Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

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.

0.01220762 = 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.

0.007842129 = 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.

0.006276408 = 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

0.004707306 = product of:
  0.018829225 = sum of:
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=3197,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3197, 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=3197)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

24. 8.2016 14:03:22