Search (21 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Begriffstheorie"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Stock, W.: Begriffe und semantische Relationen in der Wissensrepräsentation (2009) 0.01
    0.012177391 = product of:
      0.056827825 = sum of:
        0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 3218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020922182 = score(doc=3218,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3218, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3218)
        0.0104854815 = weight(_text_:information in 3218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0104854815 = score(doc=3218,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 3218, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3218)
        0.025420163 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025420163 = score(doc=3218,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 3218, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3218)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Begriffsorientiertes Information Retrieval bedarf einer informationswissenschaftlichen Theorie der Begriffe sowie der semantischen Relationen. Ein Begriff wird durch seine Intension und Extension sowie durch Definitionen bestimmt. Dem Problem der Vagheit begegnen wir durch die Einführung von Prototypen. Wichtige Definitionsarten sind die Begriffserklärung (nach Aristoteles) und die Definition über Familienähnlichkeiten (im Sinne Wittgensteins). Wir modellieren Begriffe als Frames (in der Version von Barsalou). Die zentrale paradigmatische Relation in Wissensordnungen ist die Hierarchie, die in verschiedene Arten zu gliedern ist: Hyponymie zerfällt in die Taxonomie und die einfache Hyponymie, Meronymie in eine ganze Reihe unterschiedlicher Teil-Ganzes-Beziehungen. Wichtig für praktische Anwendungen ist die Transitivität der jeweiligen Relation. Eine unspezifische Assoziationsrelation ist bei den angepeilten Anwendungen wenig hilfreich und wird durch ein Bündel von generalisierbaren und fachspezifischen Relationen ersetzt. Unser Ansatz fundiert neue Optionen der Anwendung von Wissensordnungen in der Informationspraxis neben ihrem "klassischen" Einsatz beim Information Retrieval: Erweiterung von Suchanfragen (Anwendung der semantischen Nähe), automatisches Schlussfolgern (Anwendung der terminologischen Logik in Vorbereitung eines semantischen Web) und automatische Berechnungen (bei Funktionalbegriffen mit numerischen Wertangaben).
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 60(2009) H.8, S.403-420
  2. Evens, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval (2002) 0.01
    0.0076756445 = product of:
      0.053729508 = sum of:
        0.013536699 = weight(_text_:information in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013536699 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
        0.04019281 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04019281 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = 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(2/14)
    
    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
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  3. Khoo, C.; Myaeng, S.H.: Identifying semantic relations in text for information retrieval and information extraction (2002) 0.01
    0.0068937056 = product of:
      0.048255935 = sum of:
        0.01712272 = weight(_text_:information in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01712272 = score(doc=1197,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
        0.031133216 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031133216 = score(doc=1197,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 1197, 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=1197)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    Automatic identification of semantic relations in text is a difficult problem, but is important for many applications. It has been used for relation matching in information retrieval to retrieve documents that contain not only the concepts but also the relations between concepts specified in the user's query. It is an integral part of information extraction-extracting from natural language text, facts or pieces of information related to a particular event or topic. Other potential applications are in the construction of relational thesauri (semantic networks of related concepts) and other kinds of knowledge bases, and in natural language processing applications such as machine translation and computer comprehension of text. This chapter examines the main methods used for identifying semantic relations automatically and their application in information retrieval and information extraction.
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
  4. Hetzler, B.: Visual analysis and exploration of relationships (2002) 0.01
    0.0067081456 = product of:
      0.046957016 = sum of:
        0.01730016 = weight(_text_:information in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01730016 = score(doc=1189,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.3325631 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
        0.029656855 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029656855 = score(doc=1189,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 1189, 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=1189)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    Relationships can provide a rich and powerful set of information and can be used to accomplish application goals, such as information retrieval and natural language processing. A growing trend in the information science community is the use of information visualization-taking advantage of people's natural visual capabilities to perceive and understand complex information. This chapter explores how visualization and visual exploration can help users gain insight from known relationships and discover evidence of new relationships not previously anticipated.
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  5. Khoo, C.; Chan, S.; Niu, Y.: ¬The many facets of the cause-effect relation (2002) 0.01
    0.006374111 = product of:
      0.044618774 = sum of:
        0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03856498 = score(doc=1192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
        0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060537956 = score(doc=1192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    This chapter presents a broad survey of the cause-effect relation, with particular emphasis an how the relation is expressed in text. Philosophers have been grappling with the concept of causation for centuries. Researchers in social psychology have found that the human mind has a very complex mechanism for identifying and attributing the cause for an event. Inferring cause-effect relations between events and statements has also been found to be an important part of reading and text comprehension, especially for narrative text. Though many of the cause-effect relations in text are implied and have to be inferred by the reader, there is also a wide variety of linguistic expressions for explicitly indicating cause and effect. In addition, it has been found that certain words have "causal valence"-they bias the reader to attribute cause in certain ways. Cause-effect relations can also be divided into several different types.
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
  6. Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory (2009) 0.00
    0.00404662 = product of:
      0.028326338 = sum of:
        0.013347364 = weight(_text_:information in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013347364 = score(doc=3461,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.256578 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
        0.014978974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014978974 = score(doc=3461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3461, 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=3461)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    Concept theory is an extremely broad, interdisciplinary and complex field of research related to many deep fields with very long historical traditions without much consensus. However, information science and knowledge organization cannot avoid relating to theories of concepts. Knowledge organizing systems (e.g., classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies) should be understood as systems basically organizing concepts and their semantic relations. The same is the case with information retrieval systems. Different theories of concepts have different implications for how to construe, evaluate, and use such systems. Based on a post-Kuhnian view of paradigms, this article put forward arguments that the best understanding and classification of theories of concepts is to view and classify them in accordance with epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism). It is also argued that the historicist and pragmatist understandings of concepts are the most fruitful views and that this understanding may be part of a broader paradigm shift that is also beginning to take place in information science. The importance of historicist and pragmatic theories of concepts for information science is outlined.
    Footnote
    Vgl.: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S. 1076-1077 und die Erwiderung darauf von B. Hjoerland (S.1078-1080)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1519-1536
    Theme
    Information
  7. Hovy, E.: Comparing sets of semantic relations in ontologies (2002) 0.00
    0.0034326524 = product of:
      0.024028566 = sum of:
        0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 2178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060537956 = score(doc=2178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2178)
        0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01797477 = score(doc=2178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2178, 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=2178)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  8. Olson, H.A.: How we construct subjects : a feminist analysis (2007) 0.00
    0.0022042028 = product of:
      0.0154294185 = sum of:
        0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008737902 = score(doc=5588,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
        0.0066915164 = product of:
          0.020074548 = sum of:
            0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.020074548 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.029633347 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5588, 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=5588)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    To organize information, librarians create structures. These structures grow from a logic that goes back at least as far as Aristotle. It is the basis of classification as we practice it, and thesauri and subject headings have developed from it. Feminist critiques of logic suggest that logic is gendered in nature. This article will explore how these critiques play out in contemporary standards for the organization of information. Our widely used classification schemes embody principles such as hierarchical force that conform to traditional/Aristotelian logic. Our subject heading strings follow a linear path of subdivision. Our thesauri break down subjects into discrete concepts. In thesauri and subject heading lists we privilege hierarchical relationships, reflected in the syndetic structure of broader and narrower terms, over all other relationships. Are our classificatory and syndetic structures gendered? Are there other options? Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice (1982), Women's Ways of Knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986), and more recent related research suggest a different type of structure for women's knowledge grounded in "connected knowing." This article explores current and potential elements of connected knowing in subject access with a focus on the relationships, both paradigmatic and syntagmatic, between concepts.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft 'Gender Issues in Information Needs and Services'.
    Date
    11.12.2019 19:00:22
  9. Jouis, C.: Logic of relationships (2002) 0.00
    0.001676621 = product of:
      0.011736346 = sum of:
        0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0050448296 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
        0.0066915164 = product of:
          0.020074548 = sum of:
            0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.020074548 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.029633347 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1204, 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=1204)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Date
    1.12.2002 11:12:22
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
  10. Bonnevie, E.: Dretske's semantic information theory and meta-theories in library and information science (2001) 0.00
    0.0012992423 = product of:
      0.018189391 = sum of:
        0.018189391 = weight(_text_:information in 4484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018189391 = score(doc=4484,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.34965688 = fieldWeight in 4484, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4484)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    This article presents the semantic information theory, formulated by the philosopher Fred I. Dretske, as a contribution to the discussion of metatheories and their practical implications in the field of library and information science. Dretske's theory is described in Knowledge and the flow of information. It is founded on mathematical communication theory but developed and elaborated into a cognitive, functionalistic theory, is individually oriented, and deals with the content of information. The topics are: the information process from perception to cognition, and how concept formation takes place in terms of digitisation. Other important issues are the concepts of information and knowledge, truth and meaning. Semantic information theory can be used as a frame of reference in order to explain, clarify and refute concepts currently used in library and information science, and as the basis for critical reviews of elements of the cognitive viewpoint in IR, primarily the notion of "potential information". The main contribution of the theory lies in a clarification of concepts, but there are still problems regarding the practical applications. More research is needed to combine philosophical discussions with the practice of information and library science.
    Theme
    Information
  11. Bauer, G.: ¬Die vielseitigen Anwendungsmöglichkeiten des Kategorienprinzips bei der Wissensorganisation (2006) 0.00
    6.6915166E-4 = product of:
      0.009368123 = sum of:
        0.009368123 = product of:
          0.028104367 = sum of:
            0.028104367 = weight(_text_:22 in 5710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.028104367 = score(doc=5710,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.029633347 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5710, 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=5710)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Pages
    S.22-33
  12. McCray, A.T.; Bodenreider, O.: ¬A conceptual framework for the biomedical domain (2002) 0.00
    6.115257E-4 = product of:
      0.00856136 = sum of:
        0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 1207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00856136 = score(doc=1207,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1207, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1207)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    Specialized domains often come with an extensive terminology, suitable for storing and exchanging information, but not necessarily for knowledge processing. Knowledge structures such as semantic networks, or ontologies, are required to explore the semantics of a domain. The UMLS project at the National Library of Medicine is a research effort to develop knowledge-based resources for the biomedical domain. The Metathesaurus is a large body of knowledge that defines and inter-relates 730,000 biomedical concepts, and the Semantic Network defines the semantic principles that apply to this domain. This chapter presents these two knowledge sources and illustrates through a research study how they can collaborate to further structure the domain. The limits of the approach are discussed.
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
  13. Cruse, D.A.: Hyponymy and its varieties (2002) 0.00
    5.7655195E-4 = product of:
      0.008071727 = sum of:
        0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 1186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008071727 = score(doc=1186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1186, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1186)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
  14. Green, R.: Internally-structured conceptual models in cognitive semantics (2002) 0.00
    5.7655195E-4 = product of:
      0.008071727 = sum of:
        0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008071727 = score(doc=1193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
  15. Gerstenkorn, A.: Informationsbezug zwischen Gemein- und Fachsprache : Zum gemein- und fachsprachlichen Wort "Tal" (2006) 0.00
    5.7655195E-4 = product of:
      0.008071727 = sum of:
        0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 6013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008071727 = score(doc=6013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 6013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6013)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.5, S.259-267
  16. Thellefsen, M.: ¬The dynamics of information representation and knowledge mediation (2006) 0.00
    5.7655195E-4 = product of:
      0.008071727 = sum of:
        0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008071727 = score(doc=170,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 170, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=170)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
  17. Fellbaum, C.: On the semantics of troponymy (2002) 0.00
    5.04483E-4 = product of:
      0.0070627616 = sum of:
        0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 1191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0070627616 = score(doc=1191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1191, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1191)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
  18. Guarino, N.; Welty, C.: Identity and subsumption (2002) 0.00
    5.04483E-4 = product of:
      0.0070627616 = sum of:
        0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0070627616 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
  19. Gerbé, O.; Mineau, G.W.; Keller, R.K.: Conceptual graphs, metamodelling, and notation of concepts : fundamental issues (2000) 0.00
    4.32414E-4 = product of:
      0.0060537956 = sum of:
        0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 5078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060537956 = score(doc=5078,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5078, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5078)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Theme
    Information Resources Management
  20. Pribbenow, S.: Meronymic relationships : from classical mereology to complex part-whole relations (2002) 0.00
    4.32414E-4 = product of:
      0.0060537956 = sum of:
        0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060537956 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3