-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.: ¬The Information Retrieval Thesaurus (2019)
0.06
0.057316903 = product of:
0.114633806 = sum of:
0.050096344 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050096344 = score(doc=5210,freq=8.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 5210, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5210)
0.02008212 = weight(_text_:of in 5210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02008212 = score(doc=5210,freq=18.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 5210, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5210)
0.006621159 = product of:
0.013242318 = sum of:
0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 5210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013242318 = score(doc=5210,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 5210, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5210)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.037834182 = product of:
0.075668365 = sum of:
0.075668365 = weight(_text_:computers in 5210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.075668365 = score(doc=5210,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21710795 = queryWeight, product of:
5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.34852874 = fieldWeight in 5210, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5210)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(4/8)
- Abstract
- In the post-war period before computers were readily available, urgent demand for scientific and industrial develop-ment stimulated research and development (R&D) that led to the birth of the information retrieval thesaurus. This article traces the early history, speciation and progressive improvement of the thesaurus to reach the state now conveyed by guidelines in inter-national and national standards. Despite doubts about the effec-tiveness of the thesaurus throughout this period, and notwith-standing the dominance of Google and other search engines in the information retrieval (IR) scene today, the thesaurus still plays a complementary part in the organization of knowledge and in-formation resources. Success today depends on interoperability, and is opening up opportunities in linked data applications. At the same time, the IR demand from workers in the knowledge society drives interest in hybrid forms of knowledge organization system (KOS) that may pool the genes of thesauri with those of ontologies and classification schemes.
- Object
- Information Retrieval Thesaurus
- Series
- Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization
-
Engerer, V.: Control and syntagmatization : vocabulary requirements in information retrieval thesauri and natural language lexicons (2017)
0.05
0.04730354 = product of:
0.09460708 = sum of:
0.04338471 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04338471 = score(doc=3678,freq=6.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025667597 = score(doc=3678,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018933605 = score(doc=3678,freq=16.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
0.006621159 = product of:
0.013242318 = sum of:
0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013242318 = score(doc=3678,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(4/8)
- Abstract
- This paper explores the relationships between natural language lexicons in lexical semantics and thesauri in information retrieval research. These different areas of knowledge have different restrictions on use of vocabulary; thesauri are used only in information search and retrieval contexts, whereas lexicons are mental systems and generally applicable in all domains of life. A set of vocabulary requirements that defines the more concrete characteristics of vocabulary items in the 2 contexts can be derived from this framework: lexicon items have to be learnable, complex, transparent, etc., whereas thesaurus terms must be effective, current and relevant, searchable, etc. The differences in vocabulary properties correlate with 2 other factors, the well-known dimension of Control (deliberate, social activities of building and maintaining vocabularies), and Syntagmatization, which is less known and describes vocabulary items' varying formal preparedness to exit the thesaurus/lexicon, enter into linear syntactic constructions, and, finally, acquire communicative functionality. It is proposed that there is an inverse relationship between Control and Syntagmatization.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.6, S.1480-1490
-
Kempf, A.O.; Baum, K.: Thesaurus-based indexing of research data in the social sciences : opportunities and difficulties of internationalization efforts (2013)
0.04
0.044822488 = product of:
0.089644976 = sum of:
0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025048172 = score(doc=1656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1656, 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=1656)
0.036299463 = weight(_text_:use in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036299463 = score(doc=1656,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.2870708 = fieldWeight in 1656, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1656)
0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018933605 = score(doc=1656,freq=16.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1656, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1656)
0.009363732 = product of:
0.018727465 = sum of:
0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018727465 = score(doc=1656,freq=4.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 1656, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1656)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(4/8)
- 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.
-
White, M.: ¬The value of taxonomies, thesauri and metadata in enterprise search (2016)
0.04
0.03668788 = product of:
0.07337576 = sum of:
0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020873476 = score(doc=2964,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2964, 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=2964)
0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030249555 = score(doc=2964,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 2964, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2964)
0.0167351 = weight(_text_:of in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0167351 = score(doc=2964,freq=18.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 2964, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2964)
0.0055176322 = product of:
0.0110352645 = sum of:
0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0110352645 = score(doc=2964,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2964, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2964)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(4/8)
- Abstract
- Although the technical, mathematical and linguistic principles of search date back to the early 1960s and enterprise search applications have been commercially available since the 1980s; it is only since the launch of Microsoft SharePoint 2010 and the integration of the Apache Lucene and Solr projects in 2010 that there has been a wider adoption of enterprise search applications. Surveys carried out over the last five years indicate that although enterprises accept that search applications are essential in locating information, there has not been any significant investment in search teams to support these applications. Where taxonomies, thesauri and metadata have been used to improve the search user interface and enhance the search experience, the indications are that levels of search satisfaction are significantly higher. The challenges faced by search managers in developing and maintaining these tools include a lack of published research on the use of these tools and difficulty in recruiting search team members with the requisite skills and experience. There would seem to be an important and immediate opportunity to bring together the research, knowledge organization and enterprise search communities to explore how good practice in the use of taxonomies, thesauri and metadata in enterprise search can be established, enhanced and promoted.
- 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].
-
Martín-Moncunill, D.; García-Barriocanal, E.; Sicilia, M.-A.; Sánchez-Alonso, S.: Evaluating the practical applicability of thesaurus-based keyphrase extraction in the agricultural domain : insights from the VOA3R project (2015)
0.04
0.035469376 = product of:
0.07093875 = sum of:
0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020873476 = score(doc=2106,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2106, 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=2106)
0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 2106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021389665 = score(doc=2106,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 2106, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2106)
0.017640345 = weight(_text_:of in 2106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017640345 = score(doc=2106,freq=20.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 2106, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2106)
0.0110352645 = product of:
0.022070529 = sum of:
0.022070529 = weight(_text_:on in 2106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022070529 = score(doc=2106,freq=8.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 2106, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2106)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(4/8)
- 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.
-
¬The Great Debate, 19 February 2015, ISKO UK (2015)
0.03
0.033400677 = product of:
0.066801354 = sum of:
0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020873476 = score(doc=2105,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2105, 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=2105)
0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 2105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021389665 = score(doc=2105,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 2105, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2105)
0.0167351 = weight(_text_:of in 2105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0167351 = score(doc=2105,freq=18.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 2105, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2105)
0.007803111 = product of:
0.015606222 = sum of:
0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 2105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015606222 = score(doc=2105,freq=4.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 2105, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2105)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(4/8)
- 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
-
MacFarlane, A.: Knowledge organisation and its role in multimedia information retrieval (2016)
0.03
0.027036518 = product of:
0.07209738 = sum of:
0.05600942 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05600942 = score(doc=2911,freq=10.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 2911, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2911)
0.009466803 = weight(_text_:of in 2911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009466803 = score(doc=2911,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.14660224 = fieldWeight in 2911, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2911)
0.006621159 = product of:
0.013242318 = sum of:
0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 2911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013242318 = score(doc=2911,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2911, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2911)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- Various kinds of knowledge organisation, such as thesauri, are routinely used to label or tag multimedia content such as images and music and to support information retrieval, i.e. user search for such content. In this paper, we outline why this is the case, in particular focusing on the semantic gap between content and concept based multimedia retrieval. We survey some indexing vocabularies used for multimedia retrieval, and argue that techniques such as thesauri will be needed for the foreseeable future in order to support users in their need for multimedia content. In particular, we argue that artificial intelligence techniques are not mature enough to solve the problem of indexing multimedia conceptually and will not be able to replace human indexers for the foreseeable future.
- 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].
-
Mu, X.; Lu, K.; Ryu, H.: Explicitly integrating MeSH thesaurus help into health information retrieval systems : an empirical user study (2014)
0.03
0.025963724 = product of:
0.0692366 = sum of:
0.046674512 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046674512 = score(doc=2703,freq=10.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.37365708 = fieldWeight in 2703, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2703)
0.014758972 = weight(_text_:of in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014758972 = score(doc=2703,freq=14.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 2703, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2703)
0.007803111 = product of:
0.015606222 = sum of:
0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015606222 = score(doc=2703,freq=4.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 2703, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2703)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- 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
- Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval
-
Kempf, A.O.; Neubert, J.: ¬The role of thesauri in an Open Web : a case study of the STW Thesaurus for economics (2016)
0.02
0.02490107 = product of:
0.06640285 = sum of:
0.04338471 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04338471 = score(doc=2912,freq=6.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 2912, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2912)
0.016396983 = weight(_text_:of in 2912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016396983 = score(doc=2912,freq=12.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 2912, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2912)
0.006621159 = product of:
0.013242318 = sum of:
0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 2912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013242318 = score(doc=2912,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2912, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2912)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- This paper illustrates the changing role of thesauri interlinked with overall changes of modern information infrastructure services, referring to "STW Thesaurus for Economics" as a case study. It starts with an overview of the history and development of the STW and describes the far-reaching changes brought about by its publication on the Web, with regard to subject indexing, retrieval and new uses for Linked Open Data. It argues that only the most recent technological developments help thesauri to exploit their full potential which is why they more than ever have a place in current information retrieval and infrastructure.
- 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].
-
Shiri, A.: Powering search : the role of thesauri in new information environments (2012)
0.02
0.022732262 = product of:
0.090929046 = sum of:
0.07084693 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07084693 = score(doc=1322,freq=16.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.5671716 = fieldWeight in 1322, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1322)
0.02008212 = weight(_text_:of in 1322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02008212 = score(doc=1322,freq=18.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 1322, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1322)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- Powering search offers a clear and comprehensive treatment of the role of thesauri in search user interfaces across a range of information search and retrieval systems - from bibliographic and full-text databases to digital libraries, portals, open archives, and content management systems.
- Content
- Thesauri : introduction and recent developments -- Thesauri in interactive information retrieval -- User-centered approach to the evaluation of thesauri : query formulation and expansion -- Thesauri in web-based search systems -- Thesaurus-based search and browsing functionalities in new thesaurus construction standards -- Design of search user interfaces for thesauri -- Design of user interfaces for multilingual and meta-thesauri -- User-centered evaluation of thesaurus-enhanced search user interfaces -- Guidelines for the design of thesaurus-enhanced search user interfaces -- Current trends and developments.
- LCSH
- Information storage and retrieval systems
Information retrieval
- RSWK
- Information Retrieval
- Subject
- Information Retrieval
Information storage and retrieval systems
Information retrieval
-
Ma, X.; Carranza, E.J.M.; Wu, C.; Meer, F.D. van der; Liu, G.: ¬A SKOS-based multilingual thesaurus of geological time scale for interoperability of online geological maps (2011)
0.02
0.022620648 = product of:
0.060321726 = sum of:
0.016698781 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016698781 = score(doc=4800,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
0.018400159 = weight(_text_:of in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018400159 = score(doc=4800,freq=34.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.28494355 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
34.0 = termFreq=34.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
0.025222788 = product of:
0.050445575 = sum of:
0.050445575 = weight(_text_:computers in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050445575 = score(doc=4800,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21710795 = queryWeight, product of:
5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.2323525 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- 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.
- Source
- Computers & Geosciences. 37(2011), no.10, S.1602-1615
-
Hjoerland, B.: Does the traditional thesaurus have a place in modern information retrieval? (2016)
0.02
0.021543585 = product of:
0.05744956 = sum of:
0.036153924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036153924 = score(doc=2915,freq=6.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
0.015778005 = weight(_text_:of in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015778005 = score(doc=2915,freq=16.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
0.0055176322 = product of:
0.0110352645 = sum of:
0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0110352645 = score(doc=2915,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- 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].
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Origins and trajectory of the long thesaurus debate (2016)
0.02
0.021161493 = product of:
0.056430645 = sum of:
0.036153924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036153924 = score(doc=2913,freq=6.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2913, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2913)
0.012473608 = weight(_text_:of in 2913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012473608 = score(doc=2913,freq=10.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 2913, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2913)
0.007803111 = product of:
0.015606222 = sum of:
0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 2913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015606222 = score(doc=2913,freq=4.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 2913, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2913)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- The information retrieval thesaurus emerged in the 1950s, settled down to a more-or-less standard format in the 1970s and has continued to evolve marginally since then. Throughout its whole lifetime, doubts have been expressed about its efficacy with emphasis latterly on cost-effectiveness. Prolonged testing of different styles of index language in the 1970s failed to settle the doubts. The arena occupied by the debate has moved from small isolated databases in the post-war era to diverse situations nowadays with the whole Internet at one extreme and small in-house collections at the other. Sophisticated statistical techniques now dominate the retrieval landscape on the Internet but leave opportunities for the thesaurus and other knowledge organization techniques in niches such as image libraries and corporate intranets. The promise of an ontology-driven semantic web with linked data resources opens another opportunity. Thus much scope remains for research to establish the usefulness of the thesaurus in these places and to inspire its continuing evolution.
- 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].
-
Amirhosseini, M.: Theoretical base of quantitative evaluation of unity in a thesaurus term network based on Kant's epistemology (2010)
0.02
0.02072326 = product of:
0.055262025 = sum of:
0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 5854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021389665 = score(doc=5854,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 5854, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5854)
0.02431554 = weight(_text_:of in 5854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02431554 = score(doc=5854,freq=38.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.37654874 = fieldWeight in 5854, product of:
6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
38.0 = termFreq=38.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5854)
0.00955682 = product of:
0.01911364 = sum of:
0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 5854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01911364 = score(doc=5854,freq=6.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 5854, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5854)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- The quantitative evaluation of thesauri has been carried out much further since 1976. This type of evaluation is based on counting of special factors in thesaurus structure, some of which are counting preferred terms, non preferred terms, cross reference terms and so on. Therefore, various statistical tests have been proposed and applied for evaluation of thesauri. In this article, we try to explain some ratios in the field of unity quantitative evaluation in a thesaurus term network. Theoretical base of the ratios' indicators and indices construction, and epistemological thought in this type of quantitative evaluation, are discussed in this article. The theoretical base of quantitative evaluation is the epistemological thought of Immanuel Kant's Critique of pure reason. The cognition states of transcendental understanding are divided into three steps, the first is perception, the second combination and the third, relation making. Terms relation domains and conceptual relation domains can be analyzed with ratios. The use of quantitative evaluations in current research in the field of thesaurus construction prepares a basis for a restoration period. In modern thesaurus construction, traditional term relations are analyzed in detail in the form of new conceptual relations. Hence, the new domains of hierarchical and associative relations are constructed in the form of relations between concepts. The newly formed conceptual domains can be a suitable basis for quantitative evaluation analysis in conceptual relations.
-
Curras, E.: Ontologies, taxonomy and thesauri in information organisation and retrieval (2010)
0.02
0.020681353 = product of:
0.055150274 = sum of:
0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029519552 = score(doc=3276,freq=4.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 3276, 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=3276)
0.02011309 = weight(_text_:of in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02011309 = score(doc=3276,freq=26.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
0.0055176322 = product of:
0.0110352645 = sum of:
0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0110352645 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- The originality of this book, which deals with such a new subject matter, lies in the application of methods and concepts never used before - such as Ontologies and Taxonomies, as well as Thesauri - to the ordering of knowledge based on primary information. Chapters in the book also examine the study of Ontologies, Taxonomies and Thesauri from the perspective of Systematics and General Systems Theory. "Ontologies, Taxonomy and Thesauri in Information Organisation and Retrieval" will be extremely useful to those operating within the network of related fields, which includes Documentation and Information Science.
- Content
- Inhalt: 1. From classifications to ontologies Knowledge - A new concept of knowledge - Knowledge and information - Knowledge organisation - Knowledge organisation and representation - Cognitive sciences - Talent management - Learning systematisation - Historical evolution - From classification to knowledge organisation - Why ontologies exist - Ontologies - The structure of ontologies 2. Taxonomies and thesauri From ordering to taxonomy - The origins of taxonomy - Hierarchical and horizontal order - Correlation with classifications - Taxonomy in computer science - Computing taxonomy - Definitions - Virtual taxonomy, cybernetic taxonomy - Taxonomy in Information Science - Similarities between taxonomies and thesauri - ifferences between taxonomies and thesauri 3. Thesauri Terminology in classification systems - Terminological languages - Thesauri - Thesauri definitions - Conditions that a thesaurus must fulfil - Historical evolution - Classes of thesauri 4. Thesauri in (cladist) systematics Systematics - Systematics as a noun - Definitions and historic evolution over time - Differences between taxonomy and systematics - Systematics in thesaurus construction theory - Classic, numerical and cladist systematics - Classic systematics in information science - Numerical systematics in information science - Thesauri in cladist systematics - Systematics in information technology - Some examples 5. Thesauri in systems theory Historical evolution - Approach to systems - Systems theory applied to the construction of thesauri - Components - Classes of system - Peculiarities of these systems - Working methods - Systems theory applied to ontologies and taxonomies
-
Youlin, Z.; Baptista Nunes, J.M.; Zhonghua, D.: Construction and evolution of a Chinese Information Science and Information Service (CIS&IS) onto-thesaurus (2014)
0.02
0.019406794 = product of:
0.05175145 = sum of:
0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025048172 = score(doc=1376,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1376, 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=1376)
0.02008212 = weight(_text_:of in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02008212 = score(doc=1376,freq=18.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 1376, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1376)
0.006621159 = product of:
0.013242318 = sum of:
0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013242318 = score(doc=1376,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 1376, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1376)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- 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.
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.; Vernau, J.: Questions and answers on current developments inspired by the thesaurus tradition : points of view (2016)
0.02
0.019181686 = product of:
0.05115116 = sum of:
0.033397563 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033397563 = score(doc=2914,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 2914, 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=2914)
0.008925388 = weight(_text_:of in 2914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008925388 = score(doc=2914,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 2914, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2914)
0.008828212 = product of:
0.017656423 = sum of:
0.017656423 = weight(_text_:on in 2914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017656423 = score(doc=2914,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 2914, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2914)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Content
- Resumee zu 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].
-
Losee, R.: Thesaurus structure, descriptive parameters, and scale (2016)
0.02
0.01829613 = product of:
0.04878968 = sum of:
0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020873476 = score(doc=3087,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3087, 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=3087)
0.02011309 = weight(_text_:of in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02011309 = score(doc=3087,freq=26.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 3087, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3087)
0.007803111 = product of:
0.015606222 = sum of:
0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015606222 = score(doc=3087,freq=4.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 3087, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3087)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.9, S.2156-2165
-
Assem, M. van: Converting and integrating vocabularies for the Semantic Web (2010)
0.02
0.017862882 = product of:
0.047634356 = sum of:
0.024199642 = weight(_text_:use in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024199642 = score(doc=4639,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.19138055 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
0.012622404 = weight(_text_:of in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012622404 = score(doc=4639,freq=16.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
0.010812307 = product of:
0.021624614 = sum of:
0.021624614 = weight(_text_:on in 4639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021624614 = score(doc=4639,freq=12.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.23809364 = fieldWeight in 4639, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4639)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- 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.
-
Hedden, H.: ¬The accidental taxonomist (2012)
0.02
0.017015018 = product of:
0.04537338 = sum of:
0.023615643 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023615643 = score(doc=2915,freq=4.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 2915, 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=2915)
0.014112277 = weight(_text_:of in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014112277 = score(doc=2915,freq=20.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.21854173 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
0.007645456 = product of:
0.015290912 = sum of:
0.015290912 = weight(_text_:on in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015290912 = score(doc=2915,freq=6.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.16835764 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- 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
- LCSH
- Cross References (Information Retrieval)
- Subject
- Cross References (Information Retrieval)
