Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011509455 = product of:
  0.04603782 = sum of:
    0.04603782 = weight(_text_:social in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04603782 = score(doc=549,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.24922368 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=756,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 756, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=756)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=4729,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 4729, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4729)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.005491857 = product of:
  0.021967428 = sum of:
    0.021967428 = product of:
      0.043934856 = sum of:
        0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043934856 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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