Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Qin, J.; Paling, S.: Converting a controlled vocabulary into an ontology : the case of GEM (2001) 0.02 
    0.021210661 = product of:
  0.042421322 = sum of:
    0.042421322 = product of:
      0.084842645 = sum of:
        0.084842645 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084842645 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    24. 8.2005 19:20:22
  2. Pfeffer, M.; Eckert, K.; Stuckenschmidt, H.: Visual analysis of classification systems and library collections (2008) 0.02 
    0.015401474 = product of:
  0.030802948 = sum of:
    0.030802948 = product of:
      0.061605897 = sum of:
        0.061605897 = weight(_text_:systems in 317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061605897 = score(doc=317,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 317, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=317)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this demonstration we present a visual analysis approach that addresses both developers and users of hierarchical classification systems. The approach supports an intuitive understanding of the structure and current use in relation to a specific collection. We will also demonstrate its application for the development and management of library collections.
  3. Shiri, A.A.; Revie, C.: Thesauri on the Web : current developments and trends (2000) 0.01 
    0.013476291 = product of:
  0.026952581 = sum of:
    0.026952581 = product of:
      0.053905163 = sum of:
        0.053905163 = weight(_text_:systems in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053905163 = score(doc=2558,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 2558, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2558)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article provides an overview of recent developments relating to the application of thesauri in information organisation and retrieval on the World Wide Web. It describes some recent thesaurus projects undertaken to facilitate resource description and discovery and access to wide-ranging information resources on the Internet. Types of thesauri available on the Web, thesauri integrated in databases and information retrieval systems, and multiple-thesaurus systems for cross-database searching are also discussed. Collective efforts and events in addressing the standardisation and novel applications of thesauri are briefly reviewed.
  4. Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Thesaural relationships (2001) 0.01 
    0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:45:57
  5. Nielsen, M.L.: Thesaurus construction : key issues and selected readings (2004) 0.01 
    0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5006, 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=5006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    18. 5.2006 20:06:22
  6. Schneider, J.W.; Borlund, P.: ¬A bibliometric-based semiautomatic approach to identification of candidate thesaurus terms : parsing and filtering of noun phrases from citation contexts (2005) 0.01 
    0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 156, 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=156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    8. 3.2007 19:55:22
  7. Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Evolution towards ISO 25964 : an international standard with guidelines for thesauri and other types of controlled vocabulary (2007) 0.01 
    0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 749, 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=749)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    8.12.2007 19:25:22
  8. Tudhope, D.; Binding, C.: Faceted thesauri (2008) 0.01 
    0.010890487 = product of:
  0.021780973 = sum of:
    0.021780973 = product of:
      0.043561947 = sum of:
        0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 1855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043561947 = score(doc=1855,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 1855, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1855)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The basic elements of faceted thesauri are described, together with a review of their origins and some prominent examples. Their use in browsing and searching applications is discussed. Faceted thesauri are distinguished from faceted classification schemes, while acknowledging the close similarities. The paper concludes by comparing faceted thesauri and related knowledge organization systems to ontologies and discussing appropriate areas of use.
  9. Aitchison, J.; Dextre Clarke, S.G.: ¬The Thesaurus : a historical viewpoint, with a look to the future (2004) 0.01 
    0.010605331 = product of:
  0.021210661 = sum of:
    0.021210661 = product of:
      0.042421322 = sum of:
        0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042421322 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5005, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:46:13
  10. Bagheri, M.: Development of thesauri in Iran (2006) 0.01 
    0.010605331 = product of:
  0.021210661 = sum of:
    0.021210661 = product of:
      0.042421322 = sum of:
        0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042421322 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Indexer. 25(2006) no.1, S.19-22
  11. Thomas, A.R.: Teach yourself thesaurus : exercises, reading, resources (2004) 0.01 
    0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 4855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=4855,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 4855, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4855)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A rationale for self-instruction in thesaurus making is presented. Some definitions of a thesaurus are given and sources suitable to begin self-tuition indicated. A sound grasp of grammar is emphasized and appropriate readings and exercises recommended. Readings in classification, facet analysis, and subject cataloging are described. An approach for deconstruction and reconstruction of sections of classification systems and thesauri is proposed and explained. Procedures for using exercises in thesaurus construction are detailed. The means of examining individual thesauri is suggested. The availability and use of free software are described. The creation of opportunities for self-learning is considered.
  12. Liang, A.C.; Sini, M.: Mapping AGROVOC and the Chinese Agricultural Thesaurus : definitions, tools, procedures (2006) 0.01 
    0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 5707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=5707,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 5707, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5707)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Knowledge organization systems and services"
  13. Riesthuis, G.J.A.: Multilingual subject access and the Guidelines for the establishment and development of multilingual thesauri : an experimental study (2000) 0.01 
    0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this paper, after an introduction about problems of multilingual information languages, the rules and recommendations of the Guidelines for the establishment and development of multilingual thesauri for non-equivalence and partial equivalence of terms in different languages are discussed. Artificial terms are not very useful in searching, because most users are not willing to use a thesaurus to find the right descriptor. On the other hand indexers need guidance on how to index and therefore need a thesaurus with all desirable and necessary relations. It is suggested that bibliographic online systems can take over some of the functions for the searcher from the thesaurus and that a few new relations could be helpful to an indexer
  14. Milstead, J.L.: Standards for relationships between subject indexing terms (2001) 0.01 
    0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=1148,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 1148, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1148)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Relationships between the terms in thesauri and Indexes are the subject of national and international standards. The standards for thesauri enumerate and provide criteria for three basic types of relationship: equivalence, hierarchical, and associative. Standards and guidelines for indexes draw an the thesaurus standards to provide less detailed guidance for showing relationships between the terms used in an Index. The international standard for multilingual thesauri adds recommendations for assuring equal treatment of the languages of a thesaurus. The present standards were developed when lookup and search were essentially manual, and the value of the kinds of relationships has never been determined. It is not clear whether users understand or can use the distinctions between kinds of relationships. On the other hand, sophisticated text analysis systems may be able both to assist with development of more powerful term relationship schemes and to use the relationships to improve retrieval.
  15. Losee, R.M.: Decisions in thesaurus construction and use (2007) 0.01 
    0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 924, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A thesaurus and an ontology provide a set of structured terms, phrases, and metadata, often in a hierarchical arrangement, that may be used to index, search, and mine documents. We describe the decisions that should be made when including a term, deciding whether a term should be subdivided into its subclasses, or determining which of more than one set of possible subclasses should be used. Based on retrospective measurements or estimates of future performance when using thesaurus terms in document ordering, decisions are made so as to maximize performance. These decisions may be used in the automatic construction of a thesaurus. The evaluation of an existing thesaurus is described, consistent with the decision criteria developed here. These kinds of user-focused decision-theoretic techniques may be applied to other hierarchical applications, such as faceted classification systems used in information architecture or the use of hierarchical terms in "breadcrumb navigation".
  16. Burkart, M.: Thesaurus (2004) 0.01 
    0.0070702205 = product of:
  0.014140441 = sum of:
    0.014140441 = product of:
      0.028280882 = sum of:
        0.028280882 = weight(_text_:22 in 2913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028280882 = score(doc=2913,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2913, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2913)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    5. 4.2013 10:18:22
  17. Doerr, M.: Semantic problems of thesaurus mapping (2001) 0.01 
    0.0068065543 = product of:
  0.013613109 = sum of:
    0.013613109 = product of:
      0.027226217 = sum of:
        0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 5902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027226217 = score(doc=5902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 5902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    With networked information access to heterogeneous data sources, the problem of terminology provision and interoperability of controlled vocabulary schemes such as thesauri becomes increasingly urgent. Solutions are needed to improve the performance of full-text retrieval systems and to guide the design of controlled terminology schemes for use in structured data, including metadata. Thesauri are created in different languages, with different scope and points of view and at different levels of abstraction and detail, to accomodate access to a specific group of collections. In any wider search accessing distributed collections, the user would like to start with familiar terminology and let the system find out the correspondences to other terminologies in order to retrieve equivalent results from all addressed collections. This paper investigates possible semantic differences that may hinder the unambiguous mapping and transition from one thesaurus to another. It focusses on the differences of meaning of terms and their relations as intended by their creators for indexing and querying a specific collection, in contrast to methods investigating the statistical relevance of terms for objects in a collection. It develops a notion of optimal mapping, paying particular attention to the intellectual quality of mappings between terms from different vocabularies and to problems of polysemy. Proposals are made to limit the vagueness introduced by the transition from one vocabulary to another. The paper shows ways in which thesaurus creators can improve their methodology to meet the challenges of networked access of distributed collections created under varying conditions. For system implementers, the discussion will lead to a better understanding of the complexity of the problem
  18. Dextre Clarke, S.G.; Gilchrist, A.; Will, L.: Revision and extension of thesaurus standards (2004) 0.01 
    0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=2615,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The current standards for monolingual and multilingual thesauri are long overdue for an update. This applies to the international standards ISO 2788 and ISO 5964, as well as the corresponding national standards in several countries and the American standard ANSI/NISO Z39.19. Work is now under way in the UK and in the USA to revise and extend the standards, with particular emphasis on interoperability needs in our world of vast electronic networks. Work in the UK is starting with the British Standards, in the hope of leading on to one international standard to serve all. Some of the issues still under discussion include the treatment of facet analysis, coverage of additional types of controlled vocabulary such as classification schemes, taxonomies and ontologies, and mapping from one vocabulary to another. 1. Are thesaurus standards still needed? Since the 1960s, even before the renowned Cranfield experiments (Cleverdon et al., 1966; Cleverdon, 1967) arguments have raged over the usefulness or otherwise of controlled vocabularies. The case has never been proved definitively one way or the other. At the same time, a recognition has become widespread that no one search method can answer all retrieval requirements. In today's environment of very large networks of resources, the skilled information professional uses a range of techniques. Among these, controlled vocabularies are valued alongside others. The first international standard for monolingual thesauri was issued in 1974. In those days, the main application was for postcoordinate indexing and retrieval from document collections or bibliographic databases. For many information professionals the only practicable alternative to a thesaurus was a classification scheme. And so the thesaurus developed a strong following. After computer systems with full text search capability became widely available, however, the arguments against controlled vocabularies gained more followers. The cost of building and maintaining a thesaurus or a classification scheme was a strong disincentive. Today's databases are typically immense compared with those three decades ago. Full text searching is taken for granted, not just in discrete databases but across all the resources in an intranet or even the Internet. But intranets have brought particular frustration as users discover that despite all the computer power, they cannot find items which they know to be present an the network. So the trend against controlled vocabularies is now being reversed, as many information professionals are turning to them for help. Standards to guide them are still in demand.
  19. Shiri, A.A.; Revie, C.; Chowdhurry, G.: Assessing the impact of user interaction with thesaural knowledge structures : a quantitative analysis framework (2003) 0.01 
    0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=2766,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Thesauri have been important information and knowledge organisation tools for more than three decades. The recent emergence and phenomenal growth of the World Wide Web has created new opportunities to introduce thesauri as information search and retrieval aids to end user communities. While the number of web-based and hypertextual thesauri continues to grow, few investigations have yet been carried out to evaluate how end-users, for whom all these efforts are ostensibly made, interact with and make use of thesauri for query building and expansion. The present paper reports a pilot study carried out to determine the extent to which a thesaurus-enhanced search interface to a web-based database aided end-users in their selection of search terms. The study also investigated the ways in which users interacted with the thesaurus structure, terms, and interface. Thesaurusbased searching and browsing behaviours adopted by users while interacting with the thesaurus-enhanced search interface were also examined. 1. Introduction The last decade has witnessed the emergence of a broad range of applications for knowledge structures in general and thesauri in particular. A number of researchers have predicted that thesauri will increasingly be used in retrieval rather than for indexing (Milstead, 1998; Aitchison et al., 1997) and that their application in information retrieval systems will become more diverse due to the growth of fulltext databases accessed over the Internet (Williamson, 2000). Some researchers have emphasised the need for tailoring the structure and content of thesauri as tools for end-user searching (Bates, 1986; Strong and Drott, 1986; Anderson and Rowley, 1991; Lopez-Huertas, 1997) while others have suggested thesaurus-enhanced user interfaces to support query formulation and expansion (Pollitt et.al., 1994; Jones et.al., 1995; Beaulieu, 1997). The recent phenomenal growth of the World Wide Web has created new opportunities to introduce thesauri as information search and retrieval aids to end user communities. While the number of web-based and hypertextual thesauri continues to grow, few investigations have been carried out to evaluate the ways in which end-users interact with and make use of online thesauri for query building and expansion. The work reported here expands an a pilot study (Shiri and Revie, 2001) carried out to investigate user - thesaurus interaction in the domains of biology and veterinary medicine.

Authors

Languages

  • e 18
  • d 1

Themes