Search (44 results, page 3 of 3)

0.006497096 = product of:
  0.012994192 = sum of:
    0.012994192 = product of:
      0.025988383 = sum of:
        0.025988383 = weight(_text_:22 in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025988383 = score(doc=3487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1679265 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047953933 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Materialien zur Information und Dokumentation; Bd.22

0.005684959 = product of:
  0.011369918 = sum of:
    0.011369918 = product of:
      0.022739835 = sum of:
        0.022739835 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022739835 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1679265 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047953933 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.

0.005505579 = product of:
  0.011011158 = sum of:
    0.011011158 = product of:
      0.044044632 = sum of:
        0.044044632 = weight(_text_:authors in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044044632 = score(doc=549,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21861306 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047953933 = queryNorm
            0.20147301 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

LCSH is known as such since 1975. It always has created headings to serve the LC collections instead of a theoretical basis. It started to replace cross reference codes by thesaural codes in 1986, in a mechanical fashion. It was in no way transformed into a thesaurus. Its encyclopedic coverage, its pre-coordinate concepts make it substantially distinct, considering that thesauri usually map a restricted field of knowledge and use uniterms. The questions raised are whether the new symbols comply with thesaurus standards and if they are true to one or to several models. Explanations and definitions from other lists of subject headings and thesauri, literature in the field of classification and subject indexing will provide some answers. For instance, see refers from a subject heading not used to another or others used. Exceptionally it will lead from a specific term to a more general one. Some equate a see reference with the equivalence relationship. Such relationships are pointed by USE in LCSH. See also references are made from the broader subject to narrower parts of it and also between associated subjects. They suggest lateral or vertical connexions as well as reciprocal relationships. They serve a coordination purpose for some, lay down a methodical search itinerary for others. Since their inception in the 1950's thesauri have been devised for indexing and retrieving information in the fields of science and technology. Eventually they attended to a number of social sciences and humanities. Research derived from thesauri was voluminous. Numerous guidelines are designed. They did not discriminate between the "hard" sciences and the social sciences. RT relationships are widely but diversely used in numerous controlled vocabularies. LCSH's aim is to achieve a list almost free of RT and SA references. It thus restricts relationships to BT/NT, USE and UF. This raises the question as to whether all fields of knowledge can "fit" in the Procrustean bed of RT/NT, i.e., genus/species relationships. Standard codes were devised. It was soon realized that BT/NT, well suited to the genus/species couple could not signal a whole-part relationship. In LCSH, BT and NT function as reciprocals, the whole-part relationship is taken into account by ISO. It is amply elaborated upon by authors. The part-whole connexion is sometimes studied apart. The decision to replace cross reference codes was an improvement. Relations can now be distinguished through the distinct needs of numerous fields of knowledge are not attended to. Topic inclusion, and topic-subtopic, could provide the missing link where genus/species or whole/part are inadequate. Distinct codes, BT/NT and whole/part, should be provided. Sorting relationships with mechanical means can only lead to confusion.

0.0041291844 = product of:
  0.008258369 = sum of:
    0.008258369 = product of:
      0.033033475 = sum of:
        0.033033475 = weight(_text_:authors in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033033475 = score(doc=3243,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21861306 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047953933 = queryNorm
            0.15110476 = fieldWeight in 3243, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3243)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 32(2005) no.2, S.95-97 (A. Gilchrist):"It might be thought unfortunate that the word thesaurus is assonant with prehistoric beasts but as this book clearly demonstrates, the thesaurus is undergoing a notable revival, and we can remind ourselves that the word comes from the Greek thesaurus, meaning a treasury. This is a useful and timely source book, bringing together ten chapters, following an Editorial introduction and culminating in an interview with a member of the team responsible for revising the NISO Standard Guidelines for the construction, format and management of monolingual thesauri; formal proof of the thesaural renaissance. Though predominantly an American publication, it is good to see four English authors as well as one from Canada and one from Denmark; and with a good balance of academics and practitioners. This has helped to widen the net in the citing of useful references. While the techniques of thesaurus construction are still basically sound, the Editors, in their introduction, point out that the thesaurus, in its sense of an information retrieval tool is almost exactly 50 years old, and that the information environment of today is radically different. They claim three purposes for the compilation: "to acquaint or remind the Library and Information Science community of the history of the development of the thesaurus and standards for thesaurus construction. to provide bibliographies and tutorials from which any reader can become more grounded in her or his understanding of thesaurus construction, use and evaluation. to address topics related to thesauri but that are unique to the current digital environment, or network of networks." This last purpose, understandably, tends to be the slightly more tentative part of the book, but as Rosenfeld and Morville said in their book Information architecture for the World Wide Web "thesauri [will] become a key tool for dealing with the growing size and importance of web sites and intranets". The evidence supporting their belief has been growing steadily in the seven years since the first edition was published.