Search (25 results, page 2 of 2)

0.00394548 = product of:
  0.011836439 = sum of:
    0.011836439 = weight(_text_:in in 2086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011836439 = score(doc=2086,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 2086, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2086)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ausgehend von der Theorie der Fuzzy-Mengen und Fuzzy-Logik werden neue Methoden zur Analyse unscharfer Daten entwickelt. Dazu wird die Theorie der Formalen Begriffsanalyse in einer Reihe von Methoden und Verfahren erweitert und somit der Forderung von Anwendern nach Möglichkeiten zur begriffsanalytischen Erfassung unscharfer Daten Rechnung getragen. Die benötigten theoretischen Grundlagen werden einführend bereitgestellt, die mathematische Darstellung wird an leicht nachvollziehbaren praktischen Beispielen veranschaulicht

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 25(1998) no.3, S.123-124 (K.E. Wolff)

0.0034873444 = product of:
  0.010462033 = sum of:
    0.010462033 = weight(_text_:in in 5908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010462033 = score(doc=5908,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 5908, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5908)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0034873444 = product of:
  0.010462033 = sum of:
    0.010462033 = weight(_text_:in in 3084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010462033 = score(doc=3084,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 3084, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3084)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Series

Lecture notes in artificial intelligence; vol.1453

0.0027898753 = product of:
  0.008369626 = sum of:
    0.008369626 = weight(_text_:in in 4376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008369626 = score(doc=4376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 4376, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4376)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ein grundsätzliches Problem der Literaturverwaltung besteht darin, daß viele Nutzer der Retrievalsysteme gar nicht genau sagen können, was sie suchen. Erst im Prozeß des erkundenden Suchens lernen sie genauer zu präzisieren, was sie finden wollen. Dieser Lernprozeß wird durch einzelne Suchwörter (Suchwortketten) nur unzureichend unterstützt, weshalb der benutzer häufig unzufrieden mit dem Ergebnis eines solchen Suchprozesses ist. Notwendig sind reichhaltigere Begriffsnetze, die thematisch geordnete Zusammenhänge darstellen und sich flexibel verfeinern, vergröbern oder verändern lassen, um in geeignetem Umfang die wünschenswerte Orientierung liefern zu können. Das Computerprogramm TOSCANA könnte hier weiterhelfen

0.0027898753 = product of:
  0.008369626 = sum of:
    0.008369626 = weight(_text_:in in 2470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008369626 = score(doc=2470,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.069613084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051176514 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2470, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2470)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The writers show that a faceted navigation structure makes web sites easier to use. They begin by analyzing the web sites of three library and information science faculties, and seeing if the sites easily provide the answers to five specific questions, e.g., how the school ranks in national evaluations. (It is worth noting that the web site of the Faculty of Information Studies and the University of Toronto, where this bibliography is being written, would fail on four of the five questions.) Using examples from LIS web site content, they show how facets can be related and constructed, and use concept diagrams for illustration. They briefly discuss constraints necessary when joining facets: for example, enrolled students can be full- or part-time, but prospective and alumni students cannot. It should not be possible to construct terms such as "part-time alumni" (see Yannis Tzitzikas et al, below in Background). They conclude that a faceted approach is best for web site navigation, because it can clearly show where the user is in the site, what the related pages are, and how to get to them. There is a short discussion of user interfaces, and the diagrams in the paper will be of interest to anyone making a facet-based web site. This paper is clearly written, informative, and thought-provoking. Uta Priss's web site lists her other publications, many of which are related and some of which are online: http://www.upriss.org.uk/top/research.html.