Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Tudhope, D.; Alani, H.; Jones, C.: Augmenting thesaurus relationships : possibilities for retrieval (2001) 0.02
    0.018584752 = product of:
      0.055754256 = sum of:
        0.055754256 = product of:
          0.08363138 = sum of:
            0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.025961377 = score(doc=1520,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051022716 = queryNorm
                0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
            0.05767 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05767 = score(doc=1520,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051022716 = queryNorm
                0.37365708 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
          0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    This paper discusses issues concerning the augmentation of thesaurus relationships, in light of new application possibilities for retrieval. We first discuss a case study that explored the retrieval potential of an augmented set of thesaurus relationships by specialising standard relationships into richer subtypes, in particular hierarchical geographical containment and the associative relationship. We then locate this work in a broader context by reviewing various attempts to build taxonomies of thesaurus relationships, and conclude by discussing the feasibility of hierarchically augmenting the core set of thesaurus relationships, particularly the associative relationship. We discuss the possibility of enriching the specification and semantics of Related Term (RT relationships), while maintaining compatibility with traditional thesauri via a limited hierarchical extension of the associative (and hierarchical) relationships. This would be facilitated by distinguishing the type of term from the (sub)type of relationship and explicitly specifying semantic categories for terms following a faceted approach. We first illustrate how hierarchical spatial relationships can be used to provide more flexible retrieval for queries incorporating place names in applications employing online gazetteers and geographical thesauri. We then employ a set of experimental scenarios to investigate key issues affecting use of the associative (RT) thesaurus relationships in semantic distance measures. Previous work has noted the potential of RTs in thesaurus search aids but also the problem of uncontrolled expansion of query term sets. Results presented in this paper suggest the potential for taking account of the hierarchical context of an RT link and specialisations of the RT relationship
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  2. Fischer, D.H.: Converting a thesaurus to OWL : Notes on the paper "The National Cancer Institute's Thesaurus and Ontology" (2004) 0.01
    0.014522595 = product of:
      0.021783892 = sum of:
        0.015766038 = weight(_text_:im in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015766038 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.10931155 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
        0.0060178554 = product of:
          0.018053565 = sum of:
            0.018053565 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.018053565 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051022716 = queryNorm
                0.11697317 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    The paper analysed here is a kind of position paper. In order to get a better under-standing of the reported work I used the retrieval interface of the thesaurus, the so-called NCI DTS Browser accessible via the Web3, and I perused the cited OWL file4 with numerous "Find" and "Find next" string searches. In addition the file was im-ported into Protégé 2000, Release 2.0, with OWL Plugin 1.0 and Racer Plugin 1.7.14. At the end of the paper's introduction the authors say: "In the following sections, this paper will describe the terminology development process at NCI, and the issues associated with converting a description logic based nomenclature to a semantically rich OWL ontology." While I will not deal with the first part, i.e. the terminology development process at NCI, I do not see the thesaurus as a description logic based nomenclature, or its cur-rent state and conversion already result in a "rich" OWL ontology. What does "rich" mean here? According to my view there is a great quantity of concepts and links but a very poor description logic structure which enables inferences. And what does the fol-lowing really mean, which is said a few lines previously: "Although editors have defined a number of named ontologic relations to support the description-logic based structure of the Thesaurus, additional relation-ships are considered for inclusion as required to support dependent applications."
  3. Cazan, C.: Medizinische Ontologien : das Ende des MeSH (2006) 0.01
    0.01201222 = product of:
      0.03603666 = sum of:
        0.03603666 = weight(_text_:im in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03603666 = score(doc=132,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.24985497 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Die Komplexizität medizinischer Fragestellungen und des medizinischen Informationsmanagements war seit den Anfängen der Informatik immer ein besonders wichtiges Thema. Trotz des Scheiterns der Künstlichen Intelligenz in den 80er Jahren des vorigen Jahrhunderts haben deren Kernideen Früchte getragen. Durch kongruente Entwicklung einer Reihe anderer Wissenschaftsdisziplinen und der exponentiellen Entwicklung im Bereich Computerhardware konnten die gestellten, hohen Anforderungen bei der medizinischen Informationssuche doch noch erfüllt werden. Die programmatische Forderung von Tim Berners-Lee betreffend "Semantic Web" im Jahr 2000 hat dem Thema Ontologien für maschinenlesbare Repositorien in Allgemein- und Fachsprache breitere Aufmerksamkeit gewonnen. Da in der Medizin (PubMed) mit dem von NLM schon vor 20 Jahren entwickelten Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) eine funktionierende Ontologie in Form eines semantischen Netzes in Betrieb ist, ist es auch für Medizinbibliothekare und Medizindokumentare hoch an der Zeit, sich damit zu beschäftigen. Ontologien können im Wesen, trotz der informatisch vernebelnden Terminologie, als Werkzeuge der Klassifikation verstanden werden. Hier sind von seiten der Bibliotheks- und Dokumentationswissenschaft wesentliche Beiträge möglich. Der vorliegende Bericht bietet einen Einstieg in das Thema, erklärt wesentliche Elemente des UMLS und schließt mit einer kommentierten Anmerkungs- und Literaturliste für die weitere Beschäftigung mit Ontologien.
    Content
    Dieser Aufsatz ist kein Abgesang auf MeSH (= Medical Subject Headings in Medline/PubMed), wie man/frau vielleicht vermuten könnte. Vielmehr wird - ohne informatiklastiges Fachchinesisch - an Hand des von der National Library of Medicine entwickelten Unified Medical Language System erklärt, worin die Anforderungen an Ontologien bestehen, die im Zusammenhang mit dem Semantic Web allerorten eingefordert und herbeigewünscht werden. Eine Lektüre für Einsteigerinnen, die zum Vertiefen der gewonnenen Begriffssicherheit an Hand der weiterführenden Literaturhinweise anregt. Da das UMLS hier vor allem als Beispiel verwendet wird, werden auch Bibliothekarlnnen, Dokumentarlnnen und Informationsspezialistinnen anderer Fachbereiche den Aufsatz mit Gewinn lesen - und erfahren, dass unser Fachwissen aus der Sacherschließung und der Verwendung und Mitgestaltung von Normdateien und Thesauri bei der Entwicklung von Ontologien gefragt ist! (Eveline Pipp, Universitätsbibliothek Innsbruck). - Die elektronische Version dieses Artikels ist verfügbar unter: http://www.egms.de/en/journals/mbi/2006-6/mbi000049.shtml.
  4. Qin, J.; Paling, S.: Converting a controlled vocabulary into an ontology : the case of GEM (2001) 0.01
    0.009217165 = product of:
      0.027651494 = sum of:
        0.027651494 = product of:
          0.08295448 = sum of:
            0.08295448 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08295448 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051022716 = 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)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    24. 8.2005 19:20:22
  5. Tudhope, D.; Hodge, G.: Terminology registries (2007) 0.01
    0.007680971 = product of:
      0.023042914 = sum of:
        0.023042914 = product of:
          0.06912874 = sum of:
            0.06912874 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06912874 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051022716 = 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)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:22:07
  6. Stein, R.; Saro, C.: Online-Plattform für kontrolliertes Vokabular (2006) 0.01
    0.005769195 = product of:
      0.017307585 = sum of:
        0.017307585 = product of:
          0.051922753 = sum of:
            0.051922753 = weight(_text_:online in 3443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.051922753 = score(doc=3443,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051022716 = queryNorm
                0.33531237 = fieldWeight in 3443, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3443)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
  7. Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Overview of ISO NP 25964 : structured vocabularies for information retrieval (2007) 0.00
    0.0034387745 = product of:
      0.0103163235 = sum of:
        0.0103163235 = product of:
          0.03094897 = sum of:
            0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03094897 = score(doc=535,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051022716 = queryNorm
                0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 535, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=535)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
  8. Assem, M. van; Malaisé, V.; Miles, A.; Schreiber, G.: ¬A method to convert thesauri to SKOS (2006) 0.00
    0.0034387745 = product of:
      0.0103163235 = sum of:
        0.0103163235 = product of:
          0.03094897 = sum of:
            0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03094897 = score(doc=4642,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051022716 = queryNorm
                0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4642, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4642)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Thesauri can be useful resources for indexing and retrieval on the Semantic Web, but often they are not published in RDF/OWL. To convert thesauri to RDF for use in Semantic Web applications and to ensure the quality and utility of the conversion a structured method is required. Moreover, if different thesauri are to be interoperable without complicated mappings, a standard schema for thesauri is required. This paper presents a method for conversion of thesauri to the SKOS RDF/OWL schema, which is a proposal for such a standard under development by W3Cs Semantic Web Best Practices Working Group. We apply the method to three thesauri: IPSV, GTAA and MeSH. With these case studies we evaluate our method and the applicability of SKOS for representing thesauri.
  9. Doerr, M.: Semantic problems of thesaurus mapping (2001) 0.00
    0.0028656456 = product of:
      0.008596936 = sum of:
        0.008596936 = product of:
          0.025790809 = sum of:
            0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.025790809 = score(doc=5902,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051022716 = queryNorm
                0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5902, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5902)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    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
  10. Hill, L.: New Protocols for Gazetteer and Thesaurus Services (2002) 0.00
    0.002307678 = product of:
      0.006923034 = sum of:
        0.006923034 = product of:
          0.0207691 = sum of:
            0.0207691 = weight(_text_:online in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0207691 = score(doc=1206,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051022716 = queryNorm
                0.13412495 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    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>).