Search (21 results, page 1 of 2)

0.024208048 = product of:
  0.048416097 = sum of:
    0.048416097 = sum of:
      0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0047357627 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
      0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043680333 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

Type

a

0.0030491136 = product of:
  0.006098227 = sum of:
    0.006098227 = product of:
      0.012196454 = sum of:
        0.012196454 = weight(_text_:a in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012196454 = score(doc=592,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.0028047764 = product of:
  0.005609553 = sum of:
    0.005609553 = product of:
      0.011219106 = sum of:
        0.011219106 = weight(_text_:a in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011219106 = score(doc=2036,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 2036, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2036)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Thesauri and other types of controlled vocabularies are increasingly re-engineered into ontologies described using the Web Ontology Language (OWL), particularly in the life sciences. This has led to the perception by some that thesauri are ontologies once they are described by using the syntax of OWL while others have emphasized the need to re-engineer a vocabulary to use it as ontology. This confusion is rooted in different perceptions of what ontologies are and how they differ from other types of vocabularies. In this article, we rigorously examine the structural differences and similarities between thesauri and meaning-defining ontologies described in OWL. Specifically, we conduct (a) a conceptual comparison of thesauri and ontologies, and (b) a comparison of a specific thesaurus and a specific ontology in the same subject field. Our results show that thesauri and ontologies need to be treated as 2 orthogonal kinds of models with superficially similar structures. An ontology is not a good thesaurus, nor is a thesaurus a good ontology. A thesaurus requires significant structural and other content changes to become an ontology, and vice versa.

Type

a

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=4695,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4695, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4695)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei

Type

a

0.0025313715 = product of:
  0.005062743 = sum of:
    0.005062743 = product of:
      0.010125486 = sum of:
        0.010125486 = weight(_text_:a in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010125486 = score(doc=549,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19066721 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

LCSH is known as such since 1975. It always has created headings to serve the LC collections instead of a theoretical basis. It started to replace cross reference codes by thesaural codes in 1986, in a mechanical fashion. It was in no way transformed into a thesaurus. Its encyclopedic coverage, its pre-coordinate concepts make it substantially distinct, considering that thesauri usually map a restricted field of knowledge and use uniterms. The questions raised are whether the new symbols comply with thesaurus standards and if they are true to one or to several models. Explanations and definitions from other lists of subject headings and thesauri, literature in the field of classification and subject indexing will provide some answers. For instance, see refers from a subject heading not used to another or others used. Exceptionally it will lead from a specific term to a more general one. Some equate a see reference with the equivalence relationship. Such relationships are pointed by USE in LCSH. See also references are made from the broader subject to narrower parts of it and also between associated subjects. They suggest lateral or vertical connexions as well as reciprocal relationships. They serve a coordination purpose for some, lay down a methodical search itinerary for others. Since their inception in the 1950's thesauri have been devised for indexing and retrieving information in the fields of science and technology. Eventually they attended to a number of social sciences and humanities. Research derived from thesauri was voluminous. Numerous guidelines are designed. They did not discriminate between the "hard" sciences and the social sciences. RT relationships are widely but diversely used in numerous controlled vocabularies. LCSH's aim is to achieve a list almost free of RT and SA references. It thus restricts relationships to BT/NT, USE and UF. This raises the question as to whether all fields of knowledge can "fit" in the Procrustean bed of RT/NT, i.e., genus/species relationships. Standard codes were devised. It was soon realized that BT/NT, well suited to the genus/species couple could not signal a whole-part relationship. In LCSH, BT and NT function as reciprocals, the whole-part relationship is taken into account by ISO. It is amply elaborated upon by authors. The part-whole connexion is sometimes studied apart. The decision to replace cross reference codes was an improvement. Relations can now be distinguished through the distinct needs of numerous fields of knowledge are not attended to. Topic inclusion, and topic-subtopic, could provide the missing link where genus/species or whole/part are inadequate. Distinct codes, BT/NT and whole/part, should be provided. Sorting relationships with mechanical means can only lead to confusion.

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 2176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=2176,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2176, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The ISO 2788 guidelines for monolingual thesauri contain a differentiation of "the hierarchical relationship" into "generic", "partitive", and "instance", which, for purposes of document retrieval, was deemed adequate. However, ontologies, designed as language inventories for a wider scope of knowledge representation, are based on all these and some more logical differentiations. Rereading the ISO 2788 standard and inspecting the published Cyc Upper Ontology, it is argued that the adoption of the document-retrieval definition of subsumption generally prevents the conception or use of a thesaurus as a substructure of an ontology of the new kind as constructed for AI applications. When a thesaurus is used for fact description and inference on fact descriptions, the instance-of relationship too should be reconsidered: It may also link concepts and metaconcepts, and then its distinction from subsumption is needed. The treatment of the instance-of relationship in thesauri, the Cyc Upper Ontology, and WordNet is described from this perspective

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 7636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=7636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 7636, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 6051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=6051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6051, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=4644,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper describes a method for converting existing thesauri and related resources from their native format to RDF(S) and OWL. The method identifies four steps in the conversion process. In each step, decisions have to be taken with respect to the syntax or semantics of the resulting representation. Each step is supported through a number of guidelines. The method is illustrated through conversions of two large thesauri: MeSH and WordNet.

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 2311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=2311,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2311, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2311)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 5854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=5854,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 5854, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5854)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The quantitative evaluation of thesauri has been carried out much further since 1976. This type of evaluation is based on counting of special factors in thesaurus structure, some of which are counting preferred terms, non preferred terms, cross reference terms and so on. Therefore, various statistical tests have been proposed and applied for evaluation of thesauri. In this article, we try to explain some ratios in the field of unity quantitative evaluation in a thesaurus term network. Theoretical base of the ratios' indicators and indices construction, and epistemological thought in this type of quantitative evaluation, are discussed in this article. The theoretical base of quantitative evaluation is the epistemological thought of Immanuel Kant's Critique of pure reason. The cognition states of transcendental understanding are divided into three steps, the first is perception, the second combination and the third, relation making. Terms relation domains and conceptual relation domains can be analyzed with ratios. The use of quantitative evaluations in current research in the field of thesaurus construction prepares a basis for a restoration period. In modern thesaurus construction, traditional term relations are analyzed in detail in the form of new conceptual relations. Hence, the new domains of hierarchical and associative relations are constructed in the form of relations between concepts. The newly formed conceptual domains can be a suitable basis for quantitative evaluation analysis in conceptual relations.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=604,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 604, 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=604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

iQvoc is a new open source SKOS-XL vocabulary management tool developed by the Federal Environment Agency, Germany, and innoQ Deutschland GmbH. Its immediate purpose is maintaining and publishing reference vocabularies in the upcoming Linked Data cloud of environmental information, but it may be easily adapted to host any SKOS- XL compliant vocabulary. iQvoc is implemented as a Ruby on Rails application running on top of JRuby - the Java implementation of the Ruby Programming Language. To increase the user experience when editing content, iQvoc uses heavily the JavaScript library jQuery.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=572,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 572, 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=572)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 5448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=5448,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5448, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5448)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper the possibility to develop a richer relational structure for thesauri is explored and described. The development of a new environmental thesaurus - EARTh (Environmental Applications Reference Thesaurus) - is serving as a case study for exploring the refinement of thesaurus relational structure by specialising standard relationships into different subtypes. Together with benefits and opportunities, implications and possible challenges that an expanded set of thesaurus relations may cause are evaluated.

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=4639,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This thesis focuses on conversion of vocabularies for representation and integration of collections on the Semantic Web. A secondary focus is how to represent metadata schemas (RDF Schemas representing metadata element sets) such that they interoperate with vocabularies. The primary domain in which we operate is that of cultural heritage collections. The background worldview in which a solution is sought is that of the Semantic Web research paradigmwith its associated theories, methods, tools and use cases. In other words, we assume the SemanticWeb is in principle able to provide the context to realize interoperable collections. Interoperability is dependent on the interplay between representations and the applications that use them. We mean applications in the widest sense, such as "search" and "annotation". These applications or tasks are often present in software applications, such as the E-Culture application. It is therefore necessary that applications requirements on the vocabulary representation are met. This leads us to formulate the following problem statement: HOW CAN EXISTING VOCABULARIES BE MADE AVAILABLE TO SEMANTIC WEB APPLICATIONS?
We refine the problem statement into three research questions. The first two focus on the problem of conversion of a vocabulary to a Semantic Web representation from its original format. Conversion of a vocabulary to a representation in a Semantic Web language is necessary to make the vocabulary available to SemanticWeb applications. In the last question we focus on integration of collection metadata schemas in a way that allows for vocabulary representations as produced by our methods. Academisch proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad Doctor aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Dutch Research School for Information and Knowledge Systems.

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=756,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 756, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=756)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Thesauri are frequently stated or indirectly treated as subtype of ontologies or vice versa while other definitions explicitly distinguish them. To encounter the lack of clarity this paper provides an in-depth comparison of these types of models. The comparison followed a semiotic approach and considered syntactic, semantic and pragmatic differences between ontologies and thesauri. For the comparison data models of thesauri and ontologies were produced that - in contrast to existing meta- and datamodels - are comparable with each other. The analysis revealed significant differences in the semiotic aspects of thesauri and ontologies. This finding challenges the treatment of ontologies and thesauri as type of one another. The comparison presented in this paper shall also provide input for standardization efforts in clarifying the relatedness of thesauri and ontologies.

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 4729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=4729,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4729, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4729)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The task of an information architect is to create web sites where users can actually find the information they are looking for. As the ocean of information rises and leaves what we seek ever more deeply buried in what we don't seek, this discipline becomes ever more relevant. Information architecture involves many different aspects of web site creation and organization, but its principal tools are information organization techniques developed in other disciplines. Most of these techniques come from library science, such as thesauri, taxonomies, and faceted classification. Topic maps are a relative newcomer to this area and bring with them the promise of better-organized web sites, compared to what is possible with existing techniques. However, it is not generally understood how topic maps relate to the traditional techniques, and what advantages and disadvantages they have, compared to these techniques. The aim of this paper is to help build a better understanding of these issues.

Type

a

0.0015127839 = product of:
  0.0030255679 = sum of:
    0.0030255679 = product of:
      0.0060511357 = sum of:
        0.0060511357 = weight(_text_:a in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060511357 = score(doc=4800,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The usefulness of online geological maps is hindered by linguistic barriers. Multilingual geoscience thesauri alleviate linguistic barriers of geological maps. However, the benefits of multilingual geoscience thesauri for online geological maps are less studied. In this regard, we developed a multilingual thesaurus of geological time scale (GTS) to alleviate linguistic barriers of GTS records among online geological maps. We extended the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) model to represent the ordinal hierarchical structure of GTS terms. We collected GTS terms in seven languages and encoded them into a thesaurus by using the extended SKOS model. We implemented methods of characteristic-oriented term retrieval in JavaScript programs for accessing Web Map Services (WMS), recognizing GTS terms, and making translations. With the developed thesaurus and programs, we set up a pilot system to test recognitions and translations of GTS terms in online geological maps. Results of this pilot system proved the accuracy of the developed thesaurus and the functionality of the developed programs. Therefore, with proper deployments, SKOS-based multilingual geoscience thesauri can be functional for alleviating linguistic barriers among online geological maps and, thus, improving their interoperability.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 3695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=3695,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3695, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3695)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The concepts of simplicity and complexity play major roles in information storage and retrieval in knowledge organizations. This paper reports an investigation of these concepts in the structure of descriptors. The main purpose of simplicity is to decrease the number of words in the construction of descriptors as this idea affects semantic relations, recall and precision. ISO 25964 has affirmed the purpose of simplicity by requiring splitting compound terms into simpler concepts. This work aims to elaborate the standard methods of evaluation by providing a more detailed evaluation of the descriptors structure and identifying effective factors in simplicity and complexity results in the structure of thesauri descriptors. The research population is taken from the descriptors of the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Thesaurus, the Persian Cultural Thesaurus (ASFA) and the Chemical Thesaurus. This research was conducted using the statistical and content analysis method. In this research we propose a new quantitative approach as well as novel indicators and indices involving Simplicity and Factoring Ratios to evaluate the descriptors structure. The results will be useful in the verification, selection and maintenance purposes in knowledge organizations and the inquiry method can be further developed in the field of ontology evaluation.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 5828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=5828,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 5828, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5828)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Some of the fundamental activities of the software development process are related to the discipline of Requirements Engineering, whose objective is the discovery, analysis, documentation and verification of the requirements that will be part of the system. Requirements are the conditions or capabilities that software must have or perform to meet the users needs. The present study is being developed to propose a model of cooperation between Information Science and Requirements Engineering. Aims to present the analysis results on the possibilities of using the knowledge organization systems: taxonomies, thesauri and ontologies during the activities of Requirements Engineering: design, survey, elaboration, negotiation, specification, validation and requirements management. From the results obtained it was possible to identify in which stage of the Requirements Engineering process, each type of knowledge organization system could be used. We expect that this study put in evidence the need for new researchs and proposals to strengt the exchange between Information Science, as a science that has information as object of study, and the Requirements Engineering which has in the information the raw material to identify the informational needs of software users.

Type

a