Search (41 results, page 1 of 3)

0.099298805 = product of:
  0.19859761 = sum of:
    0.14671256 = weight(_text_:fields in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14671256 = score(doc=260,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.4642173 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 260, 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=260)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The need for Persian thesauri became apparent during the late 1960s with the advent of documentation centres in Iran. The first Persian controlled vocabulary was published by IRANDOC in 1977. Other centres worked on translations of existing thesauri, but it was soon realised that these efforts did not meet the needs of the centres. After the Islamic revolution in 1979, the foundation of new centres intensified the need for Persian thesauri, especially in the fields of history and government documents. Also, during the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian research centres produced reports in scientific and technical fields, both to support military requirements and to meet society's needs. In order to provide a comprehensive thesaurus, the Council of Scientific Research of Iran approved a project for the compilation of such a work. Nowadays, 12 Persian thesauri are available and others are being prepared, based on the literary corpus and conformity with characteristics of Iranian culture.

Source

Indexer. 25(2006) no.1, S.19-22

0.03458048 = product of:
  0.13832192 = sum of:
    0.13832192 = weight(_text_:fields in 2112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13832192 = score(doc=2112,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.43766826 = fieldWeight in 2112, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2112)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A metathesaurus is a set made of a reference thesaurus and various forms of indexing languages attached to it. Among these, the sub-thesauri cover restricted fields in more detail. A functional definition of the sub-thesaurus is proposed: elements, relationships, sub-systems and rules to be respected to preserve the possibilities for communication via the reference thesaurus. Considerations on the methods of presentation, the use and the compilation are also given

0.03458048 = product of:
  0.13832192 = sum of:
    0.13832192 = weight(_text_:fields in 4648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13832192 = score(doc=4648,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.43766826 = fieldWeight in 4648, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4648)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Enthält 47 Beiträge den Schwerpunkten der Tagung: Biology and related fields - Engineering and natural sciences - Medicine - Information science and information technology - Law and economics - Social sciences and humanities - Terminology research and interdisciplinary aspects; darunter: OESER, E. u. G. BUDIN: Explication and representation of qualitative biological and medical concepts: the example of the pocket knowledge data base on carnivores; HOHENEGGER, J.: Specles as the basic units in taxonomy and nomenclature; LAVIETER, L. de, J.A. DESCHAMPS u. B. FELLUGA: A multilingual environmental thesaurus: past, present, and future; TODESCHINI, C. u. G. Thoemig: The thesaurus of the International Nuclear Information System: experiences in an international environment; CITKINA, F.: Terminology of mathematics: contrastive analysis as a basis for standardization and harmonization; WALKER, D.G.: Technology and engineering terminolgy: translation problems encountered and suggested solutions; VERVOOM, A.J.: Terminology and engineering sciences; HIRS, W.M.: ICD-10, a missed chance and a new opportunity for medical terminology standardization; THOMAS, P.: Subject indexes in medical literature; RAHMSTORF, G.: Analysis of information technology terms; NEGRINI, G.: Indexing language for research projects and its graphic display; BATEWICZ, M.: Impact of modern information technology on knowledge transfer services and terminology; RATZINGER, M.: Multilingual product description (MPD): a European project; OHLY, H.P.: Terminology of the social sciences and social context approaches; BEAUGRANDE, R. de: Terminology and discourse between the social sciences and the humanities; MUSKENS, G.: Terminological standardisation and socio-linguistic diversity: dilemmas of crosscultural sociology; SNELL, B.: Terminology ten years on; ZHURAVLEV, V.F.: Standard ontological structures of systems of concepts of active knowledge; WRIGHT, S.E.: Terminology standardization in standards societies and professional associations in the United States; DAHLBERG; I.: The terminology of subject fields - reconsidered; AHMAD, K. u. H. Fulford: Terminology of interdisciplinary fields: a new perspective; DATAA, J.: Full-text databases as a terminological support for translation

0.030266277 = product of:
  0.12106511 = sum of:
    0.12106511 = weight(_text_:22 in 4199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12106511 = score(doc=4199,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4199, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4199)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Mitteilungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Parlaments- und Behördenbibliotheken. 1989, H.67, S.1-22

0.03025792 = product of:
  0.12103168 = sum of:
    0.12103168 = weight(_text_:fields in 806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12103168 = score(doc=806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38295972 = fieldWeight in 806, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=806)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

After reviewing some fundamental distinctions in relationships (paradigmatic/sytagmatic, interconceptual/ structural) the author proposes a functional approach for investigating the relationships in thesauri. The comparison between three closely related types of semantic fields (lexical, conceptual, thesaural) shows the specific function of relationships in all of these intellectual tools. In information retrieval the two main functions are location of relevant concepts and search of exhaustivity. a clear distinction of these aims can contribute to solving the difficult problem of the choice of 'related terms'. It is suggested that their usefulness relies upon empirical rather than upon semantic proximity. Some practical propositions are amde for the choice and display of relationships in thesauri

0.029947575 = product of:
  0.1197903 = sum of:
    0.1197903 = weight(_text_:fields in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1197903 = score(doc=549,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.37903184 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.025942523 = product of:
  0.10377009 = sum of:
    0.10377009 = weight(_text_:22 in 4483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10377009 = score(doc=4483,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4483, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4483)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

15. 3.2000 10:22:37

0.025942523 = product of:
  0.10377009 = sum of:
    0.10377009 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10377009 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.025942523 = product of:
  0.10377009 = sum of:
    0.10377009 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10377009 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.025942523 = product of:
  0.10377009 = sum of:
    0.10377009 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10377009 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

24. 8.2005 19:20:22

0.02593536 = product of:
  0.10374144 = sum of:
    0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10374144 = score(doc=2291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Specifications are presented for software designed to support manual development and maintenance of information retrieval thesauri. The specifications are intended to support both evaluation of existing packages for acquisition and design of custom software. Specialized requirements of thesaurus support are emphasized over more general database management requirements. Requirements for integration with larger systems and for the user interface are summarized. Relationships specified by the ANSI standard should be supported, and the relationships should be validated to avoid introduction of conflicting relationships. Flexibility in availability of note and date fields is important, and where required, term classifications should be available. Maintenance procedures should include provision for feedback on the impact of changes, as well as appropriate levels of approval for changes. A wide variety of online displays and printed reports are required, including but not limited to alphabetical, hierarchical, and rotated. In addition, it is desirable to be absle to search the thesaurus database with such capabilities as Boolean logic and proximity operators

0.02593536 = product of:
  0.10374144 = sum of:
    0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 2501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10374144 = score(doc=2501,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 2501, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2501)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Domain analysis was first used 15 years ago as one of the most important techniques for software reuse. Even today, new techniques appear every year, and different authors propose different domain representation structures to represent and store all the different software components and the relationships among them. These relationships among components are the kernel of the domain semantics. In this report, a set of techniques and tools is presented regarding mathematical, statistical, and neural fields that, when linked together, enable semiautomatically building domain representations and storing them in a thesaurus structure of software components. Thesaurus structures, widely used in information science, are presented as the domain-modeling key concept, due to their higher automation possibilities compared with previous structures. New metrics to evaluate the quality, consistency, and completeness of the domain model obtained through this technique are also presented.

0.02161877 = product of:
  0.08647508 = sum of:
    0.08647508 = weight(_text_:22 in 4158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08647508 = score(doc=4158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4158)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information und Märkte: 50. Deutscher Dokumentartag 1998, Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Dokumentation e.V. (DGD), Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, 22.-24. September 1998. Hrsg. von Marlies Ockenfeld u. Gerhard J. Mantwill

0.02161877 = product of:
  0.08647508 = sum of:
    0.08647508 = weight(_text_:22 in 4162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08647508 = score(doc=4162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4162, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4162)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information und Märkte: 50. Deutscher Dokumentartag 1998, Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Dokumentation e.V. (DGD), Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, 22.-24. September 1998. Hrsg. von Marlies Ockenfeld u. Gerhard J. Mantwill

0.02161877 = product of:
  0.08647508 = sum of:
    0.08647508 = weight(_text_:22 in 4163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08647508 = score(doc=4163,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4163, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4163)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information und Märkte: 50. Deutscher Dokumentartag 1998, Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Dokumentation e.V. (DGD), Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, 22.-24. September 1998. Hrsg. von Marlies Ockenfeld u. Gerhard J. Mantwill

0.02161877 = product of:
  0.08647508 = sum of:
    0.08647508 = weight(_text_:22 in 348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08647508 = score(doc=348,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 348, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=348)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.1, S.34-49

0.02161877 = product of:
  0.08647508 = sum of:
    0.08647508 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08647508 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:07

0.0216128 = product of:
  0.0864512 = sum of:
    0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0864512 = score(doc=1462,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 1462, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1462)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

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

0.0216128 = product of:
  0.0864512 = sum of:
    0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0864512 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.017295016 = product of:
  0.069180064 = sum of:
    0.069180064 = weight(_text_:22 in 3173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069180064 = score(doc=3173,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3173, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3173)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Argus. 26(1997) no.3, S.16-22