associative. The functions and properties of these three basic types and some subcategories are described, as well as some additional relationship types conunonly found in thesauri. Progressive automation of IR processes and the capability for simultaneous searching of vast networked resources are creating some pressures for change in the categorization and consistency of relationships.

Date

22. 9.2007 15:45:57

0.011172837 = product of:
  0.039104927 = sum of:
    0.027029924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027029924 = score(doc=749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 749, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=749)
    0.012075002 = product of:
      0.036225006 = sum of:
        0.036225006 = weight(_text_:22 in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036225006 = score(doc=749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 749, 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=749)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Die geschichtliche Entwicklung von ISO 2788: Documentation - Guidelines for the establishment and development of monolingual thesauri und ISO 5964: Documentation - Guidelines for the establishment and development of multilingual thesauri wird kurz beschrieben. 2001 begann die Arbeit an der Entwicklung von BS 8723: Structured Vocabularies for Information Retrieval - Guide, einer fünfteiligen Norm, die konzipiert wurde, um die internationalen Normen zu aktualisieren, insbesondere mit Hinblick auf Interoperabilität. Der Verfahrensablauf zur Übernahme von BS 8723 als internationale Norm hat begonnen.

Date

8.12.2007 19:25:22

0.010444539 = product of:
  0.036555883 = sum of:
    0.021843476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021843476 = score(doc=2615,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
    0.014712405 = weight(_text_:internet in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014712405 = score(doc=2615,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.1304718 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

0.00960356 = product of:
  0.03361246 = sum of:
    0.023168506 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023168506 = score(doc=2658,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2658, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2658)
    0.010443954 = product of:
      0.03133186 = sum of:
        0.03133186 = weight(_text_:29 in 2658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03133186 = score(doc=2658,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2658, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2658)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

29. 8.2004 16:27:16

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.009576717 = product of:
  0.033518508 = sum of:
    0.023168506 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023168506 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4116, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4116)
    0.010350002 = product of:
      0.031050006 = sum of:
        0.031050006 = weight(_text_:22 in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031050006 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4116, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4116)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Source

Knowledge organization. 26(1999) no.1, S.10-22

0.009361491 = product of:
  0.065530434 = sum of:
    0.065530434 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065530434 = score(doc=1959,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.5671716 = fieldWeight in 1959, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1959)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Footnote

Wiederabgedruckt in: Readings in information retrieval. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones u. P. Willett. San Francisco: Morgang Kaufmann 1997. S.15-20.