Search (60 results, page 3 of 3)

0.0015914403 = product of:
  0.0135272425 = sum of:
    0.0067752544 = weight(_text_:und in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067752544 = score(doc=2915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
    0.006751988 = weight(_text_:in in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006751988 = score(doc=2915,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)

Abstract

The introduction (1.0) of this article considers the status of the thesaurus within LIS and asks about the future prospect for thesauri. The main following points are: (2.0) Any knowledge organization system (KOS) is today threatened by Google-like systems, and it is therefore important to consider if there still is a need for knowledge organization (KO) in the traditional sense. (3.0) A thesaurus is a somewhat reduced form of KOS compared to, for example, an ontology, and its "bundling" and restricted number of semantic relations has never been justified theoretically or empirically. Which semantic relations are most fruitful for a given task is thus an open question, and different domains may need different kinds of KOS including different sets of relations between terms. (4.0) A KOS is a controlled vocabulary (CV) and should not be considered a "perfect language" (Eco 1995) that is simply able to remove the ambiguity of natural language; rather much ambiguity in language represents a battle between many "voices" (Bakhtin 1981) or "paradigms" (Kuhn 1962). In this perspective, a specific KOS, e.g. a specific thesaurus, is just one "voice" among many voices, and that voice has to demonstrate its authority and utility. It is concluded (5.0) that the traditional thesaurus does not have a place in modern information retrieval, but that more flexible semantic tools based on proper studies of domains will always be important.

Content

Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0015914403 = product of:
  0.0135272425 = sum of:
    0.0067752544 = weight(_text_:und in 2916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067752544 = score(doc=2916,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 2916, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2916)
    0.006751988 = weight(_text_:in in 2916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006751988 = score(doc=2916,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 2916, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2916)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)

Abstract

Thesauri have triumphed in many domains that require precise and exhaustive information because of their representational power, their capability to integrate the concept-based and alphabetical approaches to organizing information, and their standardization and, more recently, formalization. Nevertheless, there is room to improve their relevance in the digital age by embracing the open linked data initiatives and by taking advantage of their structural and functional proximity to some of the big collaborative knowledge repositories in the Internet, notably the Wikipedia environment. With a focus on its implications for enhanced interoperability, this structural proximity is analysed, and the benefits of such collaboration for the different potential stakeholders are considered. It is proposed that better devices for ensuring semantic browsing are provided when necessary, and that an open hub for thesauri interconnection is developed, perhaps using existing big open Internet semantic facilities, such as Wikipedia.

Content

Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0015805366 = product of:
  0.013434561 = sum of:
    0.008130305 = weight(_text_:und in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008130305 = score(doc=1656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 1656, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1656)
    0.005304256 = weight(_text_:in in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005304256 = score(doc=1656,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 1656, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1656)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)

Abstract

Efforts towards internationalization have become increasingly important in scientific environments. As for content-based indexing of scientific research data, however, standards leading to internationally coherent indexing which is vital for retrieval purposes are not yet sufficiently developed. Even concerning the concrete use of indexing instruments, launched by initiatives on an international scale, there are still no binding policies and guidelines. Against this backdrop, essential criteria which internationally applicable indexing systems should meet will be outlined. These will be illustrated through the multilingual European Language Social Science Thesaurus (ELSST), originally based on the UK Data Archive's (UKDA) Humanities and Social Science Electronic Thesaurus (HASSET) and ultimately developed by the Council of European Social Science Data Archives (CESSDA). Additionally, the general pros and cons of using international versus national indexing languages will be weighed using the ELSST and the Thesaurus for the Social Sciences (TSS) developed by GESIS - Leibniz-Institute for the Social Sciences. In this light, the benefit of vocabulary crosswalks for supporting a combined use of international and national indexing systems will be discussed.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0015362556 = product of:
  0.013058173 = sum of:
    0.0094853565 = weight(_text_:und in 4832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0094853565 = score(doc=4832,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 4832, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4832)
    0.0035728158 = weight(_text_:in in 4832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035728158 = score(doc=4832,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 4832, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4832)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)

Footnote

Rez. in: Cataloging and classification quarterly 53(2015) no.1, S.112-115 (Stephen Hearn)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0015362556 = product of:
  0.013058173 = sum of:
    0.0094853565 = weight(_text_:und in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0094853565 = score(doc=604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
    0.0035728158 = weight(_text_:in in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035728158 = score(doc=604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)

Abstract

iQvoc is a new open source SKOS-XL vocabulary management tool developed by the Federal Environment Agency, Germany, and innoQ Deutschland GmbH. Its immediate purpose is maintaining and publishing reference vocabularies in the upcoming Linked Data cloud of environmental information, but it may be easily adapted to host any SKOS- XL compliant vocabulary. iQvoc is implemented as a Ruby on Rails application running on top of JRuby - the Java implementation of the Ruby Programming Language. To increase the user experience when editing content, iQvoc uses heavily the JavaScript library jQuery.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0014684382 = product of:
  0.012481725 = sum of:
    0.0067752544 = weight(_text_:und in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067752544 = score(doc=2036,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 2036, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2036)
    0.005706471 = weight(_text_:in in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005706471 = score(doc=2036,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 2036, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2036)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)

Abstract

Thesauri and other types of controlled vocabularies are increasingly re-engineered into ontologies described using the Web Ontology Language (OWL), particularly in the life sciences. This has led to the perception by some that thesauri are ontologies once they are described by using the syntax of OWL while others have emphasized the need to re-engineer a vocabulary to use it as ontology. This confusion is rooted in different perceptions of what ontologies are and how they differ from other types of vocabularies. In this article, we rigorously examine the structural differences and similarities between thesauri and meaning-defining ontologies described in OWL. Specifically, we conduct (a) a conceptual comparison of thesauri and ontologies, and (b) a comparison of a specific thesaurus and a specific ontology in the same subject field. Our results show that thesauri and ontologies need to be treated as 2 orthogonal kinds of models with superficially similar structures. An ontology is not a good thesaurus, nor is a thesaurus a good ontology. A thesaurus requires significant structural and other content changes to become an ontology, and vice versa.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0014684382 = product of:
  0.012481725 = sum of:
    0.0067752544 = weight(_text_:und in 2106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067752544 = score(doc=2106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 2106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2106)
    0.005706471 = weight(_text_:in in 2106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005706471 = score(doc=2106,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 2106, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2106)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)

Abstract

The use of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOSs) in aggregated metadata collections facilitates the implementation of search mechanisms operating on the same term or keyphrase space, thus preparing the ground for improved browsing, more accurate retrieval and better user profiling. Automatic thesaurus-based keyphrase extraction appears to be an inexpensive tool to obtain this information, but the studies on its effectiveness are scattered and do not consider the practical applicability of these techniques compared to the quality obtained by involving human experts. This paper presents an evaluation of keyphrase extraction using the KEA software and the AGROVOC vocabulary on a sample of a large collection of metadata in the field of agriculture from the AGRIS database. This effort includes a double evaluation, the classical automatic evaluation based on precision and recall measures, plus a blind evaluation aimed to contrast the quality of the keyphrases extracted against expert-provided samples and against the keyphrases originally recorded in the metadata. Results show not only that KEA outperforms humans in matching the original keyphrases, but also that the quality of the keyphrases extracted was similar to those provided by humans.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.001466025 = product of:
  0.012461212 = sum of:
    0.008130305 = weight(_text_:und in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008130305 = score(doc=1376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 1376, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1376)
    0.004330907 = weight(_text_:in in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004330907 = score(doc=1376,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 1376, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1376)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)

Abstract

Thesauri are the most important tools for information and knowledge organization, and they undergo regular improvements according to the rapid development of new requirements and affordances of emerging information techniques. This paper attempts to integrate ontology into the conceptual organization scheme of thesauri and proposes a new solution to extend the functionality of thesauri based on ontological features, which is termed here as an onto-thesaurus. In this study, a prototype system named the Chinese Information Science and Information Service onto-thesaurus system (CIS&IS), was developed to analyze ontothesaurus with the category of information science and information service in the Chinese Topic Classification Dictionary with a two-stage approach. The first stage aims to define and construct the onto-thesaurus. The second stage aims to realize the evolution function of onto-thesaurus. The main purpose of this system was to achieve the function of self-learning and auto-evolution and to enable a much more effective conceptual retrieval by the newly proposed onto-thesaurus.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.001466025 = product of:
  0.012461212 = sum of:
    0.008130305 = weight(_text_:und in 2015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008130305 = score(doc=2015,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 2015, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2015)
    0.004330907 = weight(_text_:in in 2015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004330907 = score(doc=2015,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 2015, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2015)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)

Abstract

A video game's plot is one of its defining features, and prior research confirms the importance of plot metadata to users through persona analysis, interviews, and surveys. However, existing organizational systems, including library catalogs, game-related websites, and traditional plot classification systems, do not adequately describe the plot information of video games, in other words, what the game is really about. We attempt to address the issue by creating a controlled vocabulary based on a domain analysis involving a review of relevant literature and existing data structures. The controlled vocabulary is constructed in a pair structure for maximizing flexibility and extensibility. Adopting this controlled vocabulary for describing plot information of games will allow for useful search and collocation of video games.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.001466025 = product of:
  0.012461212 = sum of:
    0.008130305 = weight(_text_:und in 2203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008130305 = score(doc=2203,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 2203, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2203)
    0.004330907 = weight(_text_:in in 2203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004330907 = score(doc=2203,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 2203, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2203)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)

Abstract

This paper gives an overview of the history, development, and structure of the electronic thesauri produced and maintained by the Getty Research Institute (GRI). We describe the evolution of the Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT®), the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN®), and the Union List of Artist Names (ULAN®) as multilingual, cross-cultural knowledge organization systems (KOS); the factors that make them unique; and their potential, when expressed as Linked Open Data (LOD) to play a key role in the Semantic Web.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.001466025 = product of:
  0.012461212 = sum of:
    0.008130305 = weight(_text_:und in 3485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008130305 = score(doc=3485,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 3485, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3485)
    0.004330907 = weight(_text_:in in 3485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004330907 = score(doc=3485,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 3485, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3485)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)

Abstract

Thesauri are knowledge models commonly used for information classication and retrieval whose structure is dened by standards that describe the main features the concepts and relations must have. However, following these standards requires a deep knowledge of the field the thesaurus is going to cover and experience in their creation. To help in this task, this paper describes a software processing chain that provides dierent validation components that evaluates the quality of the main thesaurus features.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0013975621 = product of:
  0.011879277 = sum of:
    0.0067752544 = weight(_text_:und in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067752544 = score(doc=3087,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 3087, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3087)
    0.005104023 = weight(_text_:in in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005104023 = score(doc=3087,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 3087, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3087)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)

Abstract

A thesaurus contains a set of terms or features that may be used to represent recorded information, including prose documents or scientific data sets. The focus of this work is on the basic structural nature of a thesaurus itself, not on how people develop a thesaurus or how a thesaurus effects retrieval performance. Thesauri in this research are automatically developed in a simulation from sets of randomly or exhaustively generated documents. Each thesaurus is generated by the Thesaurus Generator software from a set of several hundred documents, and thousands of different document sets are used as input to the Thesaurus Generator, producing thousands of thesauri. Thus, thousands of thesauri are generated for each data point in accompanying graphs. The characteristics of this large number of thesauri are studied so that the relationships between thesaurus parameters can be determined. Some rules governing these relationships are suggested, addressing factors such as tree height and width, number of tree roots in thesauri, and number of terms available for the vocabulary. How these parameters scale as vocabularies grow is addressed. These results apply to various information systems that contain features with hierarchical relationships, including many thesauri and ontologies.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0013972163 = product of:
  0.011876339 = sum of:
    0.0054202033 = weight(_text_:und in 1016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054202033 = score(doc=1016,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.09795051 = fieldWeight in 1016, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1016)
    0.0064561353 = weight(_text_:in in 1016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0064561353 = score(doc=1016,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.19010136 = fieldWeight in 1016, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1016)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)

Abstract

Relationships between terms and features are an essential component of thesauri, ontologies, and a range of controlled vocabularies. In this article, we describe ways to identify important concepts in documents using the relationships in a thesaurus or other vocabulary structures. We introduce a methodology for the analysis and modeling of the indexing process based on a weighted random walk algorithm. The primary goal of this research is the analysis of the contribution of thesaurus structure to the indexing process. The resulting models are evaluated in the context of automatic subject indexing using four collections of documents pre-indexed with 4 different thesauri (AGROVOC [UN Food and Agriculture Organization], high-energy physics taxonomy [HEP], National Agricultural Library Thesaurus [NALT], and medical subject headings [MeSH]). We also introduce a thesaurus-centric matching algorithm intended to improve the quality of candidate concepts. In all cases, the weighted random walk improves automatic indexing performance over matching alone with an increase in average precision (AP) of 9% for HEP, 11% for MeSH, 35% for NALT, and 37% for AGROVOC. The results of the analysis support our hypothesis that subject indexing is in part a browsing process, and that using the vocabulary and its structure in a thesaurus contributes to the indexing process. The amount that the vocabulary structure contributes was found to differ among the 4 thesauri, possibly due to the vocabulary used in the corresponding thesauri and the structural relationships between the terms. Each of the thesauri and the manual indexing associated with it is characterized using the methods developed here.

Content

Korrektur einer Referenz in: JASIST 64(2013) no.8, S.1757.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0013805983 = product of:
  0.02347017 = sum of:
    0.02347017 = weight(_text_:und in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02347017 = score(doc=1144,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.42413816 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 64(2013) H.6, S.365-368

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0013582389 = product of:
  0.01154503 = sum of:
    0.0054202033 = weight(_text_:und in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054202033 = score(doc=4639,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.09795051 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
    0.006124827 = weight(_text_:in in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006124827 = score(doc=4639,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)

Abstract

This thesis focuses on conversion of vocabularies for representation and integration of collections on the Semantic Web. A secondary focus is how to represent metadata schemas (RDF Schemas representing metadata element sets) such that they interoperate with vocabularies. The primary domain in which we operate is that of cultural heritage collections. The background worldview in which a solution is sought is that of the Semantic Web research paradigmwith its associated theories, methods, tools and use cases. In other words, we assume the SemanticWeb is in principle able to provide the context to realize interoperable collections. Interoperability is dependent on the interplay between representations and the applications that use them. We mean applications in the widest sense, such as "search" and "annotation". These applications or tasks are often present in software applications, such as the E-Culture application. It is therefore necessary that applications requirements on the vocabulary representation are met. This leads us to formulate the following problem statement: HOW CAN EXISTING VOCABULARIES BE MADE AVAILABLE TO SEMANTIC WEB APPLICATIONS?
We refine the problem statement into three research questions. The first two focus on the problem of conversion of a vocabulary to a Semantic Web representation from its original format. Conversion of a vocabulary to a representation in a Semantic Web language is necessary to make the vocabulary available to SemanticWeb applications. In the last question we focus on integration of collection metadata schemas in a way that allows for vocabulary representations as produced by our methods. Academisch proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad Doctor aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Dutch Research School for Information and Knowledge Systems.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0013171139 = product of:
  0.011195468 = sum of:
    0.0067752544 = weight(_text_:und in 2105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067752544 = score(doc=2105,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 2105, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2105)
    0.004420214 = weight(_text_:in in 2105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004420214 = score(doc=2105,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 2105, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2105)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)

Abstract

Once upon a time, the thesaurus was venerated. It marked a breakthrough in the retrieval of very specific needles of information hidden in large haystacks. Some of the veneration rubbed off on to the trained information professionals, who alone mastered the occult art of using it to concoct effective search strategies. All this was in the time before we had a computer on every desk, when a collection of 10,000 articles was considered large, and long before the Google era. But now, who has the patience to consult a complicated thesaurus? Only a dedicated few. Has the thesaurus passed its sell-by date? And even its use-by date? These questions, and more, were tossed around at the Great Debate by a community of enthusiasts. While some limitations of the old-fashioned (?) thesaurus were noted, it still received a happy vote of confidence at the end. - Judi Vernau (2015) First speaker for the proposition - Vanda Broughton (2015) First speaker for the opposition - Helen Lippell (2015) Second speaker for the proposition - Leonard Will (2015) Second speaker for the opposition - Cross-examination of expert witnesses - Martin White (2015) Questions and discussion from the floor

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0013171139 = product of:
  0.011195468 = sum of:
    0.0067752544 = weight(_text_:und in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067752544 = score(doc=2703,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 2703, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2703)
    0.004420214 = weight(_text_:in in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004420214 = score(doc=2703,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 2703, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2703)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)

Abstract

When consumers search for health information, a major obstacle is their unfamiliarity with the medical terminology. Even though medical thesauri such as the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and related tools (e.g., the MeSH Browser) were created to help consumers find medical term definitions, the lack of direct and explicit integration of these help tools into a health retrieval system prevented them from effectively achieving their objectives. To explore this issue, we conducted an empirical study with two systems: One is a simple interface system supporting query-based searching; the other is an augmented system with two new components supporting MeSH term searching and MeSH tree browsing. A total of 45 subjects were recruited to participate in the study. The results indicated that the augmented system is more effective than the simple system in terms of improving user-perceived topic familiarity and question-answer performance, even though we did not find users spend more time on the augmented system. The two new MeSH help components played a critical role in participants' health information retrieval and were found to allow them to develop new search strategies. The findings of the study enhanced our understanding of consumers' search behaviors and shed light on the design of future health information retrieval systems.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0013171139 = product of:
  0.011195468 = sum of:
    0.0067752544 = weight(_text_:und in 5997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067752544 = score(doc=5997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 5997, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5997)
    0.004420214 = weight(_text_:in in 5997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004420214 = score(doc=5997,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 5997, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5997)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)

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.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0012260122 = product of:
  0.010421104 = sum of:
    0.0054202033 = weight(_text_:und in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054202033 = score(doc=4800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.09795051 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
    0.0050009005 = weight(_text_:in in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050009005 = score(doc=4800,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.14725187 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)

Abstract

The usefulness of online geological maps is hindered by linguistic barriers. Multilingual geoscience thesauri alleviate linguistic barriers of geological maps. However, the benefits of multilingual geoscience thesauri for online geological maps are less studied. In this regard, we developed a multilingual thesaurus of geological time scale (GTS) to alleviate linguistic barriers of GTS records among online geological maps. We extended the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) model to represent the ordinal hierarchical structure of GTS terms. We collected GTS terms in seven languages and encoded them into a thesaurus by using the extended SKOS model. We implemented methods of characteristic-oriented term retrieval in JavaScript programs for accessing Web Map Services (WMS), recognizing GTS terms, and making translations. With the developed thesaurus and programs, we set up a pilot system to test recognitions and translations of GTS terms in online geological maps. Results of this pilot system proved the accuracy of the developed thesaurus and the functionality of the developed programs. Therefore, with proper deployments, SKOS-based multilingual geoscience thesauri can be functional for alleviating linguistic barriers among online geological maps and, thus, improving their interoperability.

Content

Article Outline 1. Introduction 2. SKOS-based multilingual thesaurus of geological time scale 2.1. Addressing the insufficiency of SKOS in the context of the Semantic Web 2.2. Addressing semantics and syntax/lexicon in multilingual GTS terms 2.3. Extending SKOS model to capture GTS structure 2.4. Summary of building the SKOS-based MLTGTS 3. Recognizing and translating GTS terms retrieved from WMS 4. Pilot system, results, and evaluation 5. Discussion 6. Conclusions Vgl. unter: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_cid=271720&_user=3865853&_pii=S0098300411000744&_check=y&_origin=&_coverDate=31-Oct-2011&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlt-zSkzS&_valck=1&md5=e2c1daf53df72d034d22278212578f42&ie=/sdarticle.pdf.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0011180496 = product of:
  0.009503421 = sum of:
    0.0054202033 = weight(_text_:und in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054202033 = score(doc=2915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.09795051 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
    0.004083218 = weight(_text_:in in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004083218 = score(doc=2915,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)

Abstract

"Clearly details the conceptual and practical notions of controlled vocabularies. . provides a crash course for newcomers and offers experienced practitioners a common frame of reference. A valuable book." - Christine Connors, TriviumRLG LLC The Accidental Taxonomist is the most comprehensive guide available to the art and science of building information taxonomies. Heather Hedden-one of today's leading writers, instructors, and consultants on indexing and taxonomy topics-walks readers through the process, displaying her trademark ability to present highly technical information in straightforward, comprehensible English. Drawing on numerous real-world examples, Hedden explains how to create terms and relationships, select taxonomy management software, design taxonomies for human versus automated indexing, manage enterprise taxonomy projects, and adapt taxonomies to various user interfaces. The result is a practical and essential guide for information professionals who need to effectively create or manage taxonomies, controlled vocabularies, and thesauri. "A wealth of descriptive reference content is balanced with expert guidance. . Open The Accidental Taxonomist to begin the learning process or to refresh your understanding of the depth and breadth of this demanding discipline." - Lynda Moulton, Principal Consultant, LWM Technology Services "From the novice taxonomist to the experienced professional, all will find helpful, practical advice in The Accidental Taxonomist." - Trish Yancey, TCOO, Synaptica, LLC "This book squarely addresses the growing demand for and interest in taxonomy. ...Hedden brings a variety of background experience, including not only taxonomy construction but also abstracting and content categorization and creating back-of-the-book indexes. These experiences serve her well by building a broad perspective on the similarities as well as real differences between often overlapping types of work." - Marjorie M. K. Hlava, President and Chairman, Access Innovations, Inc., and Chair, SLA Taxonomy Division

Footnote

Rez. in: IWP 64(2013) H.6, S.373-374 (J. Fassbender)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus