Search (124 results, page 1 of 7)

  • × theme_ss:"Multilinguale Probleme"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Schlenkrich, C.: Aspekte neuer Regelwerksarbeit : Multimediales Datenmodell für ARD und ZDF (2003) 0.02
    0.023251332 = product of:
      0.16275932 = sum of:
        0.015210699 = weight(_text_:system in 1515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015210699 = score(doc=1515,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.19684705 = fieldWeight in 1515, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1515)
        0.14754862 = sum of:
          0.13425244 = weight(_text_:datenmodell in 1515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.13425244 = score(doc=1515,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.19304088 = queryWeight, product of:
                7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
                0.02453417 = queryNorm
              0.6954612 = fieldWeight in 1515, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1515)
          0.0132961655 = weight(_text_:22 in 1515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0132961655 = score(doc=1515,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.02453417 = queryNorm
              0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1515, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1515)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    Wir sind mitten in der Arbeit, deshalb kann ich Ihnen nur Arbeitsstände weitergeben. Es ist im Fluss, und wir bemühen uns in der Tat, die "alten Regelwerke" fit zu machen und sie für den Multimediabereich aufzuarbeiten. Ganz kurz zur Arbeitsgruppe: Sie entstammt der AG Orgatec, der Schall- und Hörfunkarchivleiter- und der Fernseharchivleiterkonferenz zur Erstellung eines verbindlichen multimedialen Regelwerks. Durch die Digitalisierung haben sich die Aufgaben in den Archivbereichen eindeutig geändert. Wir versuchen, diese Prozesse abzufangen, und zwar vom Produktionsprozess bis hin zur Archivierung neu zu regeln und neu zu definieren. Wir haben mit unserer Arbeit begonnen im April letzten Jahres, sind also jetzt nahezu exakt ein Jahr zugange, und ich werde Ihnen im Laufe des kurzen Vortrages berichten können, wie wir unsere Arbeit gestaltet haben. Etwas zu den Mitgliedern der Arbeitsgruppe - ich denke, es ist ganz interessant, einfach mal zu sehen, aus welchen Bereichen und Spektren unsere Arbeitsgruppe sich zusammensetzt. Wir haben also Vertreter des Bayrischen Rundfunks, des Norddeutschen -, des Westdeutschen Rundfunks, des Mitteldeutschen von Ost nach West, von Süd nach Nord und aus den verschiedensten Arbeitsbereichen von Audio über Video bis hin zu Online- und Printbereichen. Es ist eine sehr bunt gemischte Truppe, aber auch eine hochspannenden Diskussion exakt eben aufgrund der Vielfalt, die wir abbilden wollen und abbilden müssen. Die Ziele: Wir wollen verbindlich ein multimediales Datenmodell entwickeln und verabschieden, was insbesondere den digitalen Produktionscenter und Archiv-Workflow von ARD und - da haben wir uns besonders gefreut - auch in guter alter Tradition in gemeinsamer Zusammenarbeit mit dem ZDF bildet. Wir wollen Erfassungs- und Erschließungsregeln definieren. Wir wollen Mittlerdaten generieren und bereitstellen, um den Produktions-Workflow abzubilden und zu gewährleisten, und das Datenmodell, das wir uns sozusagen als Zielstellung definiert haben, soll für den Programmaustausch Grundlagen schaffen, damit von System zu System intern und extern kommuniziert werden kann. Nun könnte man meinen, dass ein neues multimediales Datenmodell aus einem Mix der alten Regelwerke Fernsehen, Wort und Musik recht einfach zusammenzuführen sei. Man stellt einfach die Datenlisten der einzelnen Regelwerke synoptisch gegenüber, klärt Gemeinsames und Spezifisches ab, ergänzt Fehlendes, eliminiert eventuell nicht Benötigtes und stellt es einfach neu zusammen, fertig ist das neue Regelwerk. Leider ist es nicht ganz so einfach, denn es gibt dabei doch eine ganze Reihe von Aspekten zu berücksichtigen, die eine vorgelagerte Abstraktionsebene auch zwingend erforderlich machen.
    Date
    22. 4.2003 12:05:56
  2. Capstick, J.: ¬A system for supporting cross-lingual information retrieval (2000) 0.02
    0.019051645 = product of:
      0.088907674 = sum of:
        0.037644558 = weight(_text_:system in 4993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037644558 = score(doc=4993,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.4871716 = fieldWeight in 4993, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4993)
        0.016539034 = weight(_text_:information in 4993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016539034 = score(doc=4993,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 4993, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4993)
        0.034724083 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034724083 = score(doc=4993,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 4993, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4993)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Source
    Information processing and management. 36(2000) no.2, S.275-289
  3. Clough, P.; Sanderson, M.: User experiments with the Eurovision Cross-Language Image Retrieval System (2006) 0.02
    0.015627215 = product of:
      0.072927 = sum of:
        0.036075342 = weight(_text_:system in 5052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036075342 = score(doc=5052,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.46686378 = fieldWeight in 5052, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5052)
        0.0070881573 = weight(_text_:information in 5052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0070881573 = score(doc=5052,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 5052, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5052)
        0.029763501 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029763501 = score(doc=5052,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 5052, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5052)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    In this article the authors present Eurovision, a textbased system for cross-language (CL) image retrieval. The system is evaluated by multilingual users for two search tasks with the system configured in English and five other languages. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first published set of user experiments for CL image retrieval. They show that (a) it is possible to create a usable multilingual search engine using little knowledge of any language other than English, (b) categorizing images assists the user's search, and (c) there are differences in the way users search between the proposed search tasks. Based on the two search tasks and user feedback, they describe important aspects of any CL image retrieval system.
    Footnote
    Beitrag einer special topic section on multilingual information systems
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.5, S.697-708
  4. Oard, D.W.; He, D.; Wang, J.: User-assisted query translation for interactive cross-language information retrieval (2008) 0.01
    0.01458576 = product of:
      0.06806688 = sum of:
        0.032266766 = weight(_text_:system in 2030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032266766 = score(doc=2030,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.41757566 = fieldWeight in 2030, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2030)
        0.0100241685 = weight(_text_:information in 2030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0100241685 = score(doc=2030,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2030, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2030)
        0.025775949 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025775949 = score(doc=2030,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 2030, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2030)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Interactive Cross-Language Information Retrieval (CLIR), a process in which searcher and system collaborate to find documents that satisfy an information need regardless of the language in which those documents are written, calls for designs in which synergies between searcher and system can be leveraged so that the strengths of one can cover weaknesses of the other. This paper describes an approach that employs user-assisted query translation to help searchers better understand the system's operation. Supporting interaction and interface designs are introduced, and results from three user studies are presented. The results indicate that experienced searchers presented with this new system evolve new search strategies that make effective use of the new capabilities, that they achieve retrieval effectiveness comparable to results obtained using fully automatic techniques, and that reported satisfaction with support for cross-language searching increased. The paper concludes with a description of a freely available interactive CLIR system that incorporates lessons learned from this research.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.181-211
  5. Bian, G.-W.; Chen, H.-H.: Cross-language information access to multilingual collections on the Internet (2000) 0.01
    0.014190985 = product of:
      0.049668446 = sum of:
        0.016133383 = weight(_text_:system in 4436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016133383 = score(doc=4436,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 4436, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4436)
        0.008681185 = weight(_text_:information in 4436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008681185 = score(doc=4436,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4436, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4436)
        0.014881751 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014881751 = score(doc=4436,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4436, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4436)
        0.009972124 = product of:
          0.019944249 = sum of:
            0.019944249 = weight(_text_:22 in 4436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019944249 = score(doc=4436,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02453417 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4436, 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=4436)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    Language barrier is the major problem that people face in searching for, retrieving, and understanding multilingual collections on the Internet. This paper deals with query translation and document translation in a Chinese-English information retrieval system called MTIR. Bilingual dictionary and monolingual corpus-based approaches are adopted to select suitable tranlated query terms. A machine transliteration algorithm is introduced to resolve proper name searching. We consider several design issues for document translation, including which material is translated, what roles the HTML tags play in translation, what the tradeoff is between the speed performance and the translation performance, and what from the translated result is presented in. About 100.000 Web pages translated in the last 4 months of 1997 are used for quantitative study of online and real-time Web page translation
    Date
    16. 2.2000 14:22:39
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.3, S.281-296
  6. Levergood, B.; Farrenkopf, S.; Frasnelli, E.: ¬The specification of the language of the field and interoperability : cross-language access to catalogues and online libraries (CACAO) (2008) 0.01
    0.013735834 = product of:
      0.048075415 = sum of:
        0.016133383 = weight(_text_:system in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016133383 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
        0.0070881573 = weight(_text_:information in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0070881573 = score(doc=2646,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
        0.014881751 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014881751 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
        0.009972124 = product of:
          0.019944249 = sum of:
            0.019944249 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019944249 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02453417 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    The CACAO Project (Cross-language Access to Catalogues and Online Libraries) has been designed to implement natural language processing and cross-language information retrieval techniques to provide cross-language access to information in libraries, a critical issue in the linguistically diverse European Union. This project report addresses two metadata-related challenges for the library community in this context: "false friends" (identical words having different meanings in different languages) and term ambiguity. The possible solutions involve enriching the metadata with attributes specifying language or the source authority file, or associating potential search terms to classes in a classification system. The European Library will evaluate an early implementation of this work in late 2008.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  7. Petrelli, D.; Levin, S.; Beaulieu, M.; Sanderson, M.: Which user interaction for cross-language information retrieval? : design issues and reflections (2006) 0.01
    0.013668624 = product of:
      0.06378691 = sum of:
        0.022816047 = weight(_text_:system in 5053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022816047 = score(doc=5053,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 5053, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5053)
        0.011207362 = weight(_text_:information in 5053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011207362 = score(doc=5053,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 5053, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5053)
        0.029763501 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029763501 = score(doc=5053,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 5053, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5053)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    A novel and complex form of information access is cross-language information retrieval: searching for texts written in foreign languages based on native language queries. Although the underlying technology for achieving such a search is relatively well understood, the appropriate interface design is not. The authors present three user evaluations undertaken during the iterative design of Clarity, a cross-language retrieval system for lowdensity languages, and shows how the user-interaction design evolved depending on the results of usability tests. The first test was instrumental to identify weaknesses in both functionalities and interface; the second was run to determine if query translation should be shown or not; the final was a global assessment and focused on user satisfaction criteria. Lessons were learned at every stage of the process leading to a much more informed view of what a cross-language retrieval system should offer to users.
    Footnote
    Beitrag einer special topic section on multilingual information systems
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.5, S.709-722
  8. Evens, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval (2002) 0.01
    0.012989433 = product of:
      0.06061735 = sum of:
        0.016133383 = weight(_text_:system in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016133383 = score(doc=1201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
        0.011207362 = weight(_text_:information in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011207362 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
        0.033276606 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033276606 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Thesaural relations have long been used in information retrieval to enrich queries; they have sometimes been used to cluster documents as well. Sometimes the first query to an information retrieval system yields no results at all, or, what can be even more disconcerting, many thousands of hits. One solution is to rephrase the query, improving the choice of query terms by using related terms of different types. A collection of related terms is often called a thesaurus. This chapter describes the lexical-semantic relations that have been used in building thesauri and summarizes some of the effects of using these relational thesauri in information retrieval experiments
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  9. Tartakovski, O.; Shramko, M.: Implementierung eines Werkzeugs zur Sprachidentifikation in mono- und multilingualen Texten (2006) 0.01
    0.012737544 = product of:
      0.059441872 = sum of:
        0.026618723 = weight(_text_:system in 5978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026618723 = score(doc=5978,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 5978, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5978)
        0.008269517 = weight(_text_:information in 5978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008269517 = score(doc=5978,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5978, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5978)
        0.024553634 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024553634 = score(doc=5978,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 5978, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5978)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Die Identifikation der Sprache bzw. der Sprachen in Textdokumenten ist einer der wichtigsten Schritte maschineller Textverarbeitung für das Information Retrieval. Der vorliegende Artikel stellt Langldent vor, ein System zur Sprachidentifikation von mono- und multilingualen elektronischen Textdokumenten. Das System bietet sowohl eine Auswahl von gängigen Algorithmen für die Sprachidentifikation monolingualer Textdokumente als auch einen neuen Algorithmus für die Sprachidentifikation multilingualer Textdokumente.
    Source
    Effektive Information Retrieval Verfahren in Theorie und Praxis: ausgewählte und erweiterte Beiträge des Vierten Hildesheimer Evaluierungs- und Retrievalworkshop (HIER 2005), Hildesheim, 20.7.2005. Hrsg.: T. Mandl u. C. Womser-Hacker
  10. Rosemblat, G.; Graham, L.: Cross-language search in a monolingual health information system : flexible designs and lexical processes (2006) 0.01
    0.01235807 = product of:
      0.057670996 = sum of:
        0.027943838 = weight(_text_:system in 241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027943838 = score(doc=241,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.36163113 = fieldWeight in 241, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=241)
        0.008681185 = weight(_text_:information in 241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008681185 = score(doc=241,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 241, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=241)
        0.021045974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021045974 = score(doc=241,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 241, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=241)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    The predominance of English-only online health information poses a serious challenge to nonEnglish speakers. To overcome this barrier, we incorporated cross-language information retrieval (CLIR) techniques into a fully functional prototype. It supports Spanish language searches over an English data set using a Spanish-English bilingual term list (BTL). The modular design allows for system and BTL growth and takes advantage of English-system enhancements. Language-based design decisions and implications for integrating non-English components with the existing monolingual architecture are presented. Algorithmic and BTL improvements are used to bring CUR retrieval scores in line with the monolingual values. After validating these changes, we conducted a failure analysis and error categorization for the worst performing queries. We conclude with a comprehensive discussion and directions for future work.
  11. Pirkola, A.; Puolamäki, D.; Järvelin, K.: Applying query structuring in cross-language retrieval (2003) 0.01
    0.011353938 = product of:
      0.052985042 = sum of:
        0.016133383 = weight(_text_:system in 1074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016133383 = score(doc=1074,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 1074, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1074)
        0.0070881573 = weight(_text_:information in 1074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0070881573 = score(doc=1074,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1074, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1074)
        0.029763501 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029763501 = score(doc=1074,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1074, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1074)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    We will explore various ways to apply query structuring in cross-language information retrieval. In the first test, English queries were translated into Finnish using an electronic dictionary, and were run in a Finnish newspaper database of 55,000 articles. Queries were structured by combining the Finnish translation equivalents of the same English query key using the syn-operator of the InQuery retrieval system. Structured queries performed markedly better than unstructured queries. Second, the effects of compound-based structuring using a proximity operator for the translation equivalents of query language compound components were tested. The method was not useful in syn-based queries but resulted in decrease in retrieval effectiveness. Proper names are often non-identical spelling variants in different languages. This allows n-gram based translation of names not included in a dictionary. In the third test, a query structuring method where the Boolean and-operator was used to assign more weight to keys translated through n-gram matching gave good results.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 39(2003) no.3, S.391-402
  12. Airio, E.: Who benefits from CLIR in web retrieval? (2008) 0.01
    0.011353938 = product of:
      0.052985042 = sum of:
        0.016133383 = weight(_text_:system in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016133383 = score(doc=2342,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2342, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2342)
        0.0070881573 = weight(_text_:information in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0070881573 = score(doc=2342,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2342, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2342)
        0.029763501 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029763501 = score(doc=2342,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 2342, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2342)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The aim of the current paper is to test whether query translation is beneficial in web retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - The language pairs were Finnish-Swedish, English-German and Finnish-French. A total of 12-18 participants were recruited for each language pair. Each participant performed four retrieval tasks. The author's aim was to compare the performance of the translated queries with that of the target language queries. Thus, the author asked participants to formulate a source language query and a target language query for each task. The source language queries were translated into the target language utilizing a dictionary-based system. In English-German, also machine translation was utilized. The author used Google as the search engine. Findings - The results differed depending on the language pair. The author concluded that the dictionary coverage had an effect on the results. On average, the results of query-translation were better than in the traditional laboratory tests. Originality/value - This research shows that query translation in web is beneficial especially for users with moderate and non-active language skills. This is valuable information for developers of cross-language information retrieval systems.
  13. López-Ostenero, F.; Peinado, V.; Gonzalo, J.; Verdejo, F.: Interactive question answering : Is Cross-Language harder than monolingual searching? (2008) 0.01
    0.011128606 = product of:
      0.051933497 = sum of:
        0.016133383 = weight(_text_:system in 2023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016133383 = score(doc=2023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2023, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2023)
        0.0100241685 = weight(_text_:information in 2023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0100241685 = score(doc=2023,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2023, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2023)
        0.025775949 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025775949 = score(doc=2023,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 2023, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2023)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Is Cross-Language answer finding harder than Monolingual answer finding for users? In this paper we provide initial quantitative and qualitative evidence to answer this question. In our study, which involves 16 users searching questions under four different system conditions, we find that interactive cross-language answer finding is not substantially harder (in terms of accuracy) than its monolingual counterpart, using general purpose Machine Translation systems and standard Information Retrieval machinery, although it takes more time. We have also seen that users need more context to provide accurate answers (full documents) than what is usually considered by systems (paragraphs or passages). Finally, we also discuss the limitations of standard evaluation methodologies for interactive Information Retrieval experiments in the case of cross-language question answering.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenbereichs: Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.66-81
  14. Ballesteros, L.A.: Cross-language retrieval via transitive relation (2000) 0.01
    0.010940583 = product of:
      0.051056053 = sum of:
        0.013444485 = weight(_text_:system in 30) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013444485 = score(doc=30,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 30, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=30)
        0.0072343214 = weight(_text_:information in 30) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0072343214 = score(doc=30,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 30, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=30)
        0.030377246 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 30) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030377246 = score(doc=30,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.40932083 = fieldWeight in 30, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=30)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    The growth in availability of multi-lingual data in all areas of the public and private sector is driving an increasing need for systems that facilitate access to multi-lingual resources. Cross-language Retrieval (CLR) technology is a means of addressing this need. A CLR system must address two main hurdles to effective cross-language retrieval. First, it must address the ambiguity that arises when trying to map the meaning of text across languages. That is, it must address both within-language ambiguity and cross-language ambiguity. Second, it has to incorporate multilingual resources that will enable it to perform the mapping across languages. The difficulty here is that there is a limited number of lexical resources and virtually none for some pairs of languages. This work focuses on a dictionary approach to addressing the problem of limited lexical resources. A dictionary approach is taken since bilingual dictionaries are more prevalent and simpler to apply than other resources. We show that a transitive translation approach, where a third language is employed as an interlingua between the source and target languages, is a viable means of performing CLR between languages for which no bilingual dictionary is available
    Series
    The Kluwer international series on information retrieval; 7
    Source
    Advances in information retrieval: Recent research from the Center for Intelligent Information Retrieval. Ed.: W.B. Croft
  15. Petrelli, D.; Beaulieu, M.; Sanderson, M.; Demetriou, G.; Herring, P.; Hansen, P.: Observing users, designing clarity : a case study an the user-centered design of a cross-language information retrieval system (2004) 0.01
    0.0109178955 = product of:
      0.050950177 = sum of:
        0.022816047 = weight(_text_:system in 2506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022816047 = score(doc=2506,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 2506, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2506)
        0.0070881573 = weight(_text_:information in 2506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0070881573 = score(doc=2506,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2506, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2506)
        0.021045974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021045974 = score(doc=2506,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2506, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2506)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    This report presents a case study of the development of an interface for a novel and complex form of document retrieval: searching for texts written in foreign languages based on native language queries. Although the underlying technology for achieving such a search is relatively weIl understood, the appropriate interface design is not. A study involving users from the beginning of the design process is described, and it covers initial examination of user needs and tasks, preliminary design and testing of interface components, building, testing, and refining the interface, and, finally, conducting usability tests of the system. Lessons are learned at every stage of the process, leading to a much more informed view of how such an interface should be built.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.10, S.923-934
  16. Francu, V.: Language-independent structures and multilingual information access (2003) 0.01
    0.010899522 = product of:
      0.050864436 = sum of:
        0.010755588 = weight(_text_:system in 2753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010755588 = score(doc=2753,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 2753, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2753)
        0.012047551 = weight(_text_:information in 2753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012047551 = score(doc=2753,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.2797255 = fieldWeight in 2753, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2753)
        0.028061297 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028061297 = score(doc=2753,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 2753, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2753)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    The existence of huge amounts of information available in information systems and networks worldwide imposes the creation of adequate tools able to efficiently organize it and allow its retrieval across geographical, linguistic and cultural boundaries. An indexing language covering all areas of knowledge and converting the language-independent structure of a classification system like the Universal Decimal Classification into a thesaurus structure in more than one language seems to be a solution. Among the key attributes of the indexing language thus obtained we can mention: consistency in indexing, control an terms, user-friendliness. The paper presents the great potential in information retrieval of the combined retrieval method by means of a case study. 1. Introduction Among the consequences of the rapid development of the global information society a major one is the existence of huge amounts of information stored in information systems and networks across geographical, linguistic and cultural boundaries. The need was imposed to create tools and technologies able to efficiently organize and allow retrieval of information in this universal context. Information professionals had to cope not only with the multitude of knowledge organisation and representation systems but also with the multitude of languages the available information is stored in order to provide the users with effective information retrieval tools. For this purpose a real language industry has been developed, theoreticians and researchers making considerable efforts to find feasible solutions to problems of multilingual access by way of natural language processing and machine translation methodologies. Such corporate efforts belong to the CoBRA+ working group for multilingual access to subjects (MACS) or to the cross-language information retrieval (CLIR) tracks of the Text Retrieval Conferences that annually report the progress made in multilingual information access and retrieval. The encouraging results they have obtained so far are still confined to discipline/domain restrictions and most of their achievements are based an language pairs rather than multiple language combinations.
  17. Peters, C.; Braschler, M.: Cross-language system evaluation : the CLEF campaigns (2001) 0.01
    0.010886654 = product of:
      0.050804388 = sum of:
        0.021511177 = weight(_text_:system in 6979) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021511177 = score(doc=6979,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 6979, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6979)
        0.009450877 = weight(_text_:information in 6979) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009450877 = score(doc=6979,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 6979, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6979)
        0.019842334 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6979) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019842334 = score(doc=6979,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 6979, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6979)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    The goals of the CLEF (Cross-Language Evaluation Forum) series of evaluation campaigns for information retrieval systems operating on European languages are described. The difficulties of organizing an activity which aims at an objective evaluation of systems running on and over a number' of different languages are examined. The discussion includes an analysis of the first results and proposals for possible developments in the future.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.12, S.1067-1072
  18. Francu, V.: Multilingual access to information using an intermediate language (2003) 0.01
    0.010861087 = product of:
      0.05068507 = sum of:
        0.024050226 = weight(_text_:system in 1742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024050226 = score(doc=1742,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.31124252 = fieldWeight in 1742, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1742)
        0.009450877 = weight(_text_:information in 1742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009450877 = score(doc=1742,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 1742, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1742)
        0.017183965 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017183965 = score(doc=1742,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.23154683 = fieldWeight in 1742, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1742)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    While being theoretically so widely available, information can be restricted from a more general use by linguistic barriers. The linguistic aspects of the information languages and particularly the chances of an enhanced access to information by means of multilingual access facilities will make the substance of this thesis. The main problem of this research is thus to demonstrate that information retrieval can be improved by using multilingual thesaurus terms based on an intermediate or switching language to search with. Universal classification systems in general can play the role of switching languages for reasons dealt with in the forthcoming pages. The Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) in particular is the classification system used as example of a switching language for our objectives. The question may arise: why a universal classification system and not another thesaurus? Because the UDC like most of the classification systems uses symbols. Therefore, it is language independent and the problems of compatibility between such a thesaurus and different other thesauri in different languages are avoided. Another question may still arise? Why not then, assign running numbers to the descriptors in a thesaurus and make a switching language out of the resulting enumerative system? Because of some other characteristics of the UDC: hierarchical structure and terminological richness, consistency and control. One big problem to find an answer to is: can a thesaurus be made having as a basis a classification system in any and all its parts? To what extent this question can be given an affirmative answer? This depends much on the attributes of the universal classification system which can be favourably used to this purpose. Examples of different situations will be given and discussed upon beginning with those classes of UDC which are best fitted for building a thesaurus structure out of them (classes which are both hierarchical and faceted)...
    Content
    Inhalt: INFORMATION LANGUAGES: A LINGUISTIC APPROACH MULTILINGUAL ASPECTS IN INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL COMPATIBILITY AND CONVERTIBILITY OF INFORMATION LANGUAGES CURRENT TRENDS IN MULTILINGUAL ACCESS BUILDING UDC-BASED MULTILINGUAL THESAURI ONLINE APPLICATIONS OF THE UDC-BASED MULTILINGUAL THESAURI THE IMPACT OF SPECIFICITY ON THE RETRIEVAL POWER OF A UDC-BASED MULTILINGUAL THESAURUS FINAL REMARKS AND GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Proefschrift voorgelegd tot het behalen van de graad van doctor in de Taal- en Letterkunde aan de Universiteit Antwerpen. - Vgl.: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1862/.
  19. Subirats, I.; Prasad, A.R.D.; Keizer, J.; Bagdanov, A.: Implementation of rich metadata formats and demantic tools using DSpace (2008) 0.01
    0.010733546 = product of:
      0.037567407 = sum of:
        0.015210699 = weight(_text_:system in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015210699 = score(doc=2656,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.19684705 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
        0.005787457 = weight(_text_:information in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005787457 = score(doc=2656,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
        0.009921167 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009921167 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
        0.0066480828 = product of:
          0.0132961655 = sum of:
            0.0132961655 = weight(_text_:22 in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0132961655 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02453417 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    This poster explores the customization of DSpace to allow the use of the AGRIS Application Profile metadata standard and the AGROVOC thesaurus. The objective is the adaptation of DSpace, through the least invasive code changes either in the form of plug-ins or add-ons, to the specific needs of the Agricultural Sciences and Technology community. Metadata standards such as AGRIS AP, and Knowledge Organization Systems such as the AGROVOC thesaurus, provide mechanisms for sharing information in a standardized manner by recommending the use of common semantics and interoperable syntax (Subirats et al., 2007). AGRIS AP was created to enhance the description, exchange and subsequent retrieval of agricultural Document-like Information Objects (DLIOs). It is a metadata schema which draws from Metadata standards such as Dublin Core (DC), the Australian Government Locator Service Metadata (AGLS) and the Agricultural Metadata Element Set (AgMES) namespaces. It allows sharing of information across dispersed bibliographic systems (FAO, 2005). AGROVOC68 is a multilingual structured thesaurus covering agricultural and related domains. Its main role is to standardize the indexing process in order to make searching simpler and more efficient. AGROVOC is developed by FAO (Lauser et al., 2006). The customization of the DSpace is taking place in several phases. First, the AGRIS AP metadata schema was mapped onto the metadata DSpace model, with several enhancements implemented to support AGRIS AP elements. Next, AGROVOC will be integrated as a controlled vocabulary accessed through a local SKOS or OWL file. Eventually the system will be configurable to access AGROVOC through local files or remotely via webservices. Finally, spell checking and tooltips will be incorporated in the user interface to support metadata editing. Adapting DSpace to support AGRIS AP and annotation using the semantically-rich AGROVOC thesaurus transform DSpace into a powerful, domain-specific system for annotation and exchange of bibliographic metadata in the agricultural domain.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  20. Effektive Information Retrieval Verfahren in Theorie und Praxis : ausgewählte und erweiterte Beiträge des Vierten Hildesheimer Evaluierungs- und Retrievalworkshop (HIER 2005), Hildesheim, 20.7.2005 (2006) 0.01
    0.010624981 = product of:
      0.04958324 = sum of:
        0.014228307 = weight(_text_:system in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014228307 = score(doc=5973,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.18413356 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
        0.008184699 = weight(_text_:information in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008184699 = score(doc=5973,freq=48.0), product of:
            0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.19003606 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
              6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
                48.0 = termFreq=48.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
        0.027170235 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027170235 = score(doc=5973,freq=60.0), product of:
            0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.36610767 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
              7.745967 = tf(freq=60.0), with freq of:
                60.0 = termFreq=60.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Information Retrieval hat sich zu einer Schlüsseltechnologie in der Wissensgesellschaft entwickelt. Die Anzahl der täglichen Anfragen an Internet-Suchmaschinen bildet nur einen Indikator für die große Bedeutung dieses Themas. Der Sammelbandband informiert über Themen wie Information Retrieval-Grundlagen, Retrieval Systeme, Digitale Bibliotheken, Evaluierung und Multilinguale Systeme, beschreibt Anwendungsszenarien und setzt sich mit neuen Herausforderungen an das Information Retrieval auseinander. Die Beiträge behandeln aktuelle Themen und neue Herausforderungen an das Information Retrieval. Die intensive Beteiligung der Informationswissenschaft der Universität Hildesheim am Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF), einer europäischen Evaluierungsinitiative zur Erforschung mehrsprachiger Retrieval Systeme, berührt mehrere der Beiträge. Ebenso spielen Anwendungsszenarien und die Auseinandersetzung mit aktuellen und praktischen Fragestellungen eine große Rolle.
    Content
    Inhalt: Jan-Hendrik Scheufen: RECOIN: Modell offener Schnittstellen für Information-Retrieval-Systeme und -Komponenten Markus Nick, Klaus-Dieter Althoff: Designing Maintainable Experience-based Information Systems Gesine Quint, Steffen Weichert: Die benutzerzentrierte Entwicklung des Produkt- Retrieval-Systems EIKON der Blaupunkt GmbH Claus-Peter Klas, Sascha Kriewel, André Schaefer, Gudrun Fischer: Das DAFFODIL System - Strategische Literaturrecherche in Digitalen Bibliotheken Matthias Meiert: Entwicklung eines Modells zur Integration digitaler Dokumente in die Universitätsbibliothek Hildesheim Daniel Harbig, René Schneider: Ontology Learning im Rahmen von MyShelf Michael Kluck, Marco Winter: Topic-Entwicklung und Relevanzbewertung bei GIRT: ein Werkstattbericht Thomas Mandl: Neue Entwicklungen bei den Evaluierungsinitiativen im Information Retrieval Joachim Pfister: Clustering von Patent-Dokumenten am Beispiel der Datenbanken des Fachinformationszentrums Karlsruhe Ralph Kölle, Glenn Langemeier, Wolfgang Semar: Programmieren lernen in kollaborativen Lernumgebungen Olga Tartakovski, Margaryta Shramko: Implementierung eines Werkzeugs zur Sprachidentifikation in mono- und multilingualen Texten Nina Kummer: Indexierungstechniken für das japanische Retrieval Suriya Na Nhongkai, Hans-Joachim Bentz: Bilinguale Suche mittels Konzeptnetzen Robert Strötgen, Thomas Mandl, René Schneider: Entwicklung und Evaluierung eines Question Answering Systems im Rahmen des Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF) Niels Jensen: Evaluierung von mehrsprachigem Web-Retrieval: Experimente mit dem EuroGOV-Korpus im Rahmen des Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis 57(2006) H.5, S.290-291 (C. Schindler): "Weniger als ein Jahr nach dem "Vierten Hildesheimer Evaluierungs- und Retrievalworkshop" (HIER 2005) im Juli 2005 ist der dazugehörige Tagungsband erschienen. Eingeladen hatte die Hildesheimer Informationswissenschaft um ihre Forschungsergebnisse und die einiger externer Experten zum Thema Information Retrieval einem Fachpublikum zu präsentieren und zur Diskussion zu stellen. Unter dem Titel "Effektive Information Retrieval Verfahren in Theorie und Praxis" sind nahezu sämtliche Beiträge des Workshops in dem nun erschienenen, 15 Beiträge umfassenden Band gesammelt. Mit dem Schwerpunkt Information Retrieval (IR) wird ein Teilgebiet der Informationswissenschaft vorgestellt, das schon immer im Zentrum informationswissenschaftlicher Forschung steht. Ob durch den Leistungsanstieg von Prozessoren und Speichermedien, durch die Verbreitung des Internet über nationale Grenzen hinweg oder durch den stetigen Anstieg der Wissensproduktion, festzuhalten ist, dass in einer zunehmend wechselseitig vernetzten Welt die Orientierung und das Auffinden von Dokumenten in großen Wissensbeständen zu einer zentralen Herausforderung geworden sind. Aktuelle Verfahrensweisen zu diesem Thema, dem Information Retrieval, präsentiert der neue Band anhand von praxisbezogenen Projekten und theoretischen Diskussionen. Das Kernthema Information Retrieval wird in dem Sammelband in die Bereiche Retrieval-Systeme, Digitale Bibliothek, Evaluierung und Multilinguale Systeme untergliedert. Die Artikel der einzelnen Sektionen sind insgesamt recht heterogen und bieten daher keine Überschneidungen inhaltlicher Art. Jedoch ist eine vollkommene thematische Abdeckung der unterschiedlichen Bereiche ebenfalls nicht gegeben, was bei der Präsentation von Forschungsergebnissen eines Institutes und seiner Kooperationspartner auch nur bedingt erwartet werden kann. So lässt sich sowohl in der Gliederung als auch in den einzelnen Beiträgen eine thematische Verdichtung erkennen, die das spezielle Profil und die Besonderheit der Hildesheimer Informationswissenschaft im Feld des Information Retrieval wiedergibt. Teil davon ist die mehrsprachige und interdisziplinäre Ausrichtung, die die Schnittstellen zwischen Informationswissenschaft, Sprachwissenschaft und Informatik in ihrer praxisbezogenen und internationalen Forschung fokussiert.
    Im ersten Kapitel "Retrieval-Systeme" werden verschiedene Information RetrievalSysteme präsentiert und Verfahren zu deren Gestaltung diskutiert. Jan-Hendrik Scheufen stellt das Meta-Framework RECOIN zur Information Retrieval Forschung vor, das sich durch eine flexible Handhabung unterschiedlichster Applikationen auszeichnet und dadurch eine zentrierte Protokollierung und Steuerung von Retrieval-Prozessen ermöglicht. Dieses Konzept eines offenen, komponentenbasierten Systems wurde in Form eines Plug-Ins für die javabasierte Open-Source-Plattform Eclipse realisiert. Markus Nick und Klaus-Dieter Althoff erläutern in ihrem Beitrag, der übrigens der einzige englischsprachige Text im Buch ist, das Verfahren DILLEBIS zur Erhaltung und Pflege (Maintenance) von erfahrungsbasierten Informationssystemen. Sie bezeichnen dieses Verfahren als Maintainable Experience-based Information System und plädieren für eine Ausrichtung von erfahrungsbasierten Systemen entsprechend diesem Modell. Gesine Quint und Steffen Weichert stellen dagegen in ihrem Beitrag die benutzerzentrierte Entwicklung des Produkt-Retrieval-Systems EIKON vor, das in Kooperation mit der Blaupunkt GmbH realisiert wurde. In einem iterativen Designzyklus erfolgte die Gestaltung von gruppenspezifischen Interaktionsmöglichkeiten für ein Car-Multimedia-Zubehör-System. Im zweiten Kapitel setzen sich mehrere Autoren dezidierter mit dem Anwendungsgebiet "Digitale Bibliothek" auseinander. Claus-Peter Klas, Sascha Kriewel, Andre Schaefer und Gudrun Fischer von der Universität Duisburg-Essen stellen das System DAFFODIL vor, das durch eine Vielzahl an Werkzeugen zur strategischen Unterstützung bei Literaturrecherchen in digitalen Bibliotheken dient. Zusätzlich ermöglicht die Protokollierung sämtlicher Ereignisse den Einsatz des Systems als Evaluationsplattform. Der Aufsatz von Matthias Meiert erläutert die Implementierung von elektronischen Publikationsprozessen an Hochschulen am Beispiel von Abschlussarbeiten des Studienganges Internationales Informationsmanagement der Universität Hildesheim. Neben Rahmenbedingungen werden sowohl der Ist-Zustand als auch der Soll-Zustand des wissenschaftlichen elektronischen Publizierens in Form von gruppenspezifischen Empfehlungen dargestellt. Daniel Harbig und Rene Schneider beschreiben in ihrem Aufsatz zwei Verfahrensweisen zum maschinellen Erlernen von Ontologien, angewandt am virtuellen Bibliotheksregal MyShelf. Nach der Evaluation dieser beiden Ansätze plädieren die Autoren für ein semi-automatisiertes Verfahren zur Erstellung von Ontologien.
    "Evaluierung", das Thema des dritten Kapitels, ist in seiner Breite nicht auf das Information Retrieval beschränkt sondern beinhaltet ebenso einzelne Aspekte der Bereiche Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion sowie des E-Learning. Michael Muck und Marco Winter von der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik sowie dem Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften thematisieren in ihrem Beitrag den Einfluss der Fragestellung (Topic) auf die Bewertung von Relevanz und zeigen Verfahrensweisen für die Topic-Erstellung auf, die beim Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF) Anwendung finden. Im darauf folgenden Aufsatz stellt Thomas Mandl verschiedene Evaluierungsinitiativen im Information Retrieval und aktuelle Entwicklungen dar. Joachim Pfister erläutert in seinem Beitrag das automatisierte Gruppieren, das sogenannte Clustering, von Patent-Dokumenten in den Datenbanken des Fachinformationszentrums Karlsruhe und evaluiert unterschiedliche Clusterverfahren auf Basis von Nutzerbewertungen. Ralph Kölle, Glenn Langemeier und Wolfgang Semar widmen sich dem kollaborativen Lernen unter den speziellen Bedingungen des Programmierens. Dabei werden das System VitaminL zur synchronen Bearbeitung von Programmieraufgaben und das Kennzahlensystem K-3 für die Bewertung kollaborativer Zusammenarbeit in einer Lehrveranstaltung angewendet. Der aktuelle Forschungsschwerpunkt der Hildesheimer Informationswissenschaft zeichnet sich im vierten Kapitel unter dem Thema "Multilinguale Systeme" ab. Hier finden sich die meisten Beiträge des Tagungsbandes wieder. Olga Tartakovski und Margaryta Shramko beschreiben und prüfen das System Langldent, das die Sprache von mono- und multilingualen Texten identifiziert. Die Eigenheiten der japanischen Schriftzeichen stellt Nina Kummer dar und vergleicht experimentell die unterschiedlichen Techniken der Indexierung. Suriya Na Nhongkai und Hans-Joachim Bentz präsentieren und prüfen eine bilinguale Suche auf Basis von Konzeptnetzen, wobei die Konzeptstruktur das verbindende Elemente der beiden Textsammlungen darstellt. Das Entwickeln und Evaluieren eines mehrsprachigen Question-Answering-Systems im Rahmen des Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF), das die alltagssprachliche Formulierung von konkreten Fragestellungen ermöglicht, wird im Beitrag von Robert Strötgen, Thomas Mandl und Rene Schneider thematisiert. Den Schluss bildet der Aufsatz von Niels Jensen, der ein mehrsprachiges Web-Retrieval-System ebenfalls im Zusammenhang mit dem CLEF anhand des multilingualen EuroGOVKorpus evaluiert.
    Abschließend lässt sich sagen, dass der Tagungsband einen gelungenen Überblick über die Information Retrieval Projekte der Hildesheimer Informationswissenschaft und ihrer Kooperationspartner gibt. Die einzelnen Beiträge sind sehr anregend und auf einem hohen Niveau angesiedelt. Ein kleines Hindernis für den Leser stellt die inhaltliche und strukturelle Orientierung innerhalb des Bandes dar. Der Bezug der einzelnen Artikel zum Thema des Kapitels wird zwar im Vorwort kurz erläutert. Erschwert wird die Orientierung im Buch jedoch durch fehlende Kapitelüberschriften am Anfang der einzelnen Sektionen. Außerdem ist zu erwähnen, dass einer der Artikel einen anderen Titel als im Inhaltsverzeichnis angekündigt trägt. Sieht der Leser von diesen formalen Mängeln ab, wird er reichlich mit praxisbezogenen und theoretisch fundierten Projektdarstellungen und Forschungsergebnissen belohnt. Dies insbesondere, da nicht nur aktuelle Themen der Informationswissenschaft aufgegriffen, sondern ebenso weiterentwickelt und durch die speziellen interdisziplinären und internationalen Bedingungen in Hildesheim geformt werden. Dabei zeigt sich anhand der verschiedenen Projekte, wie gut die Hildesheimer Informationswissenschaft in die Community überregionaler Informationseinrichtungen und anderer deutscher informationswissenschaftlicher Forschungsgruppen eingebunden ist. Damit hat der Workshop bei einer weiteren Öffnung der Expertengruppe das Potential zu einer eigenständigen Institution im Bereich des Information Retrieval zu werden. In diesem Sinne lässt sich auf weitere fruchtbare Workshops und deren Veröffentlichungen hoffen. Ein nächster Workshop der Universität Hildesheim zum Thema Information Retrieval, organisiert mit der Fachgruppe Information Retrieval der Gesellschaft für Informatik, kündigt sich bereits für den 9. bis 13- Oktober 2006 an."

Languages

Types

  • a 115
  • el 7
  • x 3
  • m 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…