Search (101 results, page 2 of 6)

0.019961866 = product of:
  0.07984746 = sum of:
    0.07984746 = weight(_text_:term in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07984746 = score(doc=613,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.3645336 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - To evaluate the extent to which familiarity with search topics affects the ways in which users select and browse search terms in a thesaurus-enhanced search setting. Design/methodology/approach - An experimental methodology was adopted to study users' search behaviour in an operational information retrieval environment. Findings - Topic familiarity and subject knowledge influence some search and interaction behaviours. Searches involving moderately and very familiar topics were associated with browsing around twice as many thesaurus terms as was the case for unfamiliar topics. Research limitations/implications - Some search behaviours such as thesaurus browsing and term selection could be used as an indication of user levels of topic familiarity. Practical implications - The results of this study provide design implications as to how to develop personalized search interfaces where users with varying levels of familiarity with search topics can carry out searches. Originality/value - This paper establishes the importance of topic familiarity characteristics and the effects of those characteristics on users' interaction with search interfaces enhanced with semantic tools such as thesauri.

0.019761236 = product of:
  0.079044946 = sum of:
    0.079044946 = weight(_text_:term in 7734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079044946 = score(doc=7734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.36086982 = fieldWeight in 7734, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7734)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In principle, the 'knowledge' encoded in a thesaurus can be exploited in many ways to help users clarify their information needs and enhance query performance, but attempts to automate this process via AI techniques face many practical difficulties. In the short term it may be more useful to improve support for direct interactive use of thesauri. We discuss some of the issues which have arisen when building an interface for thesaurus navigation and query enhancement, drawing on logs and user feedback from ongoing small-scale experiments

0.019761236 = product of:
  0.079044946 = sum of:
    0.079044946 = weight(_text_:term in 7735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079044946 = score(doc=7735,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.36086982 = fieldWeight in 7735, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7735)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Terminological definitions establish relations between terms and concepts by specifying the characteristics of each concept and locating it in the knowledge area. Using results from a largely automatic analysis of standardised (BSI/ISO) definitions, this paper demonstrates that technical definitions are rich in term content and that they contain a number of relations which can be used in the construction of a terminological control device such as a terminological thesaurus. Such a thesaurus will contain the keyconcepts of the domain, and can be used by technical authors to produce texts with greater consistency of terminology

0.019761236 = product of:
  0.079044946 = sum of:
    0.079044946 = weight(_text_:term in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079044946 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.36086982 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) was designed as a comprehensive vocabulary in its domain. Its faceted, hierarchically arranged structure allows for powerful indexing and retrieval capabilities, while its planned network of related term relationships makes it especially amenable to natural language processing. To gauge the AAT's effectiveness as a search tool against natural language queries, an experiment was carried out on DIALOG. There are 3 art data bases on DIALOG and there are also a number of other data bases that contain art related material. The experiment used queries culled from reference librarians at art and architecture libraries.

0.018703869 = product of:
  0.037407737 = sum of:
    0.0035313342 = product of:
      0.014125337 = sum of:
        0.014125337 = weight(_text_:based in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014125337 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.09986758 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.033876404 = weight(_text_:term in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033876404 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.1546585 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

T.1: Today's thesauri are mostly electronic tools, having moved on from the paper-based era when thesaurus standards were first developed. They are built and maintained with the support of software and need to integrate with other software, such as search engines and content management systems. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals trained in indexing and searching, today there is a demand for vocabularies that untrained users will find to be intuitive. ISO 25964 makes the transition needed for the world of electronic information management. However, part 1 retains the assumption that human intellect is usually involved in the selection of indexing terms and in the selection of search terms. If both the indexer and the searcher are guided to choose the same term for the same concept, then relevant documents will be retrieved. This is the main principle underlying thesaurus design, even though a thesaurus built for human users may also be applied in situations where computers make the choices. Efficient exchange of data is a vital component of thesaurus management and exploitation. Hence the inclusion in this standard of recommendations for exchange formats and protocols. Adoption of these will facilitate interoperability between thesaurus management systems and the other computer applications, such as indexing and retrieval systems, that will utilize the data. Thesauri are typically used in post-coordinate retrieval systems, but may also be applied to hierarchical directories, pre-coordinate indexes and classification systems. Increasingly, thesaurus applications need to mesh with others, such as automatic categorization schemes, free-text search systems, etc. Part 2 of ISO 25964 describes additional types of structured vocabulary and gives recommendations to enable interoperation of the vocabularies at all stages of the information storage and retrieval process.

0.01795325 = product of:
  0.0359065 = sum of:
    0.00823978 = product of:
      0.03295912 = sum of:
        0.03295912 = weight(_text_:based in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03295912 = score(doc=2362,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.027666723 = product of:
      0.055333447 = sum of:
        0.055333447 = weight(_text_:assessment in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055333447 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.2134973 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The paper analysed here is a kind of position paper. In order to get a better under-standing of the reported work I used the retrieval interface of the thesaurus, the so-called NCI DTS Browser accessible via the Web3, and I perused the cited OWL file4 with numerous "Find" and "Find next" string searches. In addition the file was im-ported into Protégé 2000, Release 2.0, with OWL Plugin 1.0 and Racer Plugin 1.7.14. At the end of the paper's introduction the authors say: "In the following sections, this paper will describe the terminology development process at NCI, and the issues associated with converting a description logic based nomenclature to a semantically rich OWL ontology." While I will not deal with the first part, i.e. the terminology development process at NCI, I do not see the thesaurus as a description logic based nomenclature, or its cur-rent state and conversion already result in a "rich" OWL ontology. What does "rich" mean here? According to my view there is a great quantity of concepts and links but a very poor description logic structure which enables inferences. And what does the fol-lowing really mean, which is said a few lines previously: "Although editors have defined a number of named ontologic relations to support the description-logic based structure of the Thesaurus, additional relation-ships are considered for inclusion as required to support dependent applications."
According to my findings several relations available in the thesaurus query interface as "roles", are not used, i.e. there are not yet any assertions with them. And those which are used do not contribute to complete concept definitions of concepts which represent thesaurus main entries. In other words: The authors claim to already have a "description logic based nomenclature", where there is not yet one which deserves that title by being much more than a thesaurus with strict subsumption and additional inheritable semantic links. In the last section of the paper the authors say: "The most time consuming process in this conversion was making a careful analysis of the Thesaurus to understand the best way to translate it into OWL." "For other conversions, these same types of distinctions and decisions must be made. The expressive power of a proprietary encoding can vary widely from that in OWL or RDF. Understanding the original semantics and engineering a solution that most closely duplicates it is critical for creating a useful and accu-rate ontology." My question is: What decisions were made and are they exemplary, can they be rec-ommended as "the best way"? I raise strong doubts with respect to that, and I miss more profound discussions of the issues at stake. The following notes are dedicated to a critical description and assessment of the results of that conversion activity. They are written in a tutorial style more or less addressing students, but myself being a learner especially in the field of medical knowledge representation I do not speak "ex cathedra".

0.016956761 = product of:
  0.033913523 = sum of:
    0.011652809 = product of:
      0.046611235 = sum of:
        0.046611235 = weight(_text_:based in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046611235 = score(doc=156,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.3295462 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.022260714 = product of:
      0.04452143 = sum of:
        0.04452143 = weight(_text_:22 in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04452143 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The present study investigates the ability of a bibliometric based semi-automatic method to select candidate thesaurus terms from citation contexts. The method consists of document co-citation analysis, citation context analysis, and noun phrase parsing. The investigation is carried out within the specialty area of periodontology. The results clearly demonstrate that the method is able to select important candidate thesaurus terms within the chosen specialty area.

Date

8. 3.2007 19:55:22

0.016938202 = product of:
  0.06775281 = sum of:
    0.06775281 = weight(_text_:term in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06775281 = score(doc=2262,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.309317 = fieldWeight in 2262, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2262)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The biomedical book collection in the Genetech Library and Information Services was first inventoried and cataloged in 1983 when it totaled about 2000 titles. Cataloging records were retrieved from the OCLC system and used as a basis for cataloging. A year of cataloging produced a list of 1900 subject terms. More than one term describing the same concept often appears on the list, and no hierarchical structure related the terms to one another. As the collection grew, the subject catalog became increasingly inconsistent. To bring consistency to subject cataloging, a thesaurus of biomedical terms was constructed using the list of subject headings as a basis. This thesaurus follows the broad categories of the National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings and, with some exceptions, the Guidelines for the Establishment and Development of Monolingual Thesauri. It has enabled the cataloger in providing greater in-depth subject analysis of materials added to the collection and in consistently assigning subject headings to cataloging record.

0.016938202 = product of:
  0.06775281 = sum of:
    0.06775281 = weight(_text_:term in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06775281 = score(doc=2291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.309317 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.016938202 = product of:
  0.06775281 = sum of:
    0.06775281 = weight(_text_:term in 5279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06775281 = score(doc=5279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.309317 = fieldWeight in 5279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5279)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.016938202 = product of:
  0.06775281 = sum of:
    0.06775281 = weight(_text_:term in 55) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06775281 = score(doc=55,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.309317 = fieldWeight in 55, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=55)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The terminological consistency of indexers working with a thesaurus as indexing aid remains low. This suggests that indexers cannot perceive easily or very clearly the meaning of each descriptor available as index term. This paper presents the background nd some of the findings of a small scale experiment designed to study the effect on interindexer terminological consistency of modifying the nature of the semantic information given with descriptors in a thesaurus. The study also provided some insights into the respective usefulness of standardized definitions and of traditional networks of hierarchical and associative relationships as means of providing essential meaning information in the thesaurus used as indexing aid

0.016938202 = product of:
  0.06775281 = sum of:
    0.06775281 = weight(_text_:term in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06775281 = score(doc=1148,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.309317 = fieldWeight in 1148, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1148)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.016938202 = product of:
  0.06775281 = sum of:
    0.06775281 = weight(_text_:term in 2658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06775281 = score(doc=2658,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.309317 = fieldWeight in 2658, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2658)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.014115169 = product of:
  0.056460675 = sum of:
    0.056460675 = weight(_text_:term in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056460675 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.25776416 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports an algorithmic approach to the automatic generation of thesauri for electronic community systems. The techniques used included terms filtering, automatic indexing, and cluster analysis. The testbed for the research was the Worm Community System, which contains a comprehensive library of specialized community data and literature, currently in use by molecular biologists who study the nematode worm. The resulting worm thesaurus included 2709 researchers' names, 798 gene names, 20 experimental methods, and 4302 subject descriptors. On average, each term had about 90 weighted neighbouring terms indicating relevant concepts. The thesaurus was developed as an online search aide. Tests the worm thesaurus in an experiment with 6 worm researchers of varying degrees of expertise and background. The experiment showed that the thesaurus was an excellent 'memory jogging' device and that it supported learning and serendipitous browsing. Despite some occurrences of obvious noise, the system was useful in suggesting relevant concepts for the researchers' queries and it helped improve concept recall. With a simple browsing interface, an automatic thesaurus can become a useful tool for online search and can assist researchers in exploring and traversing a dynamic and complex electronic community system

0.013973304 = product of:
  0.055893216 = sum of:
    0.055893216 = weight(_text_:term in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055893216 = score(doc=1800,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.2551735 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

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

0.013833362 = product of:
  0.055333447 = sum of:
    0.055333447 = product of:
      0.11066689 = sum of:
        0.11066689 = weight(_text_:assessment in 4856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11066689 = score(doc=4856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.4269946 = fieldWeight in 4856, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The process of thesaurus evaluation can enhance the value of a thesaurus in terms of usability, scope, precision and recall. Structural, formative, observational and comparative evaluation techniques are explained along with specific examples of their use. These methods of evaluation can be applied in the assessment of an existing thesaurus or the construction of a new thesaurus. The history of thesauri since 1960, the development of national and international standards, and sources of evaluative literature are also discussed.

0.013071639 = product of:
  0.026143279 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 5005, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5005)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.019080611 = product of:
      0.038161222 = sum of:
        0.038161222 = weight(_text_:22 in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038161222 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5005, 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=5005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

After a period of experiment and evolution in the 1950s and 1960s, a fairly standard format for thesauri was established with the publication of the influential Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) in 1967. This and other early thesauri relied primarily an the presentation of terms in alphabetical order. The value of a classified presentation was subsequently realised, and in particular the technique of facet analysis has profoundly influenced thesaurus evolution. Thesaurofacet and the Art & Architecture Thesaurus have acted as models for two distinct breeds of thesaurus using faceted displays of terms. As of the 1990s, the expansion of end-user access to vast networked resources is imposing further requirements an the style and structure of controlled vocabularies. The international standards for thesauri, first conceived in a print-based era, are badly in need of updating. Work is in hand in the UK and the USA to revise and develop standards in support of electronic thesauri.

Date

22. 9.2007 15:46:13

0.013071639 = product of:
  0.026143279 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.019080611 = product of:
      0.038161222 = sum of:
        0.038161222 = weight(_text_:22 in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038161222 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 260, 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=260)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The need for Persian thesauri became apparent during the late 1960s with the advent of documentation centres in Iran. The first Persian controlled vocabulary was published by IRANDOC in 1977. Other centres worked on translations of existing thesauri, but it was soon realised that these efforts did not meet the needs of the centres. After the Islamic revolution in 1979, the foundation of new centres intensified the need for Persian thesauri, especially in the fields of history and government documents. Also, during the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian research centres produced reports in scientific and technical fields, both to support military requirements and to meet society's needs. In order to provide a comprehensive thesaurus, the Council of Scientific Research of Iran approved a project for the compilation of such a work. Nowadays, 12 Persian thesauri are available and others are being prepared, based on the literary corpus and conformity with characteristics of Iranian culture.

Source

Indexer. 25(2006) no.1, S.19-22

0.011977118 = product of:
  0.047908474 = sum of:
    0.047908474 = weight(_text_:term in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047908474 = score(doc=3726,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.21872015 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.011292135 = product of:
  0.04516854 = sum of:
    0.04516854 = weight(_text_:term in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04516854 = score(doc=549,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.20621133 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

LCSH is known as such since 1975. It always has created headings to serve the LC collections instead of a theoretical basis. It started to replace cross reference codes by thesaural codes in 1986, in a mechanical fashion. It was in no way transformed into a thesaurus. Its encyclopedic coverage, its pre-coordinate concepts make it substantially distinct, considering that thesauri usually map a restricted field of knowledge and use uniterms. The questions raised are whether the new symbols comply with thesaurus standards and if they are true to one or to several models. Explanations and definitions from other lists of subject headings and thesauri, literature in the field of classification and subject indexing will provide some answers. For instance, see refers from a subject heading not used to another or others used. Exceptionally it will lead from a specific term to a more general one. Some equate a see reference with the equivalence relationship. Such relationships are pointed by USE in LCSH. See also references are made from the broader subject to narrower parts of it and also between associated subjects. They suggest lateral or vertical connexions as well as reciprocal relationships. They serve a coordination purpose for some, lay down a methodical search itinerary for others. Since their inception in the 1950's thesauri have been devised for indexing and retrieving information in the fields of science and technology. Eventually they attended to a number of social sciences and humanities. Research derived from thesauri was voluminous. Numerous guidelines are designed. They did not discriminate between the "hard" sciences and the social sciences. RT relationships are widely but diversely used in numerous controlled vocabularies. LCSH's aim is to achieve a list almost free of RT and SA references. It thus restricts relationships to BT/NT, USE and UF. This raises the question as to whether all fields of knowledge can "fit" in the Procrustean bed of RT/NT, i.e., genus/species relationships. Standard codes were devised. It was soon realized that BT/NT, well suited to the genus/species couple could not signal a whole-part relationship. In LCSH, BT and NT function as reciprocals, the whole-part relationship is taken into account by ISO. It is amply elaborated upon by authors. The part-whole connexion is sometimes studied apart. The decision to replace cross reference codes was an improvement. Relations can now be distinguished through the distinct needs of numerous fields of knowledge are not attended to. Topic inclusion, and topic-subtopic, could provide the missing link where genus/species or whole/part are inadequate. Distinct codes, BT/NT and whole/part, should be provided. Sorting relationships with mechanical means can only lead to confusion.