-
Miller, U.; Teitelbaum, R.: Pre-coordination and post-coordination : past and future (2002)
0.02
0.016857661 = product of:
0.059001815 = sum of:
0.046817202 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046817202 = score(doc=1395,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
0.0121846115 = product of:
0.036553834 = sum of:
0.036553834 = weight(_text_:29 in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036553834 = score(doc=1395,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Abstract
- This article deals with the meaningful processing of information in relation to two systems of Information processing: pre-coordination and post-coordination. The different approaches are discussed, with emphasis an the need for a controlled vocabulary in information retrieval. Assigned indexing, which employs a controlled vocabulary, is described in detail. Types of indexing language can be divided into two broad groups - those using pre-coordinated terms and those depending an post-coordination. They represent two different basic approaches in processing and Information retrieval. The historical development of these two approaches is described, as well as the two tools that apply to these approaches: thesauri and subject headings.
- Source
- Knowledge organization. 29(2002) no.2, S.87-93
- Theme
- Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval
-
Gilchrist, A.: Structure and function in retrieval (2006)
0.01
0.014449425 = product of:
0.050572984 = sum of:
0.040129032 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040129032 = score(doc=5585,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
0.010443954 = product of:
0.03133186 = sum of:
0.03133186 = weight(_text_:29 in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03133186 = score(doc=5585,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This paper forms part of the series "60 years of the best in information research", marking the 60th anniversary of the Journal of Documentation. It aims to review the influence of Brian Vickery's 1971 paper, "Structure and function in retrieval languages". The paper is not an update of Vickery's work, but a comment on a greatly changed environment, in which his analysis still has much validity. Design/methodology/approach - A commentary on selected literature illustrates the continuing relevance of Vickery's ideas. Findings - Generic survey and specific reference are still the main functions of retrieval languages, with minor functional additions such as relevance ranking. New structures are becoming increasingly significant, through developments such as XML. Future development in artificial intelligence hold out new prospects still. Originality/value - The paper shows the continuing relevance of "traditional" ideas of information science from the 1960s and 1970s.
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 62(2006) no.1, S.21-29
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Thesaural relationships (2001)
0.01
0.011172837 = product of:
0.039104927 = sum of:
0.027029924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027029924 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
0.012075002 = product of:
0.036225006 = sum of:
0.036225006 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036225006 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Abstract
- A thesaurus in the controlled vocabulary environment is a tool designed to support effective infonnation retrieval (IR) by guiding indexers and searchers consistently to choose the same terms for expressing a given concept or combination of concepts. Terms in the thesaurus are linked by relationships of three well-known types: equivalence, hierarchical, and associative. The functions and properties of these three basic types and some subcategories are described, as well as some additional relationship types conunonly found in thesauri. Progressive automation of IR processes and the capability for simultaneous searching of vast networked resources are creating some pressures for change in the categorization and consistency of relationships.
- Date
- 22. 9.2007 15:45:57
-
Farradane, J.: Concept organization for information retrieval (1967)
0.01
0.010921738 = product of:
0.076452166 = sum of:
0.076452166 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.076452166 = score(doc=35,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.6617001 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Source
- Information storage and retrieval. 3(1967) S.297-314
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.; Gilchrist, A.; Will, L.: Revision and extension of thesaurus standards (2004)
0.01
0.010444539 = product of:
0.036555883 = sum of:
0.021843476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021843476 = score(doc=2615,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
0.014712405 = weight(_text_:internet in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014712405 = score(doc=2615,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.1304718 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Abstract
- The current standards for monolingual and multilingual thesauri are long overdue for an update. This applies to the international standards ISO 2788 and ISO 5964, as well as the corresponding national standards in several countries and the American standard ANSI/NISO Z39.19. Work is now under way in the UK and in the USA to revise and extend the standards, with particular emphasis on interoperability needs in our world of vast electronic networks. Work in the UK is starting with the British Standards, in the hope of leading on to one international standard to serve all. Some of the issues still under discussion include the treatment of facet analysis, coverage of additional types of controlled vocabulary such as classification schemes, taxonomies and ontologies, and mapping from one vocabulary to another. 1. Are thesaurus standards still needed? Since the 1960s, even before the renowned Cranfield experiments (Cleverdon et al., 1966; Cleverdon, 1967) arguments have raged over the usefulness or otherwise of controlled vocabularies. The case has never been proved definitively one way or the other. At the same time, a recognition has become widespread that no one search method can answer all retrieval requirements. In today's environment of very large networks of resources, the skilled information professional uses a range of techniques. Among these, controlled vocabularies are valued alongside others. The first international standard for monolingual thesauri was issued in 1974. In those days, the main application was for postcoordinate indexing and retrieval from document collections or bibliographic databases. For many information professionals the only practicable alternative to a thesaurus was a classification scheme. And so the thesaurus developed a strong following. After computer systems with full text search capability became widely available, however, the arguments against controlled vocabularies gained more followers. The cost of building and maintaining a thesaurus or a classification scheme was a strong disincentive. Today's databases are typically immense compared with those three decades ago. Full text searching is taken for granted, not just in discrete databases but across all the resources in an intranet or even the Internet. But intranets have brought particular frustration as users discover that despite all the computer power, they cannot find items which they know to be present an the network. So the trend against controlled vocabularies is now being reversed, as many information professionals are turning to them for help. Standards to guide them are still in demand.
-
Svenonius, E.: LCSH: semantics, syntax and specifity (2000)
0.01
0.00960356 = product of:
0.03361246 = sum of:
0.023168506 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023168506 = score(doc=5599,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
0.010443954 = product of:
0.03133186 = sum of:
0.03133186 = weight(_text_:29 in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03133186 = score(doc=5599,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Series
- Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.29, nos.1/2
- Theme
- Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval
-
Svenonius, E.: LCSH: semantics, syntax and specifity (2000)
0.01
0.00960356 = product of:
0.03361246 = sum of:
0.023168506 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023168506 = score(doc=5602,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5602, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5602)
0.010443954 = product of:
0.03133186 = sum of:
0.03133186 = weight(_text_:29 in 5602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03133186 = score(doc=5602,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5602, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5602)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Series
- Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.29, nos.1/2
- Theme
- Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval
-
Hoerman, H.L.; Furniss, K.A.: Turning practice into principles : a comparison of the IFLA Principles underlying Subject Heading Languages (SHLs) and the principles underlying the Library of Congress Subject Headings system (2000)
0.01
0.00960356 = product of:
0.03361246 = sum of:
0.023168506 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023168506 = score(doc=5611,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5611, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5611)
0.010443954 = product of:
0.03133186 = sum of:
0.03133186 = weight(_text_:29 in 5611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03133186 = score(doc=5611,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5611, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5611)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Series
- Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.29, nos.1/2
- Theme
- Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval
-
Fox, E.A.: Lexical relations : enhancing effectiveness of information retrieval systems (1980)
0.01
0.008826098 = product of:
0.061782684 = sum of:
0.061782684 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061782684 = score(doc=5310,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 5310, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5310)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
-
Mooers, C.N.: ¬The indexing language of an information retrieval system (1985)
0.01
0.008413172 = product of:
0.029446103 = sum of:
0.023408601 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023408601 = score(doc=3644,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.20260347 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
0.006037501 = product of:
0.018112503 = sum of:
0.018112503 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018112503 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Abstract
- Calvin Mooers' work toward the resolution of the problem of ambiguity in indexing went unrecognized for years. At the time he introduced the "descriptor" - a term with a very distinct meaning-indexers were, for the most part, taking index terms directly from the document, without either rationalizing them with context or normalizing them with some kind of classification. It is ironic that Mooers' term came to be attached to the popular but unsophisticated indexing methods which he was trying to root out. Simply expressed, what Mooers did was to take the dictionary definitions of terms and redefine them so clearly that they could not be used in any context except that provided by the new definition. He did, at great pains, construct such meanings for over four hundred words; disambiguation and specificity were sought after and found for these words. He proposed that all indexers adopt this method so that when the index supplied a term, it also supplied the exact meaning for that term as used in the indexed document. The same term used differently in another document would be defined differently and possibly renamed to avoid ambiguity. The disambiguation was achieved by using unabridged dictionaries and other sources of defining terminology. In practice, this tends to produce circularity in definition, that is, word A refers to word B which refers to word C which refers to word A. It was necessary, therefore, to break this chain by creating a new, definitive meaning for each word. Eventually, means such as those used by Austin (q.v.) for PRECIS achieved the same purpose, but by much more complex means than just creating a unique definition of each term. Mooers, however, was probably the first to realize how confusing undefined terminology could be. Early automatic indexers dealt with distinct disciplines and, as long as they did not stray beyond disciplinary boundaries, a quick and dirty keyword approach was satisfactory. The trouble came when attempts were made to make a combined index for two or more distinct disciplines. A number of processes have since been developed, mostly involving tagging of some kind or use of strings. Mooers' solution has rarely been considered seriously and probably would be extremely difficult to apply now because of so much interdisciplinarity. But for a specific, weIl defined field, it is still weIl worth considering. Mooers received training in mathematics and physics from the University of Minnesota and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was the founder of Zator Company, which developed and marketed a coded card information retrieval system, and of Rockford Research, Inc., which engages in research in information science. He is the inventor of the TRAC computer language.
- Footnote
- Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.
-
Mai, J.-E.: Actors, domains, and constraints in the design and construction of controlled vocabularies (2008)
0.01
0.008002967 = product of:
0.028010383 = sum of:
0.019307088 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019307088 = score(doc=1921,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1921, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1921)
0.008703294 = product of:
0.026109882 = sum of:
0.026109882 = weight(_text_:29 in 1921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026109882 = score(doc=1921,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1921, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1921)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Abstract
- Classification schemes, thesauri, taxonomies, and other controlled vocabularies play important roles in the organization and retrieval of information in many different environments. While the design and construction of controlled vocabularies have been prescribed at the technical level in great detail over the past decades, the methodological level has been somewhat neglected. However, classification research has in recent years focused on developing approaches to the analysis of users, domains, and activities that could produce requirements for the design of controlled vocabularies. Researchers have often argued that the design, construction, and use of controlled vocabularies need to be based on analyses and understandings of the contexts in which these controlled vocabularies function. While one would assume that the growing body of research on human information behavior might help guide the development of controlled vocabularies shed light on these contexts, unfortunately, much of the research in this area is descriptive in nature and of little use for systems design. This paper discusses these trends and outlines a holistic approach that demonstrates how the design of controlled vocabularies can be informed by investigations of people's interactions with information. This approach is based on the Cognitive Work Analysis framework and outlines several dimensions of human-information interactions. Application of this approach will result is a comprehensive understanding of the contexts in which the controlled vocabulary will function and which can be used for the development of for the development of controlled vocabularies.
- Source
- Knowledge organization. 35(2008) no.1, S.16-29
-
Kobrin, R.Y.: On the principles of terminological work in the creation of thesauri for information retrieval systems (1979)
0.01
0.007722836 = product of:
0.05405985 = sum of:
0.05405985 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05405985 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
-
Vickery, B.C.: Structure and function in retrieval languages (1971)
0.01
0.007722836 = product of:
0.05405985 = sum of:
0.05405985 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05405985 = score(doc=4971,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 4971, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4971)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
-
Evens, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval (2002)
0.01
0.0074009085 = product of:
0.051806357 = sum of:
0.051806357 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051806357 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- Thesaural relations have long been used in information retrieval to enrich queries; they have sometimes been used to cluster documents as well. Sometimes the first query to an information retrieval system yields no results at all, or, what can be even more disconcerting, many thousands of hits. One solution is to rephrase the query, improving the choice of query terms by using related terms of different types. A collection of related terms is often called a thesaurus. This chapter describes the lexical-semantic relations that have been used in building thesauri and summarizes some of the effects of using these relational thesauri in information retrieval experiments
- Theme
- Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
-
Lopes, M.I.: Principles underlying subject heading languages : an international approach (1996)
0.01
0.006688172 = product of:
0.046817202 = sum of:
0.046817202 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046817202 = score(doc=5608,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 5608, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5608)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- Discusses the problems in establishing commonly accepted principles for subject retrieval between different bibliographic systems. The Working Group on Principles Underlying Subject Heading Languages was established to devise general principles for any subject retrieval system and to review existing real systems in the light of such principles and compare them in order to evaluate the extent of their coverage and their application in current practices. Provides a background and history of the Working Group. Discusses the principles underlying subject headings and their purposes and the state of the work and major findings
- Theme
- Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval
-
Vickery, B.B.: Structure and function in retrieval languages (2006)
0.01
0.0066195736 = product of:
0.046337012 = sum of:
0.046337012 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046337012 = score(doc=5584,freq=8.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to summarize the varied structural characteristics which may be present in retrieval languages. Design/methodology/approach - The languages serve varied purposes in information systems, and a number of these are identified. The relations between structure and function are discussed and suggestions made as to the most suitable structures needed for various purposes. Findings - A quantitative approach has been developed: a simple measure is the number of separate terms in a retrieval language, but this has to be related to the scope of its subject field. Some ratio of terms to items in the field seems a more suitable measure of the average specificity of the terms. Other aspects can be quantified - for example, the average number of links in hierarchical chains, or the average number of cross-references in a thesaurus. Originality/value - All the approaches to the analysis of retrieval language reported in this paper are of continuing value. Some practical studies of computer information systems undertaken by Aslib Research Department have suggested a further approach.
-
Tudhope, D.; Alani, H.; Jones, C.: Augmenting thesaurus relationships : possibilities for retrieval (2001)
0.01
0.0061674234 = product of:
0.04317196 = sum of:
0.04317196 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04317196 = score(doc=1520,freq=10.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.37365708 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- This paper discusses issues concerning the augmentation of thesaurus relationships, in light of new application possibilities for retrieval. We first discuss a case study that explored the retrieval potential of an augmented set of thesaurus relationships by specialising standard relationships into richer subtypes, in particular hierarchical geographical containment and the associative relationship. We then locate this work in a broader context by reviewing various attempts to build taxonomies of thesaurus relationships, and conclude by discussing the feasibility of hierarchically augmenting the core set of thesaurus relationships, particularly the associative relationship. We discuss the possibility of enriching the specification and semantics of Related Term (RT relationships), while maintaining compatibility with traditional thesauri via a limited hierarchical extension of the associative (and hierarchical) relationships. This would be facilitated by distinguishing the type of term from the (sub)type of relationship and explicitly specifying semantic categories for terms following a faceted approach. We first illustrate how hierarchical spatial relationships can be used to provide more flexible retrieval for queries incorporating place names in applications employing online gazetteers and geographical thesauri. We then employ a set of experimental scenarios to investigate key issues affecting use of the associative (RT) thesaurus relationships in semantic distance measures. Previous work has noted the potential of RTs in thesaurus search aids but also the problem of uncontrolled expansion of query term sets. Results presented in this paper suggest the potential for taking account of the hierarchical context of an RT link and specialisations of the RT relationship
- Theme
- Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
-
Engerer, V.: Control and syntagmatization : vocabulary requirements in information retrieval thesauri and natural language lexicons (2017)
0.01
0.0057327193 = product of:
0.040129032 = sum of:
0.040129032 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040129032 = score(doc=3678,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- 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.
-
Casagrande, J.B.; Hale, K.L.: Semantic relations in Papago folk definitions (1967)
0.01
0.005516311 = product of:
0.038614176 = sum of:
0.038614176 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038614176 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Footnote
- Zitiert in: Evens, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval. In: The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: R. Green u.a. Dordrecht: Kluwer 2002. S.143-160.
-
Green, R.: Syntagmatic relationships in index languages : a reassessment (1995)
0.01
0.005460869 = product of:
0.038226083 = sum of:
0.038226083 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038226083 = score(doc=3144,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03819578 = queryNorm
0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- Effective use of syntagmatic relationships in index languages has suffered from inaccurate or incomplete characterization in both linguistics and information science. A number of 'myths' about syntagmatic relationships are debunked: the exclusivity of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships, linearity as a defining characteristic of syntagmatic relationships, the restriction of syntagmatic relationships to surface linguistic units, the limitation of syntagmatic relationship benefits in document retrieval to precision, and the general irrelevance of syntagmatic relationships for document retrieval. None of the mechanisms currently used with index languages is powerful enough to achieve the levels of precision and recall that the expression of conceptual syntagmatic relationships is in theory capable of. New designs for expressing these relationships in index languages will need to take into account such characteristics as their semantic nature, systematicity, generalizability and constituent nature
