Search (66 results, page 4 of 4)

7.323784E-4 = product of:
  0.0051266486 = sum of:
    0.0051266486 = product of:
      0.025633242 = sum of:
        0.025633242 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025633242 = score(doc=8266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 8266, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8266)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This article discusses the nature of standards as tools to promote compatibiliy and improve practice, the role of research versus expert opinion in the creation of standards, the changing scope of standards for indexes in the face of the changing indexing environment, with the increasing use of automatic indexing, electronic displays, and electronic searching of non-displayed indexes. it describes the current draft of the NISO American Standards Guidelines for Indexes in Information Retrieval (Z39.4) in terms of three fundamental requirements: syntax, vocabulary management, and comprehensive planning and design. The article concludes with comments about the nebulous concept of good and accurate indexing and whether and how standards can be used advantageously

5.918511E-4 = product of:
  0.0041429573 = sum of:
    0.0041429573 = product of:
      0.020714786 = sum of:
        0.020714786 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020714786 = score(doc=2915,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

LCSH

Cross References (Information Retrieval)

Subject

Cross References (Information Retrieval)

5.6712516E-4 = product of:
  0.003969876 = sum of:
    0.003969876 = product of:
      0.01984938 = sum of:
        0.01984938 = weight(_text_:system in 220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01984938 = score(doc=220,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 220, 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=220)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

When the Web was invented, it was touted as a novel nonlinear medium for the written word. No longer would we be constrained by linear presentations! Hyperlinks would allow us to jump haphazardly from page to page, chapter to chapter, idea to idea! Texts would no longer need to run from beginning to end! This is misleading. A printed book is also multidimensional and potentially nonlinear. We can open it to any page, from any other page, for any reason. We can open several books at once. In fact, what makes a book special is its combination of linear structure (the order of the words) and nonlinear physicality (the bound papers). This linear/nonlinear duality is enhanced further by the index, which maps linearly sequenced pages in a nonlinear, informationally ordered structure (architecture). In truth, the online environment is crippled by an absence of linear structure. Imagine selecting a hard cover book, tearing off the covers, ripping pages into small pieces, and throwing them in a box. That box is like a computer file system, and the paper scraps are Web documents. Only one scrap can be retrieved from the box at a time, and it must be replaced before another can be accessed. Page numbers are meaningless. Global context is destroyed. And without page numbers or context, what happens to the index?

5.2312744E-4 = product of:
  0.003661892 = sum of:
    0.003661892 = product of:
      0.01830946 = sum of:
        0.01830946 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01830946 = score(doc=5158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5158, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5158)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Usability of Web sites has become an increasingly important area of research as Web sites proliferate and problems with use are noted. Generally, aspects of Web sites that have been investigated focus on such areas as overall design and navigation. The exploratory study reported on here investigates one specific component of a Web site-the index structure. By employing index usability metrics developed by Liddy and Jörgensen (1993; Jörgensen & Liddy, 1996) and modified to accommodate a hypertext environment, the study compared the effectiveness and efficiency of 20 subjects who used one existing index (the A-Z index on the FedStats Web site at http://www.fedstats.gov) and three experimental variants to complete five researcher-generated tasks. User satisfaction with the indexes was also evaluated. The findings indicate that a hypertext index with multiple access points for each concept, all linked to the same resource, led to greater effectiveness and efficiency of retrieval on almost all measures. Satisfaction measures were more variable. The study offers insight into potential improvements in the design of Web-based indexes and provides preliminary assessment of the validity of the measures employed

4.0101807E-4 = product of:
  0.0028071264 = sum of:
    0.0028071264 = product of:
      0.014035632 = sum of:
        0.014035632 = weight(_text_:system in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014035632 = score(doc=2294,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.12302941 = fieldWeight in 2294, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2294)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Footnote

A chapter an image indexing starts with a useful discussion of the elements of bibliographic description needed for visual materials and of the variations in the functioning and naming of functions in different software packaltes. Sample features are discussed in light of four different software systems: MAVIS, Convera Screening Room, CONTENTdm, and Virage speech and pattern recognition programs. The chapter concludes with an overview of what one has to consider when choosing a system. The last chapter in this section is an oddball one an creating a back-ofthe-book index using Microsoft Excel. The author warns: "It is not pretty, and it is not recommended" (p.209). A curiosity, but it should have been included as a counterpoint in the first part, not as part of the database indexing section. The final section begins with an excellent article an voice recognition software (Dragon Naturally Speaking Preferred), followed by a look at "automatic indexing" through a critique of Sonar Bookends Automatic Indexing Generator. The final two chapters deal with Data Harmony's Machine Aided Indexer; one of them refers specifically to a news content indexing system. In terms of scope, this reviewer would have liked to see thesaurus management software included since thesaurus management and the integration of thesauri with database indexing software are common and time-consuming concerns. There are also a few editorial glitches, such as the placement of the oddball article and inconsistent uses of fonts and caps (eg: VIRAGE and Virage), but achieving consistency with this many authors is, indeed, a difficult task. More serious is the fact that the index is inconsistent. It reads as if authors submitted their own keywords which were then harmonized, so that the level of indexing varies by chapter. For example, there is an entry for "controlled vocabulary" (p.265) (singular) with one locator, no cross-references. There is an entry for "thesaurus software" (p.274) with two locators, plus a separate one for "Thesaurus Master" (p.274) with three locators. There are also references to thesauri/ controlled vocabularies/taxonomies that are not mentioned in the index (e.g., the section Thesaurus management an p.204). This is sad. All too often indexing texts have poor indexes, I suppose because we are as prone to having to work under time pressures as the rest of the authors and editors in the world. But a good index that meets basic criteria should be a highlight in any book related to indexing. Overall this is a useful, if uneven, collection of articles written over the past few years. Because of the great variation between articles both in subject and in approach, there is something for everyone. The collection will be interesting to anyone who wants to be aware of how indexing software works and what it can do. I also definitely recommend it for information science teaching collections since the explanations of the software carry implicit in them descriptions of how the indexing process itself is approached. However, the book's utility as a guide to purchasing choices is limited because of the unevenness; the vendor-written articles and testimonials are interesting and can certainly be helpful, but there are not nearly enough objective reviews. This is not a straight listing and comparison of software packaltes, but it deserves wide circulation since it presents an overall picture of the state of indexing software used by freelancers."

2.0925097E-4 = product of:
  0.0014647567 = sum of:
    0.0014647567 = product of:
      0.0073237834 = sum of:
        0.0073237834 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0073237834 = score(doc=1968,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.06684181 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Footnote

Der Zugang zum Informationsspeicher ist auch von verwandten Begriffen her zu gewährleisten, denn der Suchende lässt sich gern mit seiner Fragestellung zu allgemeineren und vor allem zu spezifischeren Begriffen leiten. Verweisungen der Art "siehe auch" dienen diesem Zweck. Der Zugang ist auch von unterschiedlichen, aber bedeutungsgleichen Ausdrücken mithilfe einer Verweisung von der Art "siehe" zu gewährleisten, denn ein Fragesteller könnte sich mit einem von diesen Synonymen auf die Suche begeben haben und würde dann nicht fündig werden. Auch wird Vieles, wofür ein Suchender sein Schlagwort parat hat, in einem Text nur in wortreicher Umschreibung und paraphrasiert angetroffen ("Terms that may not appear in the text but are likely to be sought by index users"), d.h. praktisch unauffindbar in einer derartig mannigfaltigen Ausdrucksweise. All dies sollte lexikalisch ausgedrückt werden, und zwar in geläufiger Terminologie, denn in dieser Form erfolgt auch die Fragestellung. Hier wird die Grenze zwischen "concept indexing" gegenüber dem bloßen "word indexing" gezogen, welch letzteres sich mit der Präsentation von nicht interpretierten Textwörtern begnügt. Nicht nur ist eine solche Grenze weit verbreitet unbekannt, ihre Existenz wird zuweilen sogar bestritten, obwohl doch ein Wort meistens viele Begriffe ausdrückt und obwohl ein Begriff meistens durch viele verschiedene Wörter und Sätze ausgedrückt wird. Ein Autor kann und muss sich in seinen Texten oft mit Andeutungen begnügen, weil ein Leser oder Zuhörer das Gemeinte schon aus dem Zusammenhang erkennen kann und nicht mit übergroßer Deutlichkeit (spoon feeding) belästigt sein will, was als Unterstellung von Unkenntnis empfunden würde. Für das Retrieval hingegen muss das Gemeinte explizit ausgedrückt werden. In diesem Buch wird deutlich gemacht, was alles an außertextlichem und Hintergrund-Wissen für ein gutes Indexierungsergebnis aufgeboten werden muss, dies auf der Grundlage von sachverständiger und sorgfältiger Interpretation ("The indexer must understand the meaning of a text"). All dies lässt gutes Indexieren nicht nur als professionelle Dienstleistung erscheinen, sondern auch als Kunst. Als Grundlage für all diese Schritte wird ein Thesaurus empfohlen, mit einem gut strukturierten Netzwerk von verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen und angepasst an den jeweiligen Buchtext. Aber nur selten wird man auf bereits andernorts vorhandene Thesauri zurückgreifen können. Hier wäre ein Hinweis auf einschlägige Literatur zur Thesaurus-Konstruktion nützlich gewesen.