Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.014637431 = product of:
  0.029274862 = sum of:
    0.026425181 = weight(_text_:von in 360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026425181 = score(doc=360,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.20633863 = fieldWeight in 360, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=360)
    0.0028496822 = product of:
      0.008549047 = sum of:
        0.008549047 = weight(_text_:a in 360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008549047 = score(doc=360,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 360, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=360)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Es ist naheliegend, einen Band zur Qualität in der Inhaltserschließung damit zu beginnen, den Begriff Qualität als solchen zu reflektieren. Wenn wir Qualität gemäß der ISO-Norm 9000:2015-1 definieren als "Grad, in dem ein Satz inhärenter Merkmale eines Objekts Anforderungen erfüllt", was sind dann die Qualitätsanforderungen an die Inhaltserschließung? Auf diese Frage gibt es zweifellos keine eindeutige und allgemeingültige Antwort - zumindest war das das Ergebnis der Diskussion unter den Herausgeber:innen dieses Bandes. Dementsprechend beleuchten wir die Frage im Folgenden aus vier unterschiedlichen Perspektiven: zunächst aus einer eher idealistischen, im Berufsethos verankerten, dann aus einer rein fachlichen und schließlich aus einer praktischen Perspektive. Die vierte, die deskriptive bzw. historische, geht als eigener Aufsatz von Andreas Ledl in den Band ein.

Type

a

0.012322258 = product of:
  0.024644516 = sum of:
    0.022650154 = weight(_text_:von in 362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022650154 = score(doc=362,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.17686167 = fieldWeight in 362, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=362)
    0.001994362 = product of:
      0.005983086 = sum of:
        0.005983086 = weight(_text_:a in 362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005983086 = score(doc=362,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 362, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=362)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In diesem Beitrag sollen Aspekte des Diskurses eines halben Jahrhunderts über die Qualität von Sacherschließung im deutschsprachigen Raum anhand ausgewählter Publikationen skizziert werden. Einschlusskriterium bei der Selektion der Texte war, dass der Begriff Qualität unmittelbar auf Inhalts- bzw. Sacherschließung bezogen ist, also nicht zwischen den Zeilen herausgelesen werden muss. Der subjektive Abriss erhebt keinen Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit. Als erstes fällt auf, dass das Thema Qualität der Inhaltserschließung in den 1970er Jahren weit weniger häufig diskutiert wird als in den Jahrzehnten danach. Dies ist dem Umstand geschuldet, dass sich seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg in punkto Sacherschließung nur wenig getan hat. Die Bibliotheken kooperieren nicht untereinander und nehmen bei der Inhaltserschließung vor allem ihre eigenen Bestände in den Blick -Qualität ist daher höchstens ein internes Thema. Was qualitätvoll sein muss, ist der universelle Bestand an sich.

Type

a

0.0010593012 = product of:
  0.004237205 = sum of:
    0.004237205 = product of:
      0.012711613 = sum of:
        0.012711613 = weight(_text_:a in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012711613 = score(doc=592,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.22966442 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify the most important factors and features in the evolution of thesauri and ontologies through a dialectic model. This model relies on a dialectic process or idea which could be discovered via a dialectic method. This method has focused on identifying the logical relationship between a beginning proposition, or an idea called a thesis, a negation of that idea called the antithesis, and the result of the conflict between the two ideas, called a synthesis. During the creation of knowl­edge organization systems (KOSs), the identification of logical relations between different ideas has been made possible through the consideration and use of the most influential methods and tools such as dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, thesaurus, micro-, macro- and metathesauri, ontology, lower, middle and upper level ontologies. The analysis process has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a dialectic method and documentary method as the reasoning process. This supports our arguments and synthesizes a method for the analysis of research results. Confirmed by the research results, the principle of unity has shown to be the most important factor in the development and evolution of the structure of knowl­edge organization systems and their types. There are various types of unity when considering the analysis of logical relations. These include the principle of unity of alphabetical order, unity of science, semantic unity, structural unity and conceptual unity. The results have clearly demonstrated a movement from plurality to unity in the assembling of the complex structure of knowl­edge organization systems to increase information and knowl­edge storage and retrieval performance.

Type

a

3.5255676E-4 = product of:
  0.001410227 = sum of:
    0.001410227 = product of:
      0.004230681 = sum of:
        0.004230681 = weight(_text_:a in 365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004230681 = score(doc=365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 365, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=365)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Type

a