Search (87 results, page 2 of 5)

0.0049139243 = product of:
  0.034397468 = sum of:
    0.024409214 = weight(_text_:web in 6773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024409214 = score(doc=6773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 6773, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6773)
    0.009988253 = weight(_text_:information in 6773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009988253 = score(doc=6773,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 6773, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6773)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Members offer comments and suggest resources on programs for creating, maintaining, and publishing thesauri. Formerly a tool for writers and indexers, the thesaurus has taken on a new role as an essential component of the corporate information infrastructure. Many people are using word processor or database programs to create and maintain thesauri, while others are using specialized tools that perform consistency checks and offer special reporting capabilities. Some also use thesaurus modules integrated into another application, such as web publishing, content management, or e-commerce. This article includes material comes from our own experience, email responses from members, and comments from participants in our seminars and roundtables. There's also an introduction to thesauri in a corporate information management system

0.0045768693 = product of:
  0.032038085 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
    0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023966359 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The latest thesaurus guidelines, ISO 2788 and ANSI/NISO Z39.19-1993, were published before many recent changes in the nature of databases, and before the full impact of the Internet on information storage and retrieval. The major changes are addressed in light of implications for reconsideration and possible revision of the guidelines

0.0044962796 = product of:
  0.031473957 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 3813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=3813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3813)
    0.025420163 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025420163 = score(doc=3813,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 3813, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3813)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This paper describes an ongoing project in which the subject headings contained in twelve controlled vocabularies covering multiple disciplines from the humanities to the sciences and including law and education among others are being collapsed into a single vocabulary and reference structure. The design of the database, algorithms created to programmatically link like-concepts, and daily maintenance are detailed. The problems and pitfalls of dealing with multiple vocabularies are noted, as well as the difficulties in relying purely an computer generated algorithms. The application of this megathesaurus to bibliographic records and methodology of retrieval is explained.

Source

Subject retrieval in a networked environment: Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting held in Dublin, OH, 14-16 August 2001 and sponsored by the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section, the IFLA Information Technology Section and OCLC. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.004274482 = product of:
  0.029921371 = sum of:
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 3222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=3222,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3222, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3222)
    0.021183468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021183468 = score(doc=3222,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 3222, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3222)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The use of thesaurus-based indexing is a common approach for increasing the performance of information retrieval. In this thesis, we examine the suitability of a thesaurus for a given set of information and evaluate improvements of existing thesauri to get better search results. On this area, we focus on two aspects: 1. We demonstrate an analysis of the indexing results achieved by an automatic document indexer and the involved thesaurus. 2. We propose a method for thesaurus evaluation which is based on a combination of statistical measures and appropriate visualization techniques that support the detection of potential problems in a thesaurus. In this chapter, we give an overview of the context of our work. Next, we briefly outline the basics of thesaurus-based information retrieval and describe the Collexis Engine that was used for our experiments. In Chapter 3, we describe two experiments in automatically indexing documents in the areas of medicine and economics with corresponding thesauri and compare the results to available manual annotations. Chapter 4 describes methods for assessing thesauri and visualizing the result in terms of a treemap. We depict examples of interesting observations supported by the method and show that we actually find critical problems. We conclude with a discussion of open questions and future research in Chapter 5.

0.004274482 = product of:
  0.029921371 = sum of:
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=1462,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1462, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1462)
    0.021183468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021183468 = score(doc=1462,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 1462, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1462)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

A thesaurus is a controlled vocabulary designed to allow for effective information retrieval. It con- sists of different kinds of semantic relationships, with the aim of guiding users to the choice of the most suitable index and search terms for expressing a certain concept. The relational semantics of a thesaurus deal with methods to connect terms with related meanings and arc intended to enhance information recall capabilities. In this paper, focused on hierarchical relations, different aspects of the relational semantics of thesauri, and among them the possibility of developing richer structures, are analyzed. Thesauri are viewed as semantic tools providing, for operational purposes, the representation of the meaning of the terms. The paper stresses how theories of semantics, holding different perspectives about the nature of meaning and how it is represented, affect the design of the relational semantics of thesauri. The need for tools capable of representing the complexity of knowledge and of the semantics of terms as it occurs in the literature of their respective subject fields is advocated. It is underlined how this would contribute to improving the retrieval of information. To achieve this goal, even though in a preliminary manner, we explore the possibility of setting against the framework of thesaurus design the notions of language games and hermeneutic horizon.

0.00402389 = product of:
  0.02816723 = sum of:
    0.012107591 = weight(_text_:information in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012107591 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
    0.016059637 = product of:
      0.04817891 = sum of:
        0.04817891 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04817891 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Date

24. 8.2005 19:20:22

Source

Information Research. 6(2001), no.2

0.004004761 = product of:
  0.028033325 = sum of:
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=3817,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
    0.020970564 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020970564 = score(doc=3817,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Subject retrieval in a networked environment: Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting held in Dublin, OH, 14-16 August 2001 and sponsored by the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section, the IFLA Information Technology Section and OCLC. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.004004761 = product of:
  0.028033325 = sum of:
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 2461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=2461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2461)
    0.020970564 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020970564 = score(doc=2461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 2461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2461)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Moderne Verfahren des Information Retrieval verlangen nach aussagekräftigen und detailliert relationierten Dokumentationssprachen. Der selektive Transfer einzelner Modellierungsstrategien aus dem Bereich semantischer Technologien für die Gestaltung und Relationierung bestehender Dokumentationssprachen wird diskutiert. Am Beispiel des Gegenstandsbereichs "Theater" der Schlagwortnormdatei wird ein hierarchisch strukturiertes Relationeninventar definiert, welches sowohl hinreichend allgemeine als auch zahlreiche spezifische Relationstypen enthält, welche eine detaillierte und damit funktionale Relationierung des Vokabulars ermöglichen. Die Relationierung des Gegenstandsbereichs wird als Ontologie im OWL-Format modelliert. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Ansätzen und Überlegungen zur Schaffung von Relationeninventaren entwickelt der vorgestellte Vorschlag das Relationeninventar aus der Begriffsmenge eines vorgegebenen Gegenstandsbereichs heraus. Das entwickelte Inventar wird als eine hierarchisch strukturierte Taxonomie gestaltet, was einen Zugewinn an Übersichtlichkeit und Funktionalität bringt.

0.0038378222 = product of:
  0.026864754 = sum of:
    0.0067683496 = weight(_text_:information in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067683496 = score(doc=1169,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1301088 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
    0.020096404 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020096404 = score(doc=1169,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.22419426 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

T.1: Today's thesauri are mostly electronic tools, having moved on from the paper-based era when thesaurus standards were first developed. They are built and maintained with the support of software and need to integrate with other software, such as search engines and content management systems. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals trained in indexing and searching, today there is a demand for vocabularies that untrained users will find to be intuitive. ISO 25964 makes the transition needed for the world of electronic information management. However, part 1 retains the assumption that human intellect is usually involved in the selection of indexing terms and in the selection of search terms. If both the indexer and the searcher are guided to choose the same term for the same concept, then relevant documents will be retrieved. This is the main principle underlying thesaurus design, even though a thesaurus built for human users may also be applied in situations where computers make the choices. Efficient exchange of data is a vital component of thesaurus management and exploitation. Hence the inclusion in this standard of recommendations for exchange formats and protocols. Adoption of these will facilitate interoperability between thesaurus management systems and the other computer applications, such as indexing and retrieval systems, that will utilize the data. Thesauri are typically used in post-coordinate retrieval systems, but may also be applied to hierarchical directories, pre-coordinate indexes and classification systems. Increasingly, thesaurus applications need to mesh with others, such as automatic categorization schemes, free-text search systems, etc. Part 2 of ISO 25964 describes additional types of structured vocabulary and gives recommendations to enable interoperation of the vocabularies at all stages of the information storage and retrieval process.
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.

Issue

Pt.1: Thesauri for information retrieval - Pt.2: Interoperability with other vocabularies.

0.003790876 = product of:
  0.02653613 = sum of:
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=2263,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=2263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2263, 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=2263)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Theme

Information Gateway

0.0037468998 = product of:
  0.026228298 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
    0.021183468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021183468 = score(doc=613,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Purpose - To evaluate the extent to which familiarity with search topics affects the ways in which users select and browse search terms in a thesaurus-enhanced search setting. Design/methodology/approach - An experimental methodology was adopted to study users' search behaviour in an operational information retrieval environment. Findings - Topic familiarity and subject knowledge influence some search and interaction behaviours. Searches involving moderately and very familiar topics were associated with browsing around twice as many thesaurus terms as was the case for unfamiliar topics. Research limitations/implications - Some search behaviours such as thesaurus browsing and term selection could be used as an indication of user levels of topic familiarity. Practical implications - The results of this study provide design implications as to how to develop personalized search interfaces where users with varying levels of familiarity with search topics can carry out searches. Originality/value - This paper establishes the importance of topic familiarity characteristics and the effects of those characteristics on users' interaction with search interfaces enhanced with semantic tools such as thesauri.

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.003574072 = product of:
  0.025018502 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=2615,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
    0.016946774 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016946774 = score(doc=2615,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.0034326524 = product of:
  0.024028566 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=708,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 708, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=708)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=708,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 708, 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=708)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This Standard presents guidelines and conventions for the contents, display, construction, testing, maintenance, and management of monolingual controlled vocabularies. This Standard focuses on controlled vocabularies that are used for the representation of content objects in knowledge organization systems including lists, synonym rings, taxonomies, and thesauri. This Standard should be regarded as a set of recommendations based on preferred techniques and procedures. Optional procedures are, however, sometimes described, e.g., for the display of terms in a controlled vocabulary. The primary purpose of vocabulary control is to achieve consistency in the description of content objects and to facilitate retrieval. Vocabulary control is accomplished by three principal methods: defining the scope, or meaning, of terms; using the equivalence relationship to link synonymous and nearly synonymous terms; and distinguishing among homographs.

Editor

National Information Standards Organization

0.0034326524 = product of:
  0.024028566 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=1148,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1148, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1148)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=1148,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1148, 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=1148)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.2

0.0034326524 = product of:
  0.024028566 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 1837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=1837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1837)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=1837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1837, 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=1837)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Moderne Verfahren des Information Retrieval verlangen nach aussagekräftigen und detailliert relationierten Dokumentationssprachen. Der selektive Transfer einzelner Modellierungsstrategien aus dem Bereich semantischer Technologien für die Gestaltung und Relationierung bestehender Dokumentationssprachen wird diskutiert. Am Beispiel des Gegenstandsbereichs "Theater" der Schlagwortnormdatei wird ein hierarchisch strukturiertes Relationeninventar definiert, welches sowohl hinreichend allgemeine als auch zahlreiche spezifische Relationstypen enthält, welche eine detaillierte und damit funktionale Relationierung des Vokabulars ermöglichen. Die Relationierung des Gegenstandsbereichs wird als Ontologie im OWL-Format modelliert. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Ansätzen und Überlegungen zur Schaffung von Relationeninventaren entwickelt der vorgestellte Vorschlag das Relationeninventar aus der Begriffsmenge eines vorgegebenen Gegenstandsbereichs heraus. Das entwickelte Inventar wird als eine hierarchisch strukturierte Taxonomie gestaltet, was einen Zugewinn an Übersichtlichkeit und Funktionalität bringt.

0.0034326524 = product of:
  0.024028566 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 2658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=2658,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2658, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2658)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=2658,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2658, 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=2658)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.0034326524 = product of:
  0.024028566 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=535,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 535, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=535)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=535,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

0.0032137486 = product of:
  0.044992477 = sum of:
    0.044992477 = weight(_text_:wide in 5707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044992477 = score(doc=5707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 5707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5707)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This paper describes the procedures for a concept-based mapping of two agricultural thesauri, the multilingual AGROVOC, created and maintained by the Food and Agricultural Organization, and the bilingual Chinese Agricultural Thesaurus, created and maintained by the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science. Conducted under the auspices of FAO's Agricultural Ontology Service, the mapping project aims to extend AGROVOC with an additional set of perspectives on the agricultural domains, enrich its domain and language coverage, and make use of AGROVOC as a common data model for data exchange among a wide range of multilingual repositories within agriculture.

0.0031590632 = product of:
  0.02211344 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 6645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=6645,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 6645, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6645)
    0.014978974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014978974 = score(doc=6645,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 6645, 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=6645)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Zahlreich sind die Versuche, Strukturen begrifflicher Relationen, wie sie in Thesauren niedergelegt sind, durch Visualisierung verständlicher zu machen, doch nirgends ist das bisher in überzeugender Weise gelungen. Damit blieb der Gebrauch von Thesauri durchweg auf Fachleute (Dokumentare) verwiesen und eine Anwendung in der Breite fand nicht statt. Mit den neuen Möglichkeiten visueller und auditiver Darstellung, wie sie nun die Informationstechnologie bietet, läßt sich das ändern. Berichtet wird über ein Projekt im Zusammenhang mit der EXP02000, bei dem versucht wird, bisher weitgehend ungenutzte Potentiale von Thesauri für die Interaktion am Computer zu nutzen. Akteur am Point of Information ist dabei jeder Interessierte, gleich ob Laie oder Fachmann, Gegenstand der Strukturierung die Welt im Jahre 2000, Zugangssprache die Sprache der allgemeinen Kommunikation. Einsicht in die begrifflichen Strukturen in dem Sinne, daß man sie versteht, ist nicht erforderlich, die multimediale Präsentation ermöglicht sensitives Erfassen und nähert sich gewohntem intuitiven Umgang mit Begrifflichkeiten. Jedermann kann so durch den Gedankenraum "reisen", sinnvollen Verknüpfungen und Wirkketten nachspüren, begriffliche Klärung und Einsichten gewinnen, für den Begriff das richtige Wort finden. Bei solch einer Reise wird er zugleich auch auf überraschende Zusammenhänge stoßen. Der Sprung in die Quellen wird von jedem angesteuerten Punkt aus möglich. Die Grenzen des herkömmlichen Information Retrieval zerfließen damit und öffnen sich hin zu neuen, bisher vernachlässigten Räumen: dem Erleben, der Anregung, dem sinnvollen Spiel, der Überraschung, dem unterhaltsamen Lernen

0.0031590632 = product of:
  0.02211344 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 5902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=5902,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5902, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5902)
    0.014978974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014978974 = score(doc=5902,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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

Source

Journal of digital information. 1(2001) no.8,