¬The thesaurus: review, renaissance and revision (2004)
0.03
0.033317152 = product of:
0.049975727 = sum of:
0.028467814 = weight(_text_:search in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028467814 = score(doc=3243,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.16292235 = fieldWeight in 3243, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3243)
0.021507913 = product of:
0.043015826 = sum of:
0.043015826 = weight(_text_:engines in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043015826 = score(doc=3243,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.16840704 = fieldWeight in 3243, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3243)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Content
- Enthält u.a. folgende Aussage von J. Aitchison u. S. Dextre Clarke: "We face a paradox. Ostensibly, the need and the opportunity to apply thesauri to information retrieval are greater than ever before. On the other hand, users resist most efforts to persuade them to apply one. The drive for interoperability of systems means we must design our vocabularies for easy integration into downstream applications such as content management systems, indexing/metatagging interfaces, search engines, and portals. Summarizing the search for vocabularies that work more intuitively, we see that there are trends working in opposite directions. In the hugely popular taxonomies an the one hand, relationships between terms are more loosely defined than in thesauri. In the ontologies that will support computer-to-computer communications in AI applications such as the Semantic Web, we see the need for much more precisely defined term relationships."
