Search (27 results, page 1 of 2)

0.052184783 = product of:
  0.07827717 = sum of:
    0.022522911 = weight(_text_:im in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022522911 = score(doc=2703,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.15615936 = fieldWeight in 2703, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2703)
    0.055754256 = product of:
      0.08363138 = sum of:
        0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025961377 = score(doc=2703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 2703, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2703)
        0.05767 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05767 = score(doc=2703,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

Theme

Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval

0.0158903 = product of:
  0.0476709 = sum of:
    0.0476709 = product of:
      0.07150635 = sum of:
        0.050873704 = weight(_text_:online in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050873704 = score(doc=4800,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.3285377 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
        0.020632647 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020632647 = score(doc=4800,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The usefulness of online geological maps is hindered by linguistic barriers. Multilingual geoscience thesauri alleviate linguistic barriers of geological maps. However, the benefits of multilingual geoscience thesauri for online geological maps are less studied. In this regard, we developed a multilingual thesaurus of geological time scale (GTS) to alleviate linguistic barriers of GTS records among online geological maps. We extended the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) model to represent the ordinal hierarchical structure of GTS terms. We collected GTS terms in seven languages and encoded them into a thesaurus by using the extended SKOS model. We implemented methods of characteristic-oriented term retrieval in JavaScript programs for accessing Web Map Services (WMS), recognizing GTS terms, and making translations. With the developed thesaurus and programs, we set up a pilot system to test recognitions and translations of GTS terms in online geological maps. Results of this pilot system proved the accuracy of the developed thesaurus and the functionality of the developed programs. Therefore, with proper deployments, SKOS-based multilingual geoscience thesauri can be functional for alleviating linguistic barriers among online geological maps and, thus, improving their interoperability.

0.009726323 = product of:
  0.02917897 = sum of:
    0.02917897 = product of:
      0.08753691 = sum of:
        0.08753691 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08753691 = score(doc=1322,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.5671716 = fieldWeight in 1322, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1322)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Powering search offers a clear and comprehensive treatment of the role of thesauri in search user interfaces across a range of information search and retrieval systems - from bibliographic and full-text databases to digital libraries, portals, open archives, and content management systems.

Content

Thesauri : introduction and recent developments -- Thesauri in interactive information retrieval -- User-centered approach to the evaluation of thesauri : query formulation and expansion -- Thesauri in web-based search systems -- Thesaurus-based search and browsing functionalities in new thesaurus construction standards -- Design of search user interfaces for thesauri -- Design of user interfaces for multilingual and meta-thesauri -- User-centered evaluation of thesaurus-enhanced search user interfaces -- Guidelines for the design of thesaurus-enhanced search user interfaces -- Current trends and developments.

LCSH

Information storage and retrieval systems
Information retrieval

RSWK

Information Retrieval

Subject

Information Retrieval
Information storage and retrieval systems
Information retrieval

0.007689334 = product of:
  0.023068001 = sum of:
    0.023068001 = product of:
      0.069204 = sum of:
        0.069204 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069204 = score(doc=2911,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 2911, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2911)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Various kinds of knowledge organisation, such as thesauri, are routinely used to label or tag multimedia content such as images and music and to support information retrieval, i.e. user search for such content. In this paper, we outline why this is the case, in particular focusing on the semantic gap between content and concept based multimedia retrieval. We survey some indexing vocabularies used for multimedia retrieval, and argue that techniques such as thesauri will be needed for the foreseeable future in order to support users in their need for multimedia content. In particular, we argue that artificial intelligence techniques are not mature enough to solve the problem of indexing multimedia conceptually and will not be able to replace human indexers for the foreseeable future.

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].

0.006877549 = product of:
  0.020632647 = sum of:
    0.020632647 = product of:
      0.06189794 = sum of:
        0.06189794 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06189794 = score(doc=2908,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 2908, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2908)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The recent ISKO-UK conference considered the question of whether the traditional thesaurus has any place in modern information retrieval. This note is intended to continue in the spirit of that good-natured debate, arguing that there is indeed a role today and highlighting some recent work showing the continued relevance of the thesaurus, particularly in the linked data area. Key functionality that a thesaurus makes possible is discussed. A brief outline is provided of prominent work hat employs thesauri in three key areas of infrastructure underpinning advanced retrieval functionality today: metadata enrichment,vocabulary mapping and web services.

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].

0.006877549 = product of:
  0.020632647 = sum of:
    0.020632647 = product of:
      0.06189794 = sum of:
        0.06189794 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06189794 = score(doc=5210,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 5210, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5210)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In the post-war period before computers were readily available, urgent demand for scientific and industrial develop-ment stimulated research and development (R&D) that led to the birth of the information retrieval thesaurus. This article traces the early history, speciation and progressive improvement of the thesaurus to reach the state now conveyed by guidelines in inter-national and national standards. Despite doubts about the effec-tiveness of the thesaurus throughout this period, and notwith-standing the dominance of Google and other search engines in the information retrieval (IR) scene today, the thesaurus still plays a complementary part in the organization of knowledge and in-formation resources. Success today depends on interoperability, and is opening up opportunities in linked data applications. At the same time, the IR demand from workers in the knowledge society drives interest in hybrid forms of knowledge organization system (KOS) that may pool the genes of thesauri with those of ontologies and classification schemes.

Object

Information Retrieval Thesaurus

0.006144777 = product of:
  0.01843433 = sum of:
    0.01843433 = product of:
      0.055302992 = sum of:
        0.055302992 = weight(_text_:22 in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055302992 = score(doc=4721,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

17. 1.2019 19:04:22

0.005956133 = product of:
  0.017868398 = sum of:
    0.017868398 = product of:
      0.05360519 = sum of:
        0.05360519 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05360519 = score(doc=2912,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 2912, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2912)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper illustrates the changing role of thesauri interlinked with overall changes of modern information infrastructure services, referring to "STW Thesaurus for Economics" as a case study. It starts with an overview of the history and development of the STW and describes the far-reaching changes brought about by its publication on the Web, with regard to subject indexing, retrieval and new uses for Linked Open Data. It argues that only the most recent technological developments help thesauri to exploit their full potential which is why they more than ever have a place in current information retrieval and infrastructure.

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].

0.005956133 = product of:
  0.017868398 = sum of:
    0.017868398 = product of:
      0.05360519 = sum of:
        0.05360519 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05360519 = score(doc=3678,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.005673688 = product of:
  0.017021064 = sum of:
    0.017021064 = product of:
      0.05106319 = sum of:
        0.05106319 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05106319 = score(doc=4832,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 4832, 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=4832)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

ISO 25964-2:2013 is applicable to thesauri and other types of vocabulary that are commonly used for information retrieval. It describes, compares and contrasts the elements and features of these vocabularies that are implicated when interoperability is needed. It gives recommendations for the establishment and maintenance of mappings between multiple thesauri, or between thesauri and other types of vocabularies.

Content

Part 1: Thesauri for information retrieval.

0.0049634436 = product of:
  0.014890331 = sum of:
    0.014890331 = product of:
      0.04467099 = sum of:
        0.04467099 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04467099 = score(doc=2913,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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].

0.0049634436 = product of:
  0.014890331 = sum of:
    0.014890331 = product of:
      0.04467099 = sum of:
        0.04467099 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04467099 = score(doc=2915,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2915, 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=2915)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The introduction (1.0) of this article considers the status of the thesaurus within LIS and asks about the future prospect for thesauri. The main following points are: (2.0) Any knowledge organization system (KOS) is today threatened by Google-like systems, and it is therefore important to consider if there still is a need for knowledge organization (KO) in the traditional sense. (3.0) A thesaurus is a somewhat reduced form of KOS compared to, for example, an ontology, and its "bundling" and restricted number of semantic relations has never been justified theoretically or empirically. Which semantic relations are most fruitful for a given task is thus an open question, and different domains may need different kinds of KOS including different sets of relations between terms. (4.0) A KOS is a controlled vocabulary (CV) and should not be considered a "perfect language" (Eco 1995) that is simply able to remove the ambiguity of natural language; rather much ambiguity in language represents a battle between many "voices" (Bakhtin 1981) or "paradigms" (Kuhn 1962). In this perspective, a specific KOS, e.g. a specific thesaurus, is just one "voice" among many voices, and that voice has to demonstrate its authority and utility. It is concluded (5.0) that the traditional thesaurus does not have a place in modern information retrieval, but that more flexible semantic tools based on proper studies of domains will always be important.

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].

0.0048631616 = product of:
  0.014589485 = sum of:
    0.014589485 = product of:
      0.043768454 = sum of:
        0.043768454 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043768454 = score(doc=862,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

International standard ISO 25964-1:2011 - Thesauri for information retrieval, includes a detailed data model for thesaurus structure. It is intended to provide a rigorous presentation of the elements and relationships which will not only clarify and standardise the varying and conflicting interpretations which exist but which can also be implemented consistently in automated systems. It makes a clear distinction between concepts and the terms which are used to label them, and includes other features that may be present in a thesaurus, such as compound equivalence, arrays and node labels, concept groups, notes and version history.

0.0046085827 = product of:
  0.013825747 = sum of:
    0.013825747 = product of:
      0.04147724 = sum of:
        0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04147724 = score(doc=3197,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

24. 8.2016 14:03:22

0.004585033 = product of:
  0.013755098 = sum of:
    0.013755098 = product of:
      0.041265294 = sum of:
        0.041265294 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041265294 = score(doc=2822,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 2822, 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=2822)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Einführung in ein 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].

0.004585033 = product of:
  0.013755098 = sum of:
    0.013755098 = product of:
      0.041265294 = sum of:
        0.041265294 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041265294 = score(doc=2914,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 2914, 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=2914)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Resumee zu 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].

0.004052635 = product of:
  0.012157904 = sum of:
    0.012157904 = product of:
      0.03647371 = sum of:
        0.03647371 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03647371 = score(doc=3276,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The originality of this book, which deals with such a new subject matter, lies in the application of methods and concepts never used before - such as Ontologies and Taxonomies, as well as Thesauri - to the ordering of knowledge based on primary information. Chapters in the book also examine the study of Ontologies, Taxonomies and Thesauri from the perspective of Systematics and General Systems Theory. "Ontologies, Taxonomy and Thesauri in Information Organisation and Retrieval" will be extremely useful to those operating within the network of related fields, which includes Documentation and Information Science.

0.0034387745 = product of:
  0.0103163235 = sum of:
    0.0103163235 = product of:
      0.03094897 = sum of:
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=1376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1376, 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=1376)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Thesauri are the most important tools for information and knowledge organization, and they undergo regular improvements according to the rapid development of new requirements and affordances of emerging information techniques. This paper attempts to integrate ontology into the conceptual organization scheme of thesauri and proposes a new solution to extend the functionality of thesauri based on ontological features, which is termed here as an onto-thesaurus. In this study, a prototype system named the Chinese Information Science and Information Service onto-thesaurus system (CIS&IS), was developed to analyze ontothesaurus with the category of information science and information service in the Chinese Topic Classification Dictionary with a two-stage approach. The first stage aims to define and construct the onto-thesaurus. The second stage aims to realize the evolution function of onto-thesaurus. The main purpose of this system was to achieve the function of self-learning and auto-evolution and to enable a much more effective conceptual retrieval by the newly proposed onto-thesaurus.

0.0034387745 = product of:
  0.0103163235 = sum of:
    0.0103163235 = product of:
      0.03094897 = sum of:
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=1656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1656, 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=1656)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0034387745 = product of:
  0.0103163235 = sum of:
    0.0103163235 = product of:
      0.03094897 = sum of:
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=3485,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.