Search (259 results, page 1 of 13)

0.0675774 = product of:
  0.1576806 = sum of:
    0.018981 = weight(_text_:of in 5169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018981 = score(doc=5169,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 5169, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5169)
    0.08831687 = weight(_text_:congress in 5169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08831687 = score(doc=5169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.42163986 = fieldWeight in 5169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5169)
    0.050382733 = product of:
      0.10076547 = sum of:
        0.10076547 = weight(_text_:service in 5169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10076547 = score(doc=5169,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18813887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.5355909 = fieldWeight in 5169, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

Open system protocols for search and retrieval have not provided explicit ways in which to implement thesaurus-aided searching. A number of different approaches within the existing protocols, as well as a proposed service, are evaluated. A general approach to implementing thesaurus-aided searching, particularly during consultation of a thesaurus, requires an entirely new service, whose main features are described

Source

Knowledge organization and change: Proceedings of the Fourth International ISKO Conference, 15-18 July 1996, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Ed.: R. Green

0.05458518 = product of:
  0.12736543 = sum of:
    0.015916053 = weight(_text_:of in 5009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015916053 = score(doc=5009,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 5009, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5009)
    0.06623765 = weight(_text_:congress in 5009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06623765 = score(doc=5009,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.31622988 = fieldWeight in 5009, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5009)
    0.045211717 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045211717 = score(doc=5009,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 5009, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5009)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

The MACS (Multilingual access to subjects) project is one of the many projects that are currently exploring solutions to multilingual subject access to online catalogs. Its strategy is to develop a Web based link and search interface through which equivalents between three Subject Heading Languages: SWD/RSWK (Schlagwortnormdatei/Regeln für den Schlagwortkatalog) for German, RAMEAU (Repertoire d'Autorite-Matière Encyclopedique et Alphabetique Unifie) for French and LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings) for English can be created and maintained, and by which users can access online databases in the language of their choice. Factors that have lead to this approach will be examined and the MACS linking strategy will be explained. The trend to using mapping or linking strategies between different controlled vocabularies to create multilingual access challenges the traditional view of the multilingual thesaurus.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 37(2004) nos.3/4, S.177-191

0.048005197 = product of:
  0.112012126 = sum of:
    0.021353623 = weight(_text_:of in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021353623 = score(doc=2700,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 2700, 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=2700)
    0.06393902 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06393902 = score(doc=2700,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.36948 = fieldWeight in 2700, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2700)
    0.02671948 = product of:
      0.05343896 = sum of:
        0.05343896 = weight(_text_:service in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05343896 = score(doc=2700,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18813887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.28403997 = fieldWeight in 2700, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2700)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

This paper presents the findings of a study of indexing procedure with the use of a thesaurus for post-coordination. In the first phase of the study, the indexing records of 50 books, prepared by a central cataloging service (the Israeli Center for Libraries), were compared with the indexing records for these books prepared by three independent indexers. In the second phase, indexing records for three books prepared by 51 librarians were studied. In both phases, indexing records were analyzed for mistakes and possible reasons for these mistakes are offered.

Source

Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas

0.03948752 = product of:
  0.092137545 = sum of:
    0.018568728 = weight(_text_:of in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018568728 = score(doc=5006,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 5006, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5006)
    0.052747004 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052747004 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 5006, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5006)
    0.02082181 = product of:
      0.04164362 = sum of:
        0.04164362 = weight(_text_:22 in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04164362 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15376249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5006, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

The purpose of this selected bibliography is to introduce issues and problems in relation to thesaurus construction and to present a set of readings that may be used in practical thesaurus design. The concept of thesaurus is discussed, the purpose of the thesaurus and how the concept has evolved over the years according to new IR technologies. Different approaches to thesaurus construction are introduced, and readings dealing with specific problems and developments in the collection, formation and organisation of thesaurus concepts and terms are presented. Primarily manual construction methods are discussed, but the bibliography also refers to research about techniques for automatic thesaurus construction.

Date

18. 5.2006 20:06:22

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 37(2004) nos.3/4, S.57-74

0.039452005 = product of:
  0.09205468 = sum of:
    0.017755099 = weight(_text_:of in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017755099 = score(doc=549,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.25858206 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
    0.044158436 = weight(_text_:congress in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044158436 = score(doc=549,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.21081993 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
    0.030141145 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030141145 = score(doc=549,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.17417455 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

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.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 16(1993) no.2, S.71-91

0.038024075 = product of:
  0.08872284 = sum of:
    0.025663862 = weight(_text_:of in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025663862 = score(doc=5005,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 5005, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5005)
    0.045211717 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045211717 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 5005, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5005)
    0.017847266 = product of:
      0.035694532 = sum of:
        0.035694532 = weight(_text_:22 in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035694532 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15376249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5005, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

After a period of experiment and evolution in the 1950s and 1960s, a fairly standard format for thesauri was established with the publication of the influential Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) in 1967. This and other early thesauri relied primarily an the presentation of terms in alphabetical order. The value of a classified presentation was subsequently realised, and in particular the technique of facet analysis has profoundly influenced thesaurus evolution. Thesaurofacet and the Art & Architecture Thesaurus have acted as models for two distinct breeds of thesaurus using faceted displays of terms. As of the 1990s, the expansion of end-user access to vast networked resources is imposing further requirements an the style and structure of controlled vocabularies. The international standards for thesauri, first conceived in a print-based era, are badly in need of updating. Work is in hand in the UK and the USA to revise and develop standards in support of electronic thesauri.

Date

22. 9.2007 15:46:13

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 37(2004) nos.3/4, S.5-21

0.03739372 = product of:
  0.13087802 = sum of:
    0.020132389 = weight(_text_:of in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020132389 = score(doc=2262,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 2262, 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=2262)
    0.11074563 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11074563 = score(doc=2262,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.63995814 = fieldWeight in 2262, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2262)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The biomedical book collection in the Genetech Library and Information Services was first inventoried and cataloged in 1983 when it totaled about 2000 titles. Cataloging records were retrieved from the OCLC system and used as a basis for cataloging. A year of cataloging produced a list of 1900 subject terms. More than one term describing the same concept often appears on the list, and no hierarchical structure related the terms to one another. As the collection grew, the subject catalog became increasingly inconsistent. To bring consistency to subject cataloging, a thesaurus of biomedical terms was constructed using the list of subject headings as a basis. This thesaurus follows the broad categories of the National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings and, with some exceptions, the Guidelines for the Establishment and Development of Monolingual Thesauri. It has enabled the cataloger in providing greater in-depth subject analysis of materials added to the collection and in consistently assigning subject headings to cataloging record.

0.036671866 = product of:
  0.08556768 = sum of:
    0.022508696 = weight(_text_:of in 1181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022508696 = score(doc=1181,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 1181, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1181)
    0.045211717 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045211717 = score(doc=1181,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 1181, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1181)
    0.017847266 = product of:
      0.035694532 = sum of:
        0.035694532 = weight(_text_:22 in 1181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035694532 = score(doc=1181,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15376249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1181, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1181)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

The Nuovo soggettario, the official Italian subject indexing system edited by the National Central Library of Florence, is made up of interactive components, the core of which is a general thesaurus and some rules of a conventional syntax for subject string construction. The Nuovo soggettario Thesaurus is in compliance with ISO 25964: 2011-2013, IFLA LRM, and FAIR principle (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability). Its open data are available in the Zthes, MARC21, and in SKOS formats and allow for interoperability with l library, archive, and museum databases. The Thesaurus's macrostructure is organized into four fundamental macro-categories, thirteen categories, and facets. The facets allow for the orderly development of hierarchies, thereby limiting polyhierarchies and promoting the grouping of homogenous concepts. This paper addresses the main features and peculiarities which have characterized the consistent development of this categorical structure and its effects on the syntactic sphere in a predominantly pre-coordinated usage context.

Date

26.11.2023 18:59:22

Footnote

Beitrag in Themenheft: Implementation of Faceted Vocabularies.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 61(2023) no.5-6, S.708-733

0.03187536 = product of:
  0.11156376 = sum of:
    0.02324688 = weight(_text_:of in 5158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02324688 = score(doc=5158,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 5158, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5158)
    0.08831687 = weight(_text_:congress in 5158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08831687 = score(doc=5158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.42163986 = fieldWeight in 5158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5158)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The main focus of this paper is to relate the use of controlled, structured vocabularies to the ability to standardize the definition and form of a link

Source

Knowledge organization and change: Proceedings of the Fourth International ISKO Conference, 15-18 July 1996, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Ed.: R. Green

0.029197091 = product of:
  0.10218982 = sum of:
    0.02491256 = weight(_text_:of in 5159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02491256 = score(doc=5159,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 5159, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5159)
    0.07727726 = weight(_text_:congress in 5159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07727726 = score(doc=5159,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.36893487 = fieldWeight in 5159, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5159)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Various shortcomings typically attend thesaural relationships: failure to support extended relevance relationships; lack of effort in identifying a common relational inventory across types of retrieval systems; limitation to binary relationships; inattention to relationships built into the meaning of lexical units. To counteract this failings, a preliminary inventory of relational structures underlying the ca. 1250 most frequently occuring English verbs is presented. The inventory is compact and corresponds to a combination of semantic role-based verb types as identified by Chafe (1970), and image schemata, as identified by Johnson (1987). The nature of hierarchical relationships among relational structures within the inventory is surveyed

Source

Knowledge organization and change: Proceedings of the Fourth International ISKO Conference, 15-18 July 1996, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Ed.: R. Green

0.02789094 = product of:
  0.09761828 = sum of:
    0.02034102 = weight(_text_:of in 3556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02034102 = score(doc=3556,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 3556, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3556)
    0.07727726 = weight(_text_:congress in 3556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07727726 = score(doc=3556,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.36893487 = fieldWeight in 3556, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3556)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Although thesauri can be solve some problems posed by computerised data base searching (synonyms, generic representation) their compilation requires extensive time and effort of experts and their maintenance is also difficult. Describes how a thesaurus was compiled and maintained automatically by taking advantage of the specially designed formats to input expertise with ease. The thesaurus was named a dynamic thesaurus because it depends on the set of stored data and is adapted to the necessary and sufficient range of keywords. A data base of polymers is taken as an example.

Source

Information, knowledge, evolution. Proceedings of the 44th FID Congress, Helsinki, 28.8.-1.9.1988. Ed. by Sinikka Koshiala and Ritva Launo

0.027590385 = product of:
  0.09656634 = sum of:
    0.021970814 = weight(_text_:of in 4855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021970814 = score(doc=4855,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 4855, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4855)
    0.074595526 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074595526 = score(doc=4855,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.43106002 = fieldWeight in 4855, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4855)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

A rationale for self-instruction in thesaurus making is presented. Some definitions of a thesaurus are given and sources suitable to begin self-tuition indicated. A sound grasp of grammar is emphasized and appropriate readings and exercises recommended. Readings in classification, facet analysis, and subject cataloging are described. An approach for deconstruction and reconstruction of sections of classification systems and thesauri is proposed and explained. Procedures for using exercises in thesaurus construction are detailed. The means of examining individual thesauri is suggested. The availability and use of free software are described. The creation of opportunities for self-learning is considered.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 37(2004) nos.3/4, S.23-34

0.026188724 = product of:
  0.09166053 = sum of:
    0.014383274 = weight(_text_:of in 5194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014383274 = score(doc=5194,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 5194, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5194)
    0.07727726 = weight(_text_:congress in 5194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07727726 = score(doc=5194,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.36893487 = fieldWeight in 5194, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5194)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The derivation of a thesaurus from a new schedule for UDC class 61 Medical Sciences which has been restructured into a faceted classification system using the framework provided by the Bliss Bibliographic Classification. The resulting thesaurus is intended to serve as a tool for indexing and searching but will also be the index to the 61 class itself. The background for the research is briefly described. The sources and methods used to select the descriptors and define their relationships are discussed. Problems are identified and some solutions proposed

Source

Knowledge organization and change: Proceedings of the Fourth International ISKO Conference, 15-18 July 1996, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Ed.: R. Green

0.0253561 = product of:
  0.08874635 = sum of:
    0.022508696 = weight(_text_:of in 2735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022508696 = score(doc=2735,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 2735, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2735)
    0.06623765 = weight(_text_:congress in 2735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06623765 = score(doc=2735,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.31622988 = fieldWeight in 2735, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2735)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

An approach to accessing databases, which makes extensive use of structured thesaurus views for presenting and searching a large bibliographic database through progressive refinement, is being investigated in a research project which is seeking to apply usability criteria as the determinant for interface design. It aims to investigate measurements of retrieval performance in an application of graphical user interface techniques using multi-windowed layered attribute value aggregation, including those provided by a structured thesaurus, to access bibliographic databases. This paper reports on the progress made in the first year of the project of the application of usability methodologies, the revision of a preliminray design and the resulting prototype development. Implications for more widespread applications are discussed

Source

Knowledge organization and change: Proceedings of the Fourth International ISKO Conference, 15-18 July 1996, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Ed.: R. Green

0.02347249 = product of:
  0.08215371 = sum of:
    0.015916053 = weight(_text_:of in 6345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015916053 = score(doc=6345,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 6345, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6345)
    0.06623765 = weight(_text_:congress in 6345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06623765 = score(doc=6345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.31622988 = fieldWeight in 6345, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6345)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Five years ago, we raised the question: is there a data model which is general enough such that all existing thesauri can be represented by a specialization of this general model without loss of information? The answer was not given at that time, but we referred to the principle of abstraction, well supported in object-oriented data modelling. We gained the empirical basis for that process of abstraction by modelling existing thesauri and a terminological dictionary; an abstracting view was afterwards presented in a paper to the TKE'93 conference. The present paper reports on a third step of abstraction with its very concrete consequences, embodies in a software called TerminologyFramework(TFw)

Source

TKE'96: Terminology and knowledge engineering. Proceedings 4th International Congress on Terminology and Knowledge Engineering, 26.-28.8.1996, Wien. Ed.: C. Galinski u. K.-D. Schmitz

0.02293968 = product of:
  0.08028888 = sum of:
    0.027541874 = weight(_text_:of in 372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027541874 = score(doc=372,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 372, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=372)
    0.052747004 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052747004 = score(doc=372,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 372, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=372)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Facet analysis has been used in the construction of faceted thesauri since the publication of the Information Retrieval Thesaurus of Education Terms in 1968. In spite of the growth in the number of faceted thesauri since then, there appears to be little consensus among thesaurus designers regarding how the principles of facet analysis are to be used in thesauri. An examination of various national and international guidelines for thesaurus construction reveals that they emphasize primarily the construction of alphabetical thesauri, but provide little guidance in the use of facet analysis in thesauri.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 25(1997) no.1, S.21-37

0.022573473 = product of:
  0.07900715 = sum of:
    0.026260145 = weight(_text_:of in 4856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026260145 = score(doc=4856,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 4856, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4856)
    0.052747004 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052747004 = score(doc=4856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 4856, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4856)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The process of thesaurus evaluation can enhance the value of a thesaurus in terms of usability, scope, precision and recall. Structural, formative, observational and comparative evaluation techniques are explained along with specific examples of their use. These methods of evaluation can be applied in the assessment of an existing thesaurus or the construction of a new thesaurus. The history of thesauri since 1960, the development of national and international standards, and sources of evaluative literature are also discussed.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 37(2004) nos.3/4, S.xx-xx

0.021920092 = product of:
  0.07672032 = sum of:
    0.016438028 = weight(_text_:of in 4864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016438028 = score(doc=4864,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 4864, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4864)
    0.06028229 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06028229 = score(doc=4864,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3483491 = fieldWeight in 4864, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4864)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Amy Warner, Project Leader for NISO's Thesaurus Development Team, discusses her involvement in the revision of Z39.19 Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Thesauri. Keywords: Z39.19 Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Thesauri, thesaurus standards, controlled vocabulary standards, National Information Standards Organization, NISO

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 37(2004) nos.3/4, S.xxx-xxx

0.021130083 = product of:
  0.07395529 = sum of:
    0.018757246 = weight(_text_:of in 7410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018757246 = score(doc=7410,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 7410, 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=7410)
    0.055198044 = weight(_text_:congress in 7410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055198044 = score(doc=7410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.26352492 = fieldWeight in 7410, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7410)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Once the library has been through a process of transition from traditional library procedures to automated ones, natural language searching became a necessity for both indexers and searchers. Therefore, aside from the precoordinated classified catalogue we started to build a dictionary of terms in order to make postcoordinate search possible in keeping with the UDC notations assigned to each bibliographic record. After a while we came to the conclusion that the dictionary needed a control of its terms so that synonymous concepts and semantic ambuguities be avoided. The project presented in this paper shows how reality imposed the improvement of the quality of indexing and hence of the searching possibilities. Is also shows the reasons why we consider a multilingual thesaurus based on UDC an ideal indexing and searching device. The experiment applied on class 8 of UDC illustrates the way the UDC tables can be quite successfully used in building a thesaurus due to their qulities and how their limitations can be overcome by a thesaurus. An appendix to the paper contains a sample of the multilingual thesaurus given in both alphabetical and systematic layouts

Source

Knowledge organization and change: Proceedings of the Fourth International ISKO Conference, 15-18 July 1996, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Ed.: R. Green

0.021058254 = product of:
  0.073703885 = sum of:
    0.013421593 = weight(_text_:of in 4859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013421593 = score(doc=4859,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 4859, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4859)
    0.06028229 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06028229 = score(doc=4859,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3483491 = fieldWeight in 4859, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4859)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Basic concepts relevant to controlled vocabularies and outlines criteria for evaluating vocabulary management software are defined. A comparison of four representative vocabulary management products is provided in an accompanying table.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 37(2004) nos.3/4, S.155-176