Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008240673 = product of:
  0.04120336 = sum of:
    0.04120336 = product of:
      0.08240672 = sum of:
        0.08240672 = weight(_text_:problems in 4548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08240672 = score(doc=4548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.5472311 = fieldWeight in 4548, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Terminology and multilingual information: ovberview of problems and search for solutions

0.007909016 = product of:
  0.039545078 = sum of:
    0.039545078 = product of:
      0.079090156 = sum of:
        0.079090156 = weight(_text_:22 in 6063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079090156 = score(doc=6063,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6063, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6063)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

2. 8.2001 8:55:22

0.006867227 = product of:
  0.034336135 = sum of:
    0.034336135 = product of:
      0.06867227 = sum of:
        0.06867227 = weight(_text_:problems in 1130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06867227 = score(doc=1130,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.4560259 = fieldWeight in 1130, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1130)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.0054937815 = product of:
  0.027468907 = sum of:
    0.027468907 = product of:
      0.054937813 = sum of:
        0.054937813 = weight(_text_:problems in 7481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054937813 = score(doc=7481,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.36482072 = fieldWeight in 7481, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7481)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Working with a foreign vendor and creating a network among three multilingual libraries was a challenging experience for the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. After four years investigating library systems offering integrated capabilities for English/Hebrew, the library selected the ALEPH system. The intricacies of the Hebrew language posed unexpected problems. Gratz College and the Annenberg Research Institute became key players in the establishment of the network. Several technical difficulties had to bes resolved before interfacing aspects among the three multilingual libraries became functional

0.004943135 = product of:
  0.024715675 = sum of:
    0.024715675 = product of:
      0.04943135 = sum of:
        0.04943135 = weight(_text_:22 in 4157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04943135 = score(doc=4157,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4157, 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=4157)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.0048070587 = product of:
  0.024035294 = sum of:
    0.024035294 = product of:
      0.048070587 = sum of:
        0.048070587 = weight(_text_:problems in 7207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048070587 = score(doc=7207,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.31921813 = fieldWeight in 7207, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7207)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

With increasing moves towards an integrated Europe the need for multilingual access to information becomes more pressing. One aspect of this need which has largely been neglected is the provision of multilingual access to OPACs and this paper is concerned with exploring this problem area. The need for multilingual OPAC search capabilities and the difficulties associated with this are discussed. The problems of subject access in particular are highlighted. Research into subject searching in monolingual OPACs is reviewed and its relevance to multilingual OPACs is outlined. Given the limitations of current machine translation of natural language it is likely that the utilisation of controlled subject search facilities. Finally some possible directions for further research are considered

0.0048070587 = product of:
  0.024035294 = sum of:
    0.024035294 = product of:
      0.048070587 = sum of:
        0.048070587 = weight(_text_:problems in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048070587 = score(doc=601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.31921813 = fieldWeight in 601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Telecommunications networks and standard protocols for information retrieval aid physical access to geographically scattered libraries. However, users face problems when searching for foreign language documents if they do not have a certain command of the relevant language(s). Multilingual facilities, in particular multilingual presentation and retrieval, can intellectually open the library catalogue to a wider range of international users. Describes an attempt at using multilingual resources with a view to improving the user OPAC interaction throught he TRANSLIB project and its integration at 'Biblioteca Hispanica de la Agencia Espanola de Cooperation Internacional'

0.0048070587 = product of:
  0.024035294 = sum of:
    0.024035294 = product of:
      0.048070587 = sum of:
        0.048070587 = weight(_text_:problems in 1804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048070587 = score(doc=1804,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.31921813 = fieldWeight in 1804, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1804)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Based on the premise that in a multilingual thesaurus all languages are equal, reviews the options and solutions offered by the guidelines to the developer of specialized thesauri. Introduces other problems of a sociocultural, and even of a truly political nature, which are a prominent features in the daily life of the thesaurus designer but with which the theory and the guidelines do not deal very well. Focuses in turn on semantic, managerial, and technological aspects of multilingual thesaurus construction, from the perspective of giving equal treatment to all languages involved

0.0041392017 = product of:
  0.020696009 = sum of:
    0.020696009 = product of:
      0.041392017 = sum of:
        0.041392017 = weight(_text_:etc in 1164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041392017 = score(doc=1164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.20945519 = fieldWeight in 1164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Multilingual text retrieval can be defined as selection of useful documents from collections that may contain several languages (English, French, Chinese, etc.). This formulation allows for the possibility that individual documents might contain more than one language, a common occurrence in some applications. Both cross-language and within-language retrieval are included in this formulation, but it is the cross-language aspect of the problem which distinguishes multilingual text retrieval from its well studied monolingual counterpart. At the SIGIR 96 workshop on "Cross-Linguistic Information Retrieval" the participants discussed the proliferation of terminology being used to describe the field and settled on "Cross-Language" as the best single description of the salient aspect of the problem. "Multilingual" was felt to be too broad, since that term has also been used to describe systems able to perform within-language retrieval in more than one language but that lack any cross-language capability. "Cross-lingual" and "cross-linguistic" were felt to be equally good descriptions of the field, but "crosslanguage" was selected as the preferred term in the interest of standardization. Unfortunately, at about the same time the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) introduced "translingual" as their preferred term, so we are still some distance from reaching consensus on this matter.

0.0041203364 = product of:
  0.02060168 = sum of:
    0.02060168 = product of:
      0.04120336 = sum of:
        0.04120336 = weight(_text_:problems in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04120336 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Multilingual access to library databases is a topic of concern not only to users in countries such as Switzerland in which several languages are spoken, but also to those who search for information in databases containing material in more than one language. The growth of networks means that libraries can access databases outside their own immediate circle but problems of differences in interfaces will continue until there is widespread compliance with Z39.50. Considers 2 approaches to multilingual access: the use of multilingual thesauri or authority records (which implies translation work before users search the database); and the translation of the search statement at the time of searching (which implies the existence of parsers and multilingual dictionaries)

0.0041203364 = product of:
  0.02060168 = sum of:
    0.02060168 = product of:
      0.04120336 = sum of:
        0.04120336 = weight(_text_:problems in 1302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04120336 = score(doc=1302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 1302, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper examines the reasons why approaches to facilitate document retrieval which apply AI (Artificial Intelligence) or Expert Systems techniques, relying on so-called "natural language" query statements from the end-user will result in sub-optimal solutions. It does so by reflecting on the nature of language and the fundamental problems in document retrieval. Support is given to the work of thesaurus builders and indexers with illustrations of how their work may be utilised in a generally applicable computer-based document retrieval system using Multilingual MenUSE software. The EuroMenUSE interface providing multilingual document access to EPOQUE, the European Parliament's Online Query System is described.

0.003954508 = product of:
  0.019772539 = sum of:
    0.019772539 = product of:
      0.039545078 = sum of:
        0.039545078 = weight(_text_:22 in 7887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039545078 = score(doc=7887,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7887, 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=7887)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Probleme de Informare si Documentare. 28(1994) no.1, S.13-22

0.003954508 = product of:
  0.019772539 = sum of:
    0.019772539 = product of:
      0.039545078 = sum of:
        0.039545078 = weight(_text_:22 in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039545078 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3564, 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=3564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

0.003954508 = product of:
  0.019772539 = sum of:
    0.019772539 = product of:
      0.039545078 = sum of:
        0.039545078 = weight(_text_:22 in 932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039545078 = score(doc=932,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 932, 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=932)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.0034601947 = product of:
  0.017300973 = sum of:
    0.017300973 = product of:
      0.034601945 = sum of:
        0.034601945 = weight(_text_:22 in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034601945 = score(doc=2092,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2092, 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=2092)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Knowledge organization. 22(1995) nos.3/4, S.136-140

0.0024035294 = product of:
  0.012017647 = sum of:
    0.012017647 = product of:
      0.024035294 = sum of:
        0.024035294 = weight(_text_:problems in 6067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024035294 = score(doc=6067,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.15960906 = fieldWeight in 6067, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=6067)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Backgrund to the study: The question of multilingual access to bibliographic databases affects not only searchers in countries in which several languages are spoken such as Switzerland, but also all those who search material in databases containing material in more than one language, which is the case in the majority of scientific or research databases. he growth of networks means that we can easily access catalogues outside our own immediate circle - in another town, another country, another continent. In doing so we encounter problems concerning not only search interfaces, but also concerning subject access or even author access in another language. In France for example, each document, independently of the language in which it has been written, is indexed using a French-language subject heading language. Thus, in order to search by subject headings for documents written in English or German, held in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, the researcher from abroad has to master the French language. In theory, the indexer should be able to analyse a document and assign headings in his/her native language, while the user should be able to search in his/her native language. The language of the document itself should have no influence on the language of the subject heading language used for indexing nor on the language used for searching. (Practically speaking of course, there are restrictions, since there is a limit to the number of languages in which subject headings languages could be maintained and thus in which the user may search.) In the example below, we are concerned with three languages: German, French and English. If we can imagine a system in which there are equivalents among subject headings in these three languages, the following scenario may be envisaged: a German-speaking indexer will use German-language subject headings to index all the documents received, regardless of the language in which they are written. The user may search for these documents by entering subject headings in German, but also in French or in English, thanks to the equivalents that have been established, in French or in English without the necessity to know the other languages or the structure of the other SHLs. Ideally, this approach should not be confined to one database, but would allow the different databases to be brought together in virtual system: an English-speaking user in London should be able to search the database of the Deutsche Bibliothek in Frankfurt using English-language headings, and retrieving documents which have been indexed using the German subject headings' list.

0.0024035294 = product of:
  0.012017647 = sum of:
    0.012017647 = product of:
      0.024035294 = sum of:
        0.024035294 = weight(_text_:problems in 1263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024035294 = score(doc=1263,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.15960906 = fieldWeight in 1263, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1263)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The Internet would not be very useful if communication were limited to textual exchanges between speakers of English located in the United States. Rather, its value lies in its ability to enable people from multiple nations, speaking multiple languages, to employ multiple media in interacting with each other. While computer networks broke through national boundaries long ago, they remain much more effective for textual communication than for exchanges of sound, images, or mixed media -- and more effective for communication in English than for exchanges in most other languages, much less interactions involving multiple languages. Supporting searching and display in multiple languages is an increasingly important issue for all digital libraries accessible on the Internet. Even if a digital library contains materials in only one language, the content needs to be searchable and displayable on computers in countries speaking other languages. We need to exchange data between digital libraries, whether in a single language or in multiple languages. Data exchanges may be large batch updates or interactive hyperlinks. In any of these cases, character sets must be represented in a consistent manner if exchanges are to succeed. Issues of interoperability, portability, and data exchange related to multi-lingual character sets have received surprisingly little attention in the digital library community or in discussions of standards for information infrastructure, except in Europe. The landmark collection of papers on Standards Policy for Information Infrastructure, for example, contains no discussion of multi-lingual issues except for a passing reference to the Unicode standard. The goal of this short essay is to draw attention to the multi-lingual issues involved in designing digital libraries accessible on the Internet. Many of the multi-lingual design issues parallel those of multi-media digital libraries, a topic more familiar to most readers of D-Lib Magazine. This essay draws examples from multi-media DLs to illustrate some of the urgent design challenges in creating a globally distributed network serving people who speak many languages other than English. First we introduce some general issues of medium, culture, and language, then discuss the design challenges in the transition from local to global systems, lastly addressing technical matters. The technical issues involve the choice of character sets to represent languages, similar to the choices made in representing images or sound. However, the scale of the language problem is far greater. Standards for multi-media representation are being adopted fairly rapidly, in parallel with the availability of multi-media content in electronic form. By contrast, we have hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of years worth of textual materials in hundreds of languages, created long before data encoding standards existed. Textual content from past and present is being encoded in language and application-specific representations that are difficult to exchange without losing data -- if they exchange at all. We illustrate the multi-language DL challenge with examples drawn from the research library community, which typically handles collections of materials in 400 or so languages. These are problems faced not only by developers of digital libraries, but by those who develop and manage any communication technology that crosses national or linguistic boundaries.

0.0017168068 = product of:
  0.008584034 = sum of:
    0.008584034 = product of:
      0.017168067 = sum of:
        0.017168067 = weight(_text_:problems in 6299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017168067 = score(doc=6299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.114006475 = fieldWeight in 6299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=6299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: Machine translation review: 1999, no.10, S.26-27 (D. Lewis): "Cross Language Information Retrieval (CLIR) addresses the growing need to access large volumes of data across language boundaries. The typical requirement is for the user to input a free form query, usually a brief description of a topic, into a search or retrieval engine which returns a list, in ranked order, of documents or web pages that are relevant to the topic. The search engine matches the terms in the query to indexed terms, usually keywords previously derived from the target documents. Unlike monolingual information retrieval, CLIR requires query terms in one language to be matched to indexed terms in another. Matching can be done by bilingual dictionary lookup, full machine translation, or by applying statistical methods. A query's success is measured in terms of recall (how many potentially relevant target documents are found) and precision (what proportion of documents found are relevant). Issues in CLIR are how to translate query terms into index terms, how to eliminate alternative translations (e.g. to decide that French 'traitement' in a query means 'treatment' and not 'salary'), and how to rank or weight translation alternatives that are retained (e.g. how to order the French terms 'aventure', 'business', 'affaire', and 'liaison' as relevant translations of English 'affair'). Grefenstette provides a lucid and useful overview of the field and the problems. The volume brings together a number of experiments and projects in CLIR. Mark Davies (New Mexico State University) describes Recuerdo, a Spanish retrieval engine which reduces translation ambiguities by scanning indexes for parallel texts; it also uses either a bilingual dictionary or direct equivalents from a parallel corpus in order to compare results for queries on parallel texts. Lisa Ballesteros and Bruce Croft (University of Massachusetts) use a 'local feedback' technique which automatically enhances a query by adding extra terms to it both before and after translation; such terms can be derived from documents known to be relevant to the query.