-
Rolland-Thomas, P.: Thesaural codes : an appraisal of their use in the Library of Congress Subject Headings (1993)
0.01
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.
-
Tudhope, D.; Hodge, G.: Terminology registries (2007)
0.01
0.007845511 = product of:
0.031382043 = sum of:
0.031382043 = product of:
0.062764086 = sum of:
0.062764086 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.062764086 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046325076 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 26.12.2011 13:22:07
-
Kless, D.; Milton, S.: Comparison of thesauri and ontologies from a semiotic perspective (2010)
0.01
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.
-
Garshol, L.M.: Metadata? Thesauri? Taxonomies? Topic Maps! : making sense of it all (2005)
0.01
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.
-
ISO 25964 Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies (2008)
0.01
0.0067914836 = product of:
0.027165934 = sum of:
0.027165934 = product of:
0.05433187 = sum of:
0.05433187 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05433187 = score(doc=1169,freq=6.0), product of:
0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
0.046325076 = queryNorm
0.25948527 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- T.2: The ability to identify and locate relevant information among vast collections and other resources is a major and pressing challenge today. Several different types of vocabulary are in use for this purpose. Some of the most widely used vocabularies were designed a hundred years ago and have been evolving steadily. A different generation of vocabularies is now emerging, designed to exploit the electronic media more effectively. A good understanding of the previous generation is still essential for effective access to collections indexed with them. An important object of ISO 25964 as a whole is to support data exchange and other forms of interoperability in circumstances in which more than one structured vocabulary is applied within one retrieval system or network. Sometimes one vocabulary has to be mapped to another, and it is important to understand both the potential and the limitations of such mappings. In other systems, a thesaurus is mapped to a classification scheme, or an ontology to a thesaurus. Comprehensive interoperability needs to cover the whole range of vocabulary types, whether young or old. Concepts in different vocabularies are related only in that they have the same or similar meaning. However, the meaning can be found in a number of different aspects within each particular type of structured vocabulary: - within terms or captions selected in different languages; - in the notation assigned indicating a place within a larger hierarchy; - in the definition, scope notes, history notes and other notes that explain the significance of that concept; and - in explicit relationships to other concepts or entities within the same vocabulary. In order to create mappings from one structured vocabulary to another it is first necessary to understand, within the context of each different type of structured vocabulary, the significance and relative importance of each of the different elements in defining the meaning of that particular concept. ISO 25964-1 describes the key characteristics of thesauri along with additional advice on best practice. ISO 25964-2 focuses on other types of vocabulary and does not attempt to cover all aspects of good practice. It concentrates on those aspects which need to be understood if one of the vocabularies is to work effectively alongside one or more of the others. Recognizing that a new standard cannot be applied to some existing vocabularies, this part of ISO 25964 provides informative description alongside the recommendations, the aim of which is to enable users and system developers to interpret and implement the existing vocabularies effectively. The remainder of ISO 25964-2 deals with the principles and practicalities of establishing mappings between vocabularies.
-
Boteram, F.: Semantische Relationen in Dokumentationssprachen : vom Thesaurus zum semantischen Netz (2010)
0.01
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
-
Müller, T.: Wissensrepräsentation mit semantischen Netzen im Bereich Luftfahrt (2006)
0.00
0.0039227554 = product of:
0.015691021 = sum of:
0.015691021 = product of:
0.031382043 = sum of:
0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031382043 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046325076 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1670, 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=1670)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 26. 9.2006 21:00:22
