Search (229 results, page 11 of 12)

0.0015127839 = product of:
  0.0030255679 = sum of:
    0.0030255679 = product of:
      0.0060511357 = sum of:
        0.0060511357 = weight(_text_:a in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060511357 = score(doc=4800,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 3695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=3695,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3695, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3695)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The concepts of simplicity and complexity play major roles in information storage and retrieval in knowledge organizations. This paper reports an investigation of these concepts in the structure of descriptors. The main purpose of simplicity is to decrease the number of words in the construction of descriptors as this idea affects semantic relations, recall and precision. ISO 25964 has affirmed the purpose of simplicity by requiring splitting compound terms into simpler concepts. This work aims to elaborate the standard methods of evaluation by providing a more detailed evaluation of the descriptors structure and identifying effective factors in simplicity and complexity results in the structure of thesauri descriptors. The research population is taken from the descriptors of the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Thesaurus, the Persian Cultural Thesaurus (ASFA) and the Chemical Thesaurus. This research was conducted using the statistical and content analysis method. In this research we propose a new quantitative approach as well as novel indicators and indices involving Simplicity and Factoring Ratios to evaluate the descriptors structure. The results will be useful in the verification, selection and maintenance purposes in knowledge organizations and the inquiry method can be further developed in the field of ontology evaluation.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 2916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=2916,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2916, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2916)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=2964,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2964, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2964)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although the technical, mathematical and linguistic principles of search date back to the early 1960s and enterprise search applications have been commercially available since the 1980s; it is only since the launch of Microsoft SharePoint 2010 and the integration of the Apache Lucene and Solr projects in 2010 that there has been a wider adoption of enterprise search applications. Surveys carried out over the last five years indicate that although enterprises accept that search applications are essential in locating information, there has not been any significant investment in search teams to support these applications. Where taxonomies, thesauri and metadata have been used to improve the search user interface and enhance the search experience, the indications are that levels of search satisfaction are significantly higher. The challenges faced by search managers in developing and maintaining these tools include a lack of published research on the use of these tools and difficulty in recruiting search team members with the requisite skills and experience. There would seem to be an important and immediate opportunity to bring together the research, knowledge organization and enterprise search communities to explore how good practice in the use of taxonomies, thesauri and metadata in enterprise search can be established, enhanced and promoted.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 5997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=5997,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 5997, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5997)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Thesauri are Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS), that arise from the consensus of wide communities. They have been in use for many years and are regularly updated. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals for indexing and searching, today there is a demand for conceptual vocabularies that enable inferencing by machines. The development of the Semantic Web has brought a new opportunity for thesauri, but thesauri also face the challenge of proving that they add value to it. The evolution of thesauri toward their integration with the Semantic Web is examined. Elements and structures in the thesaurus standard, ISO 25964, and SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System), the Semantic Web standard for representing KOS, are reviewed and compared. Moreover, the integrity rules of thesauri are contrasted with the axioms of SKOS. How SKOS has been applied to represent some real thesauri is taken into account. Three thesauri are chosen for this aim: AGROVOC, EuroVoc and the UNESCO Thesaurus. Based on the results of this comparison and analysis, the benefits that Semantic Web technologies offer to thesauri, how thesauri can contribute to the Semantic Web, and the challenges that would help to improve their integration with the Semantic Web are discussed.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=2291,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Specifications are presented for software designed to support manual development and maintenance of information retrieval thesauri. The specifications are intended to support both evaluation of existing packages for acquisition and design of custom software. Specialized requirements of thesaurus support are emphasized over more general database management requirements. Requirements for integration with larger systems and for the user interface are summarized. Relationships specified by the ANSI standard should be supported, and the relationships should be validated to avoid introduction of conflicting relationships. Flexibility in availability of note and date fields is important, and where required, term classifications should be available. Maintenance procedures should include provision for feedback on the impact of changes, as well as appropriate levels of approval for changes. A wide variety of online displays and printed reports are required, including but not limited to alphabetical, hierarchical, and rotated. In addition, it is desirable to be absle to search the thesaurus database with such capabilities as Boolean logic and proximity operators

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=708,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 708, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=708)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This Standard presents guidelines and conventions for the contents, display, construction, testing, maintenance, and management of monolingual controlled vocabularies. This Standard focuses on controlled vocabularies that are used for the representation of content objects in knowledge organization systems including lists, synonym rings, taxonomies, and thesauri. This Standard should be regarded as a set of recommendations based on preferred techniques and procedures. Optional procedures are, however, sometimes described, e.g., for the display of terms in a controlled vocabulary. The primary purpose of vocabulary control is to achieve consistency in the description of content objects and to facilitate retrieval. Vocabulary control is accomplished by three principal methods: defining the scope, or meaning, of terms; using the equivalence relationship to link synonymous and nearly synonymous terms; and distinguishing among homographs.

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=1148,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1148, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1148)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Relationships between the terms in thesauri and Indexes are the subject of national and international standards. The standards for thesauri enumerate and provide criteria for three basic types of relationship: equivalence, hierarchical, and associative. Standards and guidelines for indexes draw an the thesaurus standards to provide less detailed guidance for showing relationships between the terms used in an Index. The international standard for multilingual thesauri adds recommendations for assuring equal treatment of the languages of a thesaurus. The present standards were developed when lookup and search were essentially manual, and the value of the kinds of relationships has never been determined. It is not clear whether users understand or can use the distinctions between kinds of relationships. On the other hand, sophisticated text analysis systems may be able both to assist with development of more powerful term relationship schemes and to use the relationships to improve retrieval.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 2658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=2658,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2658, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2658)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The use of thesaurus-enhanced search tools is an the increase. This paper provides an insight into end-users interaction with and perceptions of such tools. In particular the overlap between users' initial query formulation and thesaurus structures is investigated. This investigation involved the performance of genuine search tasks an the CAB Abstracts database by academic users in the domain of veterinary medicine. The perception of these users regarding the nature and usefulness of the terms suggested from the thesaurus during the search interaction is reported. The results indicated that around 80% of terms entered were matched either exactly or partially to thesaurus terms. Users found over 90% of the terms suggested to be close to their search topics and where terms were selected they indicated that around 50% were to support a 'narrowing down' activity. These findings have implications for the design of thesaurus-enhanced interfaces.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 4863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=4863,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4863, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4863)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The World Wide Web and the use of HTML-based information displays has greatly increased access to online information sources, but at the same time limits the ways in which they can be used. By the same token, Web-based indexing and search engines give us access to the full text of online documents, but make it difficult to access them in any kind of organized, systematic way. For years before the advent of the Internet, lexicographers built weIl-structured subject thesauri to organize large collections of documents. These have since been converted into electronic form and even put online, but in ways that are largely uncoordinated and not useful for searching. This paper describes some of the ways in which XML-based Web services could be used to coordinate subject thesauri and other online vocabulary sources to create a "Thesauro-Web" that could be used by both searchers and indexers to improve subject access an the Internet.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 5009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=5009,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 5009, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5009)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The MACS (Multilingual access to subjects) project is one of the many projects that are currently exploring solutions to multilingual subject access to online catalogs. Its strategy is to develop a Web based link and search interface through which equivalents between three Subject Heading Languages: SWD/RSWK (Schlagwortnormdatei/Regeln für den Schlagwortkatalog) for German, RAMEAU (Repertoire d'Autorite-Matière Encyclopedique et Alphabetique Unifie) for French and LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings) for English can be created and maintained, and by which users can access online databases in the language of their choice. Factors that have lead to this approach will be examined and the MACS linking strategy will be explained. The trend to using mapping or linking strategies between different controlled vocabularies to create multilingual access challenges the traditional view of the multilingual thesaurus.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=1656,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1656, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1656)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 2203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=2203,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2203, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2203)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper gives an overview of the history, development, and structure of the electronic thesauri produced and maintained by the Getty Research Institute (GRI). We describe the evolution of the Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT®), the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN®), and the Union List of Artist Names (ULAN®) as multilingual, cross-cultural knowledge organization systems (KOS); the factors that make them unique; and their potential, when expressed as Linked Open Data (LOD) to play a key role in the Semantic Web.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 2826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=2826,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2826, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper is aimed at assessing the potential of interoperable knowledge organization systems to respond to search strategies in order to retrieve information from databases in the areas of health and biomedicine. An analysis was done on the semantic consistency of synonym grouping of a term selected from the Metathesaurus, the Unified Medical Language System of the National Library of Medicine, based on the characteristics of equivalence proposed in ISO 25964: 2: 2011 and based on the following categories: semantic, morphological, syntactic and typographical variations. This paper highlights the importance of understanding the results of automatic mapping as well as the need for characterization, evaluation and selection of equivalences for preparation of consistent search strategies and presentation of search results in scientific work methodologies.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 2911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=2911,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2911, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2911)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=3678,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 5210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=5210,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 5210, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 7128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=7128,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 7128, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7128)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 1170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=1170,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1170, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1170)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a