Search (54 results, page 3 of 3)

0.012257928 = product of:
  0.024515856 = sum of:
    0.024515856 = product of:
      0.049031712 = sum of:
        0.049031712 = weight(_text_:22 in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049031712 = score(doc=749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = 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

0.012257928 = product of:
  0.024515856 = sum of:
    0.024515856 = product of:
      0.049031712 = sum of:
        0.049031712 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049031712 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = 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)
  0.5 = 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

0.01168419 = product of:
  0.02336838 = sum of:
    0.02336838 = product of:
      0.04673676 = sum of:
        0.04673676 = weight(_text_:searching in 2927) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04673676 = score(doc=2927,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 2927, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2927)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Presents a state of the art review of the literature of expert systems in library and information science, involving exhaustive searches of all major LIS CD-ROM databases (LISA, ERIC, LiLi, INSPEC etc.) and bibliographies appended in review articles. The search retrieved 679 references, comprising 362 periodical articles, 180 conference proceedings, 63 books articles, 28 theses and 46 monographs. The growth of the literature peaked between 1989 and 1990 and subsequently declined after 1992. Over 1/3 (287) covered intelligent front ends and interfaces for online searching and retrieval, followed by applications in reference service (113), classification, indexing and abstracting (86) and cataloguing (7). The most productive periodicals comprised 6 titles, of which 'Information processing and management' topped the lsit: 43 authors were found to contribute between 5 and 35 articles each, hence contributing 32,19% of the total contributors. 382 of the publications were single author works, 172 were by 2 authors, 72 were by 3 authors and 49 were by 4 or more authors. Only 161 titles were expressive enough to reveal both the name and function of systems being developed

0.01168419 = product of:
  0.02336838 = sum of:
    0.02336838 = product of:
      0.04673676 = sum of:
        0.04673676 = weight(_text_:searching in 2916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04673676 = score(doc=2916,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 2916, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2916)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.01168419 = product of:
  0.02336838 = sum of:
    0.02336838 = product of:
      0.04673676 = sum of:
        0.04673676 = weight(_text_:searching in 5997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04673676 = score(doc=5997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 5997, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5997)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Thesauri are Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS), that arise from the consensus of wide communities. They have been in use for many years and are regularly updated. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals for indexing and searching, today there is a demand for conceptual vocabularies that enable inferencing by machines. The development of the Semantic Web has brought a new opportunity for thesauri, but thesauri also face the challenge of proving that they add value to it. The evolution of thesauri toward their integration with the Semantic Web is examined. Elements and structures in the thesaurus standard, ISO 25964, and SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System), the Semantic Web standard for representing KOS, are reviewed and compared. Moreover, the integrity rules of thesauri are contrasted with the axioms of SKOS. How SKOS has been applied to represent some real thesauri is taken into account. Three thesauri are chosen for this aim: AGROVOC, EuroVoc and the UNESCO Thesaurus. Based on the results of this comparison and analysis, the benefits that Semantic Web technologies offer to thesauri, how thesauri can contribute to the Semantic Web, and the challenges that would help to improve their integration with the Semantic Web are discussed.

0.010506795 = product of:
  0.02101359 = sum of:
    0.02101359 = product of:
      0.04202718 = sum of:
        0.04202718 = weight(_text_:22 in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04202718 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4116, 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=4116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization. 26(1999) no.1, S.10-22

0.010506795 = product of:
  0.02101359 = sum of:
    0.02101359 = product of:
      0.04202718 = sum of:
        0.04202718 = weight(_text_:22 in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04202718 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = 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

0.010506795 = product of:
  0.02101359 = sum of:
    0.02101359 = product of:
      0.04202718 = sum of:
        0.04202718 = weight(_text_:22 in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04202718 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = 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

0.010506795 = product of:
  0.02101359 = sum of:
    0.02101359 = product of:
      0.04202718 = sum of:
        0.04202718 = weight(_text_:22 in 1181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04202718 = score(doc=1181,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1181, 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=1181)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26.11.2023 18:59:22

0.009347352 = product of:
  0.018694704 = sum of:
    0.018694704 = product of:
      0.03738941 = sum of:
        0.03738941 = weight(_text_:searching in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03738941 = score(doc=2615,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.1787783 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, 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.

0.009347352 = product of:
  0.018694704 = sum of:
    0.018694704 = product of:
      0.03738941 = sum of:
        0.03738941 = weight(_text_:searching in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03738941 = score(doc=1206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.1787783 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Alexandria Digital Library Project announces the online publication of two protocols to support querying and response interactions using distributed services: one for gazetteers and one for thesauri. These protocols have been developed for our own purposes and also to support the general interoperability of gazetteers and thesauri on the web. See <http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/~gjanee/gazetteer/> and <http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/~gjanee/thesaurus/>. For the gazetteer protocol, we have provided a page of test forms that can be used to experiment with the operational functions of the protocol in accessing two gazetteers: the ADL Gazetteer and the ESRI Gazetteer (ESRI has participated in the development of the gazetteer protocol). We are in the process of developing a thesaurus server and a simple client to demonstrate the use of the thesaurus protocol. We are soliciting comments on both protocols. Please remember that we are seeking protocols that are essentially "simple" and easy to implement and that support basic operations - they should not duplicate all of the functions of specialized gazetteer and thesaurus interfaces. We continue to discuss ways of handling various issues and to further develop the protocols. For the thesaurus protocol, outstanding issues include the treatment of multilingual thesauri and the degree to which the language attribute should be supported; whether the Scope Note element should be changed to a repeatable Note element; the best way to handle the hierarchical report for multi-hierarchies where portions of the hierarchy are repeated; and whether support for searching by term identifiers is redundant and unnecessary given that the terms themselves are unique within a thesaurus. For the gazetteer protocol, we continue to work on validation of query and report XML documents and on implementing the part of the protocol designed to support the submission of new entries to a gazetteer. We would like to encourage open discussion of these protocols through the NKOS discussion list (see the NKOS webpage at <http://nkos.slis.kent.edu/>) and the CGGR-L discussion list that focuses on gazetteer development (see ADL Gazetteer Development page at <http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/gazetteer>).

0.008755663 = product of:
  0.017511327 = sum of:
    0.017511327 = product of:
      0.035022654 = sum of:
        0.035022654 = weight(_text_:22 in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035022654 = score(doc=2337,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2337, 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=2337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.00700453 = product of:
  0.01400906 = sum of:
    0.01400906 = product of:
      0.02801812 = sum of:
        0.02801812 = weight(_text_:22 in 2913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02801812 = score(doc=2913,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = 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

0.006128964 = product of:
  0.012257928 = sum of:
    0.012257928 = product of:
      0.024515856 = sum of:
        0.024515856 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024515856 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.