Search (66 results, page 4 of 4)

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(1995) no.1, S.52-59

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 1804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=1804,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1804, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1804)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information services and use. 17(1997) nos.2/3, S.111-123

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=1800,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The SAC Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures was authorized at the 1995 Midwinter Meeting and appointed shortly before Annual Conference. Its creation was one result of a discussion of how (and why) to promote the display and use of broader-term subject heading references, and its charge reads as follows: To investigate: (1) the kinds of relationships that exist between subjects, the display of which are likely to be useful to catalog users; (2) how these relationships are or could be recorded in authorities and classification formats; (3) options for how these relationships should be presented to users of online and print catalogs, indexes, lists, etc. By the summer 1996 Annual Conference, make some recommendations to SAC about how to disseminate the information and/or implement changes. At that time assess the need for additional time to investigate these issues. The Subcommittee's work on each of the imperatives in the charge was summarized in a report issued at the 1996 Annual Conference (Appendix A). Highlights of this work included the development of a taxonomy of 165 subject relationships; a demonstration that, using existing MARC coding, catalog systems could be programmed to generate references they do not currently support; and an examination of reference displays in several CD-ROM database products. Since that time, work has continued on identifying term relationships and display options; on tracking research, discussion, and implementation of subject relationships in information systems; and on compiling a list of further research needs.

Content

Enthält: Appendix A: Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures - REPORT TO THE ALCTS/CCS SUBJECT ANALYSIS COMMITTEE - July 1996 Appendix B (part 1): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (alphabetical display) (Separat in: http://web2.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/CCS/committees/subjectanalysis/subjectrelations/msrscu2.pdf) Appendix B (part 2): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (hierarchical display) Appendix C: Checklist of Candidate Subject Relationships for Information Retrieval. Compiled by Dee Michel, Pat Kuhr, and Jane Greenberg; edited by Greg Wool - June 1997 Appendix D: Review of Reference Displays in Selected CD-ROM Abstracts and Indexes by Harriette Hemmasi and Steven Riel Appendix E: Analysis of Relationships in Six LC Subject Authority Records by Harriette Hemmasi and Gary Strawn Appendix F: Report of a Preliminary Survey of Subject Referencing in OPACs by Gregory Wool Appendix G: LC Subject Referencing in OPACs--Why Bother? by Gregory Wool Appendix H: Research Needs on Subject Relationships and Reference Structures in Information Access compiled by Jane Greenberg and Steven Riel with contributions from Dee Michel and others edited by Gregory Wool Appendix I: Bibliography on Subject Relationships compiled mostly by Dee Michel with additional contributions from Jane Greenberg, Steven Riel, and Gregory Wool

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 2203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=2203,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2203, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2203)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(1995) no.5, S.348-369

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 6345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=6345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 6345, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6345)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Five years ago, we raised the question: is there a data model which is general enough such that all existing thesauri can be represented by a specialization of this general model without loss of information? The answer was not given at that time, but we referred to the principle of abstraction, well supported in object-oriented data modelling. We gained the empirical basis for that process of abstraction by modelling existing thesauri and a terminological dictionary; an abstracting view was afterwards presented in a paper to the TKE'93 conference. The present paper reports on a third step of abstraction with its very concrete consequences, embodies in a software called TerminologyFramework(TFw)

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(1995) no.3, S.175-193