Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010752733 = product of:
  0.032258198 = sum of:
    0.032258198 = product of:
      0.064516395 = sum of:
        0.064516395 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064516395 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Pages

S.11-22

0.007044196 = product of:
  0.021132588 = sum of:
    0.021132588 = product of:
      0.042265177 = sum of:
        0.042265177 = weight(_text_:management in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042265177 = score(doc=2497,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 2497, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2497)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

The paper describes current work on the generation of a thesaurus format from the schedules of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition (BC2). The practical problems that occur in moving from a concept based approach to a terminological approach cluster around issues of vocabulary control that are not fully addressed in a systematic structure. These difficulties can be exacerbated within domains in the humanities because large numbers of culture specific terms may need to be accommodated in any thesaurus. The ways in which these problems can be resolved within the context of a semi-automated approach to the thesaurus generation have consequences for the management of classification data in the source vocabulary. The way in which the vocabulary is marked up for the purpose of machine manipulation is described, and some of the implications for editorial policy are discussed and examples given. The value of the classification notation as a language independent representation and mapping tool should not be sacrificed in such an exercise.

0.0053763664 = product of:
  0.016129099 = sum of:
    0.016129099 = product of:
      0.032258198 = sum of:
        0.032258198 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032258198 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16675162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 1.2021 14:24:32

0.0029885992 = product of:
  0.008965798 = sum of:
    0.008965798 = product of:
      0.017931595 = sum of:
        0.017931595 = weight(_text_:management in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017931595 = score(doc=1978,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16050325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047618426 = queryNorm
            0.11172107 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Linguists in the structuralist tradition (e.g., Lyons, 1977; Saussure, 1959) have asserted that concepts cannot be defined on their own but only in relation to other concepts. Semantic relations appear to reflect a logical structure in the fundamental nature of thought (Caplan & Herrmann, 1993). Green, Bean, and Myaeng (2002) noted that semantic relations play a critical role in how we represent knowledge psychologically, linguistically, and computationally, and that many systems of knowledge representation start with a basic distinction between entities and relations. Green (2001, p. 3) said that "relationships are involved as we combine simple entities to form more complex entities, as we compare entities, as we group entities, as one entity performs a process on another entity, and so forth. Indeed, many things that we might initially regard as basic and elemental are revealed upon further examination to involve internal structure, or in other words, internal relationships." Concepts and relations are often expressed in language and text. Language is used not just for communicating concepts and relations, but also for representing, storing, and reasoning with concepts and relations. We shall examine the nature of semantic relations from a linguistic and psychological perspective, with an emphasis on relations expressed in text. The usefulness of semantic relations in information science, especially in ontology construction, information extraction, information retrieval, question-answering, and text summarization is discussed. Research and development in information science have focused on concepts and terms, but the focus will increasingly shift to the identification, processing, and management of relations to achieve greater effectiveness and refinement in information science techniques. Previous chapters in ARIST on natural language processing (Chowdhury, 2003), text mining (Trybula, 1999), information retrieval and the philosophy of language (Blair, 2003), and query expansion (Efthimiadis, 1996) provide a background for this discussion, as semantic relations are an important part of these applications.