Search (229 results, page 2 of 12)

0.003357759 = product of:
  0.006715518 = sum of:
    0.006715518 = product of:
      0.013431036 = sum of:
        0.013431036 = weight(_text_:a in 4713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013431036 = score(doc=4713,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.3089162 = fieldWeight in 4713, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4713)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.003357759 = product of:
  0.006715518 = sum of:
    0.006715518 = product of:
      0.013431036 = sum of:
        0.013431036 = weight(_text_:a in 7538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013431036 = score(doc=7538,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.3089162 = fieldWeight in 7538, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7538)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0029308924 = product of:
  0.005861785 = sum of:
    0.005861785 = product of:
      0.01172357 = sum of:
        0.01172357 = weight(_text_:a in 3744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01172357 = score(doc=3744,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.26964417 = fieldWeight in 3744, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3744)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes a specific application of domain analysis to the construction of thesauri to exploit domain analysis' ability to construct valid domain representations and determine fuzzy limits that normally define specific domains. The system employs a structure, called a Software Thesaurus (developed from a descriptor thesaurus), as a repository to store the information regarding specific domains. The domain representation is constructued semi automatically and can be used as a means of semiautomatic thesaurus generation

Type

a

0.0028780792 = product of:
  0.0057561584 = sum of:
    0.0057561584 = product of:
      0.011512317 = sum of:
        0.011512317 = weight(_text_:a in 500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011512317 = score(doc=500,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 500, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=500)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0027415988 = product of:
  0.0054831975 = sum of:
    0.0054831975 = product of:
      0.010966395 = sum of:
        0.010966395 = weight(_text_:a in 4819) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010966395 = score(doc=4819,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 4819, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4819)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0027415988 = product of:
  0.0054831975 = sum of:
    0.0054831975 = product of:
      0.010966395 = sum of:
        0.010966395 = weight(_text_:a in 3596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010966395 = score(doc=3596,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 3596, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 1987 the Department of Library and Information Science at the University of South Africa committed itself to a research programme on community information. As part of that programme, the Department's Centre for Library and Information Service is compiling a prototype resource file of community information for a well-defined community in the Pretoria municipality. To retrieve information from the file, the Centre adopted an alphabetical approach, which necessitated a thesaurus. Instead of developing a thesaurus for the specific needs of the particular community, a "master" thesaurus, applicable to South African communities can be generated. The development of this South African "master" thesaurus for community information is described and the results reviewed.

Type

a

0.0027415988 = product of:
  0.0054831975 = sum of:
    0.0054831975 = product of:
      0.010966395 = sum of:
        0.010966395 = weight(_text_:a in 6076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010966395 = score(doc=6076,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 6076, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6076)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A review of ANSI-NISO Z39-19-1993 intended for indexers

Type

a

0.0027415988 = product of:
  0.0054831975 = sum of:
    0.0054831975 = product of:
      0.010966395 = sum of:
        0.010966395 = weight(_text_:a in 2091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010966395 = score(doc=2091,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 2091, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

During the BMWI granted project "Print-IT", the need of a thesaurus based uniform and consistent language for the German printing industry became evident. In this paper we introduce a semi-automatic construction approach for such a thesaurus and present a workflow which supports users to generate thesaurus typical information structures from relevant digitalized resources with the help of common IT-tools.

Type

a

0.0027134789 = product of:
  0.0054269577 = sum of:
    0.0054269577 = product of:
      0.0108539155 = sum of:
        0.0108539155 = weight(_text_:a in 2112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108539155 = score(doc=2112,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.24964198 = fieldWeight in 2112, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2112)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A metathesaurus is a set made of a reference thesaurus and various forms of indexing languages attached to it. Among these, the sub-thesauri cover restricted fields in more detail. A functional definition of the sub-thesaurus is proposed: elements, relationships, sub-systems and rules to be respected to preserve the possibilities for communication via the reference thesaurus. Considerations on the methods of presentation, the use and the compilation are also given

Type

a

0.0026273148 = product of:
  0.0052546295 = sum of:
    0.0052546295 = product of:
      0.010509259 = sum of:
        0.010509259 = weight(_text_:a in 3533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010509259 = score(doc=3533,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.24171482 = fieldWeight in 3533, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3533)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In industrialized countries, the rapidity of development has not taken into account the fact that it would be opportune to formalize "niche" knowledge. There is an ever-growing need for a written formalization of tacit knowledge. The aim of this activity consists in building specialized knowledge collections, which are useful to help and to guarantee the continuity of small and medium-sized business during successions, and to guarantee staff training related to specific practices. To reach this aim, this work presents the construction of a faceted thesaurus (GoldThes) for the domain of goldsmith handcraftsmanship, which tries to classify and organize a domain extracted from a regional context. The use of this kind of system demonstrated how classifying and organizing information into multi-dimensional hierarchies makes it more accessible than using a single taxonomy, that is a unique hierarchical dimension.

Type

a

0.0025645308 = product of:
  0.0051290616 = sum of:
    0.0051290616 = product of:
      0.010258123 = sum of:
        0.010258123 = weight(_text_:a in 5096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010258123 = score(doc=5096,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 5096, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5096)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

Type

a

0.0025645308 = product of:
  0.0051290616 = sum of:
    0.0051290616 = product of:
      0.010258123 = sum of:
        0.010258123 = weight(_text_:a in 5194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010258123 = score(doc=5194,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 5194, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5194)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The derivation of a thesaurus from a new schedule for UDC class 61 Medical Sciences which has been restructured into a faceted classification system using the framework provided by the Bliss Bibliographic Classification. The resulting thesaurus is intended to serve as a tool for indexing and searching but will also be the index to the 61 class itself. The background for the research is briefly described. The sources and methods used to select the descriptors and define their relationships are discussed. Problems are identified and some solutions proposed

Type

a

0.0025268705 = product of:
  0.005053741 = sum of:
    0.005053741 = product of:
      0.010107482 = sum of:
        0.010107482 = weight(_text_:a in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010107482 = score(doc=3726,freq=74.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.23247388 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
              8.602325 = tf(freq=74.0), with freq of:
                74.0 = termFreq=74.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is a comparative analysis of the term ontology, used in the computer science domain, with the term thesaurus, used in the information science domain. The aim of the study is to establish the main convergence points of these two knowledge representation instruments and to point out their differences. In order to fulfill this goal an analytical-Synthetic method was applied to extract the meaning underlying each of the selected definitions of the instruments. The definitions were obtained from texts weIl accepted by the research community from both areas. The definitions were applied to a KWIC system in order to rotate the terms that were examined qualitatively and quantitatively. We concluded that thesauri and ontologies operate at the same knowledge level, the epistemological level, in spite of different origins and purposes.

Content

"Thesaurus" definitions taken from the information science literature "A thesaurus is a controlled vocabulary arranged in a known order and structured so that equivalence, homographic, hierarchical, and associative relationships among terms are displayed clearly and identified by standardized relationship indicators that are employed reciprocally." (ANSI/NISO Z39-19-1993) "Thesaurus is a specialized, normalized, postcoordinate language used for documentaries means, where the linguistic elements that composes it - single or composed terms - are related among themselves syntactically and semantically." (Translated into English by the authors from the original in Portuguese: Currás 1995, 88.) "[...] an authority file, which can lead the user from one concept to another via various heuristic or intuitive paths." (Howerton 1965 apud Gilchrist 1971, 5) " [...] is a lexical authority list, without notation, which differs from an alphabetical subject heading list in that the lexical units, being smaller, are more amenable to post-coordinate indexing." (Gilchrist 1971,2) [...] "a dynamic controlled vocabulary of terms related semantically and by generic relation covering a specific knowledge domain." (Translated into English by the authors from the original in Portuguese: UNESCO 1973, 6.) [...] "a terminological control device used in the translation of the natural language of the documents, from the indexers or from the users in a more restricted system language (documentation language, information language)." (Translated into English by the authors from the original in Portuguese: UNESCO 1973,6.)
"Ontologies" definitions taken from the computer science literature "[...] ontology is a representation vocabulary, often specialized to some domain or subject matter." (Chandrasekaran et al. 1999, 1) "[...] ontology is sometimes used to refer to a body of knowledge describing some domain, typically a commonsense knowledge domain, using a representation vocabulary." (Chandrasekaran et al. 1999, 1) "An ontology is a declarative model of the terms and relationships in a domain." (Eriksson et al. 1994, 1) " [...] an ontology is the (unspecified) conceptual system which we may assume to underlie a particular knowledge base." (Guarino and Giaretta 1995, 1) Ontology as a representation of a conceptual system via a logical theory". (Guarino and Giaretta 1995, 1) "An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization." (Gruber 1993, 1) "[...] An ontology is a formal description of entities and their properties, relationships, constraints, behaviors." (Gruninger and Fox 1995, 1) "An ontology is set of terms, associated with definitions in natural language and, if possible, using formal relations and constraints, about some domain of interest ..." (Hovy 1998, 2) "Fach Ontology is a set of terms of interest in a particular information domain, expressed using DL ..." (Mena et al. 1996, 3) "[...] An ontology is a hierarchically structured set of terms for describing a domain that can be used as a skeletal foundation for a knowledge base." (Swartout et al. 1996, 1) "An ontology may take a variety of forms, but necessarily it will include a vocabulary of terms and some specification of their meaning." (Uschold 1996,3) "Ontologies are agreements about shared conceptualizations." (Uschold and Grunninger 1996, 6) "[...] a vocabulary of terms and a specification of their relationships." (Wiederhold 1994, 6)

Type

a

0.002496333 = product of:
  0.004992666 = sum of:
    0.004992666 = product of:
      0.009985332 = sum of:
        0.009985332 = weight(_text_:a in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009985332 = score(doc=2915,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.22966442 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.002496333 = product of:
  0.004992666 = sum of:
    0.004992666 = product of:
      0.009985332 = sum of:
        0.009985332 = weight(_text_:a in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009985332 = score(doc=592,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.22966442 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify the most important factors and features in the evolution of thesauri and ontologies through a dialectic model. This model relies on a dialectic process or idea which could be discovered via a dialectic method. This method has focused on identifying the logical relationship between a beginning proposition, or an idea called a thesis, a negation of that idea called the antithesis, and the result of the conflict between the two ideas, called a synthesis. During the creation of knowl­edge organization systems (KOSs), the identification of logical relations between different ideas has been made possible through the consideration and use of the most influential methods and tools such as dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, thesaurus, micro-, macro- and metathesauri, ontology, lower, middle and upper level ontologies. The analysis process has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a dialectic method and documentary method as the reasoning process. This supports our arguments and synthesizes a method for the analysis of research results. Confirmed by the research results, the principle of unity has shown to be the most important factor in the development and evolution of the structure of knowl­edge organization systems and their types. There are various types of unity when considering the analysis of logical relations. These include the principle of unity of alphabetical order, unity of science, semantic unity, structural unity and conceptual unity. The results have clearly demonstrated a movement from plurality to unity in the assembling of the complex structure of knowl­edge organization systems to increase information and knowl­edge storage and retrieval performance.

Type

a

0.0024924895 = product of:
  0.004984979 = sum of:
    0.004984979 = product of:
      0.009969958 = sum of:
        0.009969958 = weight(_text_:a in 5279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009969958 = score(doc=5279,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 5279, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper demonstrates the application of conventional database design techniques to thesaurus representation. The thesaurus is considered as a printed document, as a semantic net, and as a relational database to be used in conjunction with an intelligent information retrieval system. Some issues raised by analysis of two standard thesauri include: the prevalence of compound terms and the representation of term structure; thesaurus redundancy and the extent to which it can be eliminated in machine-readable versions; the difficulty of exploiting thesaurus knowledge originally designed for human rather than automatic interpretation; deriving 'strength of association' measures between terms in a thesaurus considered as a semantic net; facet representation and the need for variations in the data model to cater for structural differences between thesauri. A complete schema of database tables is presented, with an outline suggestion for using the stored information when matching one or more thesaurus terms with a user's query

Type

a

0.0024924895 = product of:
  0.004984979 = sum of:
    0.004984979 = product of:
      0.009969958 = sum of:
        0.009969958 = weight(_text_:a in 1622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009969958 = score(doc=1622,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 1622, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Thesauri are used to provide controlled vocabularies for resource classification. Their use can greatly assist document discovery because thesauri man date a consistent shared terminology for describing documents. A particular thesauras classifies documents according to an information community's needs. As a result, there are many different thesaural schemas. This has led to a proliferation of schema-specific thesaural systems. In our research, we exploit schematic regularities to design a generic thesaural ontology and specfiy it as a markup language. The language provides a common representational framework in which to encode the idiosyncrasies of specific thesauri. This approach has several advantages: it offers consistent syntax and semantics in which to express thesauri; it allows general purpose thesaural applications to leverage many thesauri; and it supports a single thesaural user interface by which information communities can consistently organise, score and retrieve electronic documents.

0.0024924895 = product of:
  0.004984979 = sum of:
    0.004984979 = product of:
      0.009969958 = sum of:
        0.009969958 = weight(_text_:a in 4708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009969958 = score(doc=4708,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 4708, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4708)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The need for thesauri to help users in their search for information in online information systems has been discussed for several decades. Many wide-ranging contributions have been made to solve this problem. Nevertheless, investigation is needed to design a thesaurus structure based on what is relevant for users and generators of information within a specific subject domain. Explores the possibility of creating a thesaurus from the cognitive viewpoint. This approach is based on a system that organizes its representation of knowledge or its classification as closely as possible to the authors' and users' images of the subject domain with the objective of increasing the interaction between users and texts, and thus the communication in a given information retrieval system. Discourse analysis is used as a main method to identify the categories and its relevance for building such a structure is discussed

Type

a

0.002477056 = product of:
  0.004954112 = sum of:
    0.004954112 = product of:
      0.009908224 = sum of:
        0.009908224 = weight(_text_:a in 8200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009908224 = score(doc=8200,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 8200, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Discusses the background to and the process of thesaurus construction in an interdisciplinary soft science subject, environmental protection, for a specific government organization, the Environmental Protection Authority, Western Australia. Discusses and recommends methods of construction and develops a decision making checklists to aid in managing the task. Concentrates on the difficulties of creating a thesaurus in the real world compared to textual advice on thesaurus construction

Type

a

0.002477056 = product of:
  0.004954112 = sum of:
    0.004954112 = product of:
      0.009908224 = sum of:
        0.009908224 = weight(_text_:a in 5169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009908224 = score(doc=5169,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 5169, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Open system protocols for search and retrieval have not provided explicit ways in which to implement thesaurus-aided searching. A number of different approaches within the existing protocols, as well as a proposed service, are evaluated. A general approach to implementing thesaurus-aided searching, particularly during consultation of a thesaurus, requires an entirely new service, whose main features are described

Type

a