Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0010873 = product of:
  0.0076110996 = sum of:
    0.0076110996 = product of:
      0.0380555 = sum of:
        0.0380555 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0380555 = score(doc=3678,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  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.

5.6712516E-4 = product of:
  0.003969876 = sum of:
    0.003969876 = product of:
      0.01984938 = sum of:
        0.01984938 = weight(_text_:system in 3866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01984938 = score(doc=3866,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 3866, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3866)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Basic grammar can achieve most/all of the goals of facet analysis without requiring the use of facet indicators. Facet analysis is thus rendered far simpler for classificationist, classifier, and user. We compare facet analysis and grammar, and show how various facets can be represented grammatically. We then address potential challenges in employing grammar as subject classification. A detailed review of basic grammar supports the hypothesis that it is feasible to usefully employ grammatical construction in subject classification. A manageable - and programmable - set of adjustments is required as classifiers move fairly directly from sentences in a document (or object or idea) description to formulating a subject classification. The user likewise can move fairly quickly from a query to the identification of relevant works. A review of theories in linguistics indicates that a grammatical approach should reduce ambiguity while encouraging ease of use. This paper applies the recommended approach to a small sample of recently published books. It finds that the approach is feasible and results in a more precise subject description than the subject headings assigned at present. It then explores PRECIS, an indexing system developed in the 1970s. Though our approach differs from PRECIS in many important ways, the experience of PRECIS supports our conclusions regarding both feasibility and precision.