Search (40 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Theorie verbaler Dokumentationssprachen"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Hoerman, H.L.; Furniss, K.A.: Turning practice into principles : a comparison of the IFLA Principles underlying Subject Heading Languages (SHLs) and the principles underlying the Library of Congress Subject Headings system (2000) 0.14 
    0.13838477 = product of:
  0.23064128 = sum of:
    0.022282438 = weight(_text_:of in 5611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022282438 = score(doc=5611,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 5611, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5611)
    0.12363462 = weight(_text_:subject in 5611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12363462 = score(doc=5611,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.7112912 = fieldWeight in 5611, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5611)
    0.08472422 = product of:
      0.16944844 = sum of:
        0.16944844 = weight(_text_:headings in 5611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16944844 = score(doc=5611,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.7189158 = fieldWeight in 5611, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    The IFLA Section on Classification and Indexing's Working Group on Principles Underlying Subject Headings Languages has identified a set of eleven principles for subject heading languages and excerpted the texts that match each principle from the instructions for each of eleven national subject indexing systems, including excerpts from the LC's Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings. This study compares the IFLA principles with other texts that express the principles underlying LCSH, especially Library of Congress Subject Headings: Principles of Structure and Policies for Application, prepared by Lois Mai Chan for the Library of Congress in 1990, Chan's later book on LCSH, and earlier documents by Haykin and Cutter. The principles are further elaborated for clarity and discussed
    Source
    The LCSH century: one hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system. Ed.: A.T. Stone
  2. ¬The LCSH century : One hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system (2000) 0.12 
    0.11590909 = product of:
  0.19318181 = sum of:
    0.018936433 = weight(_text_:of in 1224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018936433 = score(doc=1224,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2491759 = fieldWeight in 1224, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1224)
    0.10279965 = weight(_text_:subject in 1224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10279965 = score(doc=1224,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.591424 = fieldWeight in 1224, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1224)
    0.071445726 = product of:
      0.14289145 = sum of:
        0.14289145 = weight(_text_:headings in 1224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14289145 = score(doc=1224,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.606243 = fieldWeight in 1224, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1224)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: BACKGROUND: Alva T STONE: The LCSH Century: A Brief History of the Library of Congress Subject Headings, and Introduction to the Centennial Essays - THEORY AND PRINCIPLES: Elaine SVENONIUS: LCSH: Semantics, Syntax and Specificity; Heidi Lee HOERMAN u. Kevin A. FURNISS: Turning Practice into Principles: A Comparison of the IFLA: Principles Underlying Subject Heading Languages (SHLs) and the Principles Underlying the Library of Congress Subject Headings System; Hope A. OLSON: Difference, Culture and Change:The Untapped Potential of LCSH - ONLINE ENVIRONMENT: Pauline Atherton COCHRANE: Improving LCSH for Use in Online Catalogs Revisited-What Progress Has Been Made? What Issues Still Remain?; Gregory WOOL: Filing and Precoordination: How Subject Headings Are Displayed in Online Catalogs and Why It Matters; Stephen HEARN: Machine-Assisted Validation of LC Subject Headings: Implications for Authority File Structure - SPECIFIC PERSPECTIVES: Thomas MANN: Teaching Library of Congress Subject Headings; Louisa J. KREIDER: LCSH Works! Subject Searching Effectiveness at the Cleveland Public Library and the Growth of Library of Congress Subject Headings Through Cooperation; Harriette HEMMASI u J. Bradford YOUNG: LCSH for Music: Historical and Empirical Perspectives; Joseph MILLER u. Patricia KUHR: LCSH and Periodical Indexing: Adoption vs. Adaptation; David P MILLER: Out from Under: Form/Genre Access in LCSH - WORLD VIEW: Magda HEINER-FREILING: Survey on Subject Heading Languages Used in National Libraries and Bibliographies; Andrew MacEWAN: Crossing Language Barriers in Europe: Linking LCSH to Other Subject Heading Languages; Alvaro QUIJANO-SOLIS u.a.: Automated Authority Files of Spanish-Language Subject Headings - FUTURE PROSPECTS: Lois Mai CHAN u. Theodora HODGES: Entering the Millennium: a new century for LCSH
    LCSH
    Subject heading, Library of Congress
    Subject
    Subject heading, Library of Congress
  3. ¬The LCSH century : One hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system (2000) 0.12 
    0.115820035 = product of:
  0.19303338 = sum of:
    0.018193537 = weight(_text_:of in 5366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018193537 = score(doc=5366,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 5366, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5366)
    0.099060215 = weight(_text_:subject in 5366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099060215 = score(doc=5366,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.5699104 = fieldWeight in 5366, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5366)
    0.07577963 = product of:
      0.15155926 = sum of:
        0.15155926 = weight(_text_:headings in 5366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15155926 = score(doc=5366,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.64301777 = fieldWeight in 5366, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5366)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: BACKGROUND: Alva T STONE: The LCSH Century: A Brief History of the Library of Congress Subject Headings, and Introduction to the Centennial Essays - THEORY AND PRINCIPLES: Elaine SVENONIUS: LCSH: Semantics, Syntax and Specificity; Heidi Lee HOERMAN u. Kevin A. FURNISS: Turning Practice into Principles: A Comparison of the IFLA: Principles Underlying Subject Heading Languages (SHLs) and the Principles Underlying the Library of Congress Subject Headings System; Hope A. OLSON: Difference, Culture and Change:The Untapped Potential of LCSH - ONLINE ENVIRONMENT: Pauline Atherton COCHRANE: Improving LCSH for Use in Online Catalogs Revisited-What Progress Has Been Made? What Issues Still Remain?; Gregory WOOL: Filing and Precoordination: How Subject Headings Are Displayed in Online Catalogs and Why It Matters; Stephen HEARN: Machine-Assisted Validation of LC Subject Headings: Implications for Authority File Structure - SPECIFIC PERSPECTIVES: Thomas MANN: Teaching Library of Congress Subject Headings; Louisa J. KREIDER: LCSH Works! Subject Searching Effectiveness at the Cleveland Public Library and the Growth of Library of Congress Subject Headings Through Cooperation; Harriette HEMMASI u J. Bradford YOUNG: LCSH for Music: Historical and Empirical Perspectives; Joseph MILLER u. Patricia KUHR: LCSH and Periodical Indexing: Adoption vs. Adaptation; David P MILLER: Out from Under: Form/Genre Access in LCSH - WORLD VIEW: Magda HEINER-FREILING: Survey on Subject Heading Languages Used in National Libraries and Bibliographies; Andrew MacEWAN: Crossing Language Barriers in Europe: Linking LCSH to Other Subject Heading Languages; Alvaro QUIJANO-SOLIS u.a.: Automated Authority Files of Spanish-Language Subject Headings - FUTURE PROSPECTS: Lois Mai CHAN u. Theodora HODGES: Entering the Millennium: a new century for LCSH
    Footnote
    Die einzelnen Beiträge sind über die Buchversion erfasst: In: The LCSH century: one hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system. Ed.: A.T. Stone. New York: Haworth Press 2000.
  4. Relationships in the organization of knowledge (2001) 0.08 
    0.08074609 = product of:
  0.13457681 = sum of:
    0.013130054 = weight(_text_:of in 1139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013130054 = score(doc=1139,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 1139, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1139)
    0.07679317 = weight(_text_:subject in 1139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07679317 = score(doc=1139,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.4418043 = fieldWeight in 1139, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1139)
    0.044653583 = product of:
      0.08930717 = sum of:
        0.08930717 = weight(_text_:headings in 1139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08930717 = score(doc=1139,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.3789019 = fieldWeight in 1139, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1139)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    With fourteen contributions grouped in two sections, "Theoretical background" and "Systems", this work discusses the most common relationships used in the organization of recorded knowledge to facilitate information retrieval: the relationships between bibliographic entities, intra- and intertextual relationships, relevance relationships, and subject relationships in thesauri and other classificatory structures. The editors' goal is to "spur further interest, debate, research, and development".
    Content
    Enthält u.a. die Beiträge: GREEN, R.: Relationships in the organization of knowledge: an overview; TILLETT, B.: Bibliographic relationships; CLARKE, S.G.D.: Thesaural relationships; MILSTEAD, J.L.: Standards for relationships between subject indexing terms; HUDON, M.: Relationships in multilingual thesauri; BODENREIDER, O. u. C.A. BEAN: Relationships among knowledge structures: vocabulary integration within a subject domain; BEGHTOL, C.: Relationships in classificatory structure and meaning; BEAN, C.A. u. R. GREEN: Relevance relationships; EL-HOSHY, L.M.: Relationships in Library of Congress Subject Headings; MOLHOLT, P.: The Art and Architecture Thesaurus: controlling relationships through rules and structure; NELSON, S.J. u.a.: Relationships in Medical Subject Headings (MeSH); NEELAMEGHAN, A.: Lateral relationships in multicultural, mulrilingual databases in the spiritual and religous domains: the OM information service; SATIJA, M.P.: Relationships in Ranganathan's Colon classification; MITCHELL, J.S.: Relationships in the Dewey Decimal Classification System
  5. Miller, U.; Teitelbaum, R.: Pre-coordination and post-coordination : past and future (2002) 0.07 
    0.0664002 = product of:
  0.11066699 = sum of:
    0.018382076 = weight(_text_:of in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018382076 = score(doc=1395,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
    0.04808013 = weight(_text_:subject in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04808013 = score(doc=1395,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
    0.04420479 = product of:
      0.08840958 = sum of:
        0.08840958 = weight(_text_:headings in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08840958 = score(doc=1395,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.37509373 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    This article deals with the meaningful processing of information in relation to two systems of Information processing: pre-coordination and post-coordination. The different approaches are discussed, with emphasis an the need for a controlled vocabulary in information retrieval. Assigned indexing, which employs a controlled vocabulary, is described in detail. Types of indexing language can be divided into two broad groups - those using pre-coordinated terms and those depending an post-coordination. They represent two different basic approaches in processing and Information retrieval. The historical development of these two approaches is described, as well as the two tools that apply to these approaches: thesauri and subject headings.
  6. Svenonius, E.: LCSH: semantics, syntax and specifity (2000) 0.07 
    0.065064594 = product of:
  0.10844098 = sum of:
    0.013645152 = weight(_text_:of in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013645152 = score(doc=5599,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
    0.041211538 = weight(_text_:subject in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041211538 = score(doc=5599,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
    0.053584296 = product of:
      0.10716859 = sum of:
        0.10716859 = weight(_text_:headings in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10716859 = score(doc=5599,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.45468226 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    This paper looks at changes affecting LCSH over its 100-year history. Adopting a linguistic conceptualization, it frames these changes as relating to the semantics, syntax and pragmatics of the LCSH language. While its category semantics has remained stable over time, the LCSH relational semantics underwent a significant upheaval when a thesaural structure was imposed upon its traditional See and See also structure. Over time the LCSH syntax has become increasingly complex as it has moved from being largely enumerative to in large part synthetic. Until fairly recently the LCSH pragmatics consisted of only one rule, viz, the injunction to assign specific headings. This rule, always controversial, has become even more debated and interpreted with the move to the online environment
    Source
    The LCSH century: one hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system. Ed.: A.T. Stone
  7. Svenonius, E.: LCSH: semantics, syntax and specifity (2000) 0.07 
    0.065064594 = product of:
  0.10844098 = sum of:
    0.013645152 = weight(_text_:of in 5602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013645152 = score(doc=5602,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 5602, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5602)
    0.041211538 = weight(_text_:subject in 5602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041211538 = score(doc=5602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 5602, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5602)
    0.053584296 = product of:
      0.10716859 = sum of:
        0.10716859 = weight(_text_:headings in 5602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10716859 = score(doc=5602,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.45468226 = fieldWeight in 5602, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    This paper looks at changes affecting LCSH over its 100-year history. Adopting a linguistic conceptualization, it frames these changes as relating to the semantics, syntax and pragmatics of the LCSH language. While its category semantics has remained stable over time, the LCSH relational semantics underwent a significant upheaval when a thesaural structure was imposed upon its traditional See and See also structure. Over time the LCSH syntax has become increasingly complex as it has moved from being largely enumerative to in large part synthetic. Until fairly recently the LCSH pragmatics consisted of only one rule, viz, the injunction to assign specific headings. This rule, always controversial, has become even more debated and interpreted with the move to the online environment
    Source
    The LCSH century: one hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system. Ed.: A.T. Stone
  8. Tartaglia, S.: Authority control and subject indexing languages (2004) 0.04 
    0.04457959 = product of:
  0.11144897 = sum of:
    0.019297158 = weight(_text_:of in 5683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019297158 = score(doc=5683,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 5683, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5683)
    0.09215181 = weight(_text_:subject in 5683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09215181 = score(doc=5683,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.5301652 = fieldWeight in 5683, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5683)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The existence of subject indexing languages does not call for or imply a particular authority control system exclusively dedicated to subject entries. To be really effective and efficient, authority control must be concerned with all the categories of entities, and must regard not just the form but also the meaning and the semantic relations of the expressions used to identify the single entities. Thus, it satisfies the lexical needs of all cataloguing languages, including subject indexing languages. It is not correct nor opportune to extend authority control to the syntactic constructions of subject indexing languages, because this reduces the rigor and efficiency of the control process, weighing it down until it becomes unfeasible, and impeding its function as a unifying element between the different cataloguing languages.
  9. Milstead, J.L.: Standards for relationships between subject indexing terms (2001) 0.03 
    0.032766405 = product of:
  0.08191601 = sum of:
    0.023634095 = weight(_text_:of in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023634095 = score(doc=1148,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 1148, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1148)
    0.058281917 = weight(_text_:subject in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058281917 = score(doc=1148,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 1148, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1148)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Relationships between the terms in thesauri and Indexes are the subject of national and international standards. The standards for thesauri enumerate and provide criteria for three basic types of relationship: equivalence, hierarchical, and associative. Standards and guidelines for indexes draw an the thesaurus standards to provide less detailed guidance for showing relationships between the terms used in an Index. The international standard for multilingual thesauri adds recommendations for assuring equal treatment of the languages of a thesaurus. The present standards were developed when lookup and search were essentially manual, and the value of the kinds of relationships has never been determined. It is not clear whether users understand or can use the distinctions between kinds of relationships. On the other hand, sophisticated text analysis systems may be able both to assist with development of more powerful term relationship schemes and to use the relationships to improve retrieval.
    Source
    Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
  10. Barite, M.G.: ¬The notion of "category" : its implications in subject analysis and in the construction and evaluation of indexing languages (2000) 0.03 
    0.03196753 = product of:
  0.07991882 = sum of:
    0.03183869 = weight(_text_:of in 6036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03183869 = score(doc=6036,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.41895083 = fieldWeight in 6036, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6036)
    0.04808013 = weight(_text_:subject in 6036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04808013 = score(doc=6036,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 6036, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6036)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The notion of category, from Aristotle and Kant to the present time, has been used as a basic intellectual tool for the analysis of the existence and changeableness of things. Ranganathan was the first to extrapolate the concept into the Theory of Classification, placing it as an essential axis for the logical organization of knowledge and the construction of indexing languages. This paper proposes a conceptual and methodological reexamination of the notion of category from a functional and instrumental perspective, and tries to clarify the essential characters of categories in that context, and their present implications regarding the construction and evaluation of indexing languages
  11. Bodenreider, O.; Bean, C.A.: Relationships among knowledge structures : vocabulary integration within a subject domain (2001) 0.03 
    0.031374592 = product of:
  0.07843648 = sum of:
    0.023487754 = weight(_text_:of in 1145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023487754 = score(doc=1145,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 1145, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1145)
    0.05494872 = weight(_text_:subject in 1145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05494872 = score(doc=1145,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 1145, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1145)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The structure of terminology systems can be seen as one way to organize knowledge. This paper focuses an three types of relationships among terms: synonymy, hierarchical relationships, and explicit mapping relationships. Examples drawn from various medical vocabularies illustrate each type of relationship. The integration of disparate terminological knowledge structures in the Unified Medical Language System is presented and discussed.
    Source
    Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
  12. Green, R.: Relationships in the organization of knowledge : an overview (2001) 0.03 
    0.028958935 = product of:
  0.07239734 = sum of:
    0.024317201 = weight(_text_:of in 1142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024317201 = score(doc=1142,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 1142, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1142)
    0.04808013 = weight(_text_:subject in 1142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04808013 = score(doc=1142,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 1142, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1142)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Relationships are specified by simultaneously identifying a semantic relationship and the set of participants involved in it, pairing each participant with its role in the relationship. Properties pertaining to the participant set and the nature of the relationship are explored. Relationships in the organization of knowledge are surveyed, encompassing relationships between units of recorded knowledge based an descriptions of those units; intratextual and intertextual relationships, including relationships based an text structure, citation relationships, and hypertext links; subject relationships in thesauri and other classificatory structures, including relationships for literature-based knowledge discovery; and relevance relationships.
    Source
    Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
  13. Vickery, B.B.: Structure and function in retrieval languages (2006) 0.03 
    0.027846474 = product of:
  0.06961618 = sum of:
    0.02840465 = weight(_text_:of in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02840465 = score(doc=5584,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
    0.041211538 = weight(_text_:subject in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041211538 = score(doc=5584,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to summarize the varied structural characteristics which may be present in retrieval languages. Design/methodology/approach - The languages serve varied purposes in information systems, and a number of these are identified. The relations between structure and function are discussed and suggestions made as to the most suitable structures needed for various purposes. Findings - A quantitative approach has been developed: a simple measure is the number of separate terms in a retrieval language, but this has to be related to the scope of its subject field. Some ratio of terms to items in the field seems a more suitable measure of the average specificity of the terms. Other aspects can be quantified - for example, the average number of links in hierarchical chains, or the average number of cross-references in a thesaurus. Originality/value - All the approaches to the analysis of retrieval language reported in this paper are of continuing value. Some practical studies of computer information systems undertaken by Aslib Research Department have suggested a further approach.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 62(2006) no.1, S.7-20
  14. Mazzocchi, F.; Tiberi, M.; De Santis, B.; Plini, P.: Relational semantics in thesauri : an overview and some remarks at theoretical and practical levels (2007) 0.03 
    0.026331086 = product of:
  0.06582771 = sum of:
    0.031484764 = weight(_text_:of in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031484764 = score(doc=1462,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.41429368 = fieldWeight in 1462, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1462)
    0.034342952 = weight(_text_:subject in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034342952 = score(doc=1462,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 1462, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1462)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    A thesaurus is a controlled vocabulary designed to allow for effective information retrieval. It con- sists of different kinds of semantic relationships, with the aim of guiding users to the choice of the most suitable index and search terms for expressing a certain concept. The relational semantics of a thesaurus deal with methods to connect terms with related meanings and arc intended to enhance information recall capabilities. In this paper, focused on hierarchical relations, different aspects of the relational semantics of thesauri, and among them the possibility of developing richer structures, are analyzed. Thesauri are viewed as semantic tools providing, for operational purposes, the representation of the meaning of the terms. The paper stresses how theories of semantics, holding different perspectives about the nature of meaning and how it is represented, affect the design of the relational semantics of thesauri. The need for tools capable of representing the complexity of knowledge and of the semantics of terms as it occurs in the literature of their respective subject fields is advocated. It is underlined how this would contribute to improving the retrieval of information. To achieve this goal, even though in a preliminary manner, we explore the possibility of setting against the framework of thesaurus design the notions of language games and hermeneutic horizon.
  15. Neelameghan, A.: Lateral relationships in multicultural, multilingual databases in the spiritual and religious domains : the OM Information service (2001) 0.02 
    0.02278704 = product of:
  0.0569676 = sum of:
    0.015756065 = weight(_text_:of in 1146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015756065 = score(doc=1146,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 1146, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1146)
    0.041211538 = weight(_text_:subject in 1146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041211538 = score(doc=1146,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 1146, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1146)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Mapping a multidimensional universe of subjects for linear representation, such as in class number, subject heading, and faset structure is problematic. Into this context is recalled the near-seminal and postulational approach suggested by S. R Ranganathan. The non-hierarchical associative relationship or lateral relationship (LR) is distinguished at different levels-among information sources, databases, records of databases, and among concepts (LR-0). Over thirty lateral relationships at the concept level (LR-0) are identified and enumerated with examples from spiritual and religious texts. Special issues relating to LR-0 in multicultural, multilingual databases intended to be used globally by peoples of different cultures and faith are discussed, using as example the multimedia OM Information Service. Vocabulary assistance for users is described.
    Source
    Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
  16. Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Thesaural relationships (2001) 0.02 
    0.018945074 = product of:
  0.047362685 = sum of:
    0.024317201 = weight(_text_:of in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024317201 = score(doc=1149,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
    0.023045486 = product of:
      0.04609097 = sum of:
        0.04609097 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04609097 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    A thesaurus in the controlled vocabulary environment is a tool designed to support effective infonnation retrieval (IR) by guiding indexers and searchers consistently to choose the same terms for expressing a given concept or combination of concepts. Terms in the thesaurus are linked by relationships of three well-known types: equivalence, hierarchical, and associative. The functions and properties of these three basic types and some subcategories are described, as well as some additional relationship types conunonly found in thesauri. Progressive automation of IR processes and the capability for simultaneous searching of vast networked resources are creating some pressures for change in the categorization and consistency of relationships.
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:45:57
    Source
    Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
  17. Tudhope, D.; Alani, H.; Jones, C.: Augmenting thesaurus relationships : possibilities for retrieval (2001) 0.01 
    0.006016946 = product of:
  0.03008473 = sum of:
    0.03008473 = weight(_text_:of in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03008473 = score(doc=1520,freq=42.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.39587128 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
          6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
            42.0 = termFreq=42.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses issues concerning the augmentation of thesaurus relationships, in light of new application possibilities for retrieval. We first discuss a case study that explored the retrieval potential of an augmented set of thesaurus relationships by specialising standard relationships into richer subtypes, in particular hierarchical geographical containment and the associative relationship. We then locate this work in a broader context by reviewing various attempts to build taxonomies of thesaurus relationships, and conclude by discussing the feasibility of hierarchically augmenting the core set of thesaurus relationships, particularly the associative relationship. We discuss the possibility of enriching the specification and semantics of Related Term (RT relationships), while maintaining compatibility with traditional thesauri via a limited hierarchical extension of the associative (and hierarchical) relationships. This would be facilitated by distinguishing the type of term from the (sub)type of relationship and explicitly specifying semantic categories for terms following a faceted approach. We first illustrate how hierarchical spatial relationships can be used to provide more flexible retrieval for queries incorporating place names in applications employing online gazetteers and geographical thesauri. We then employ a set of experimental scenarios to investigate key issues affecting use of the associative (RT) thesaurus relationships in semantic distance measures. Previous work has noted the potential of RTs in thesaurus search aids but also the problem of uncontrolled expansion of query term sets. Results presented in this paper suggest the potential for taking account of the hierarchical context of an RT link and specialisations of the RT relationship
    Source
    Journal of digital information. 1(2001) no.8
  18. Mai, J.-E.: Actors, domains, and constraints in the design and construction of controlled vocabularies (2008) 0.01 
    0.00557061 = product of:
  0.02785305 = sum of:
    0.02785305 = weight(_text_:of in 1921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02785305 = score(doc=1921,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.36650562 = fieldWeight in 1921, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1921)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Classification schemes, thesauri, taxonomies, and other controlled vocabularies play important roles in the organization and retrieval of information in many different environments. While the design and construction of controlled vocabularies have been prescribed at the technical level in great detail over the past decades, the methodological level has been somewhat neglected. However, classification research has in recent years focused on developing approaches to the analysis of users, domains, and activities that could produce requirements for the design of controlled vocabularies. Researchers have often argued that the design, construction, and use of controlled vocabularies need to be based on analyses and understandings of the contexts in which these controlled vocabularies function. While one would assume that the growing body of research on human information behavior might help guide the development of controlled vocabularies shed light on these contexts, unfortunately, much of the research in this area is descriptive in nature and of little use for systems design. This paper discusses these trends and outlines a holistic approach that demonstrates how the design of controlled vocabularies can be informed by investigations of people's interactions with information. This approach is based on the Cognitive Work Analysis framework and outlines several dimensions of human-information interactions. Application of this approach will result is a comprehensive understanding of the contexts in which the controlled vocabulary will function and which can be used for the development of for the development of controlled vocabularies.
  19. Gilchrist, A.: Structure and function in retrieval (2006) 0.01 
    0.0052256957 = product of:
  0.026128478 = sum of:
    0.026128478 = weight(_text_:of in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026128478 = score(doc=5585,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper forms part of the series "60 years of the best in information research", marking the 60th anniversary of the Journal of Documentation. It aims to review the influence of Brian Vickery's 1971 paper, "Structure and function in retrieval languages". The paper is not an update of Vickery's work, but a comment on a greatly changed environment, in which his analysis still has much validity. Design/methodology/approach - A commentary on selected literature illustrates the continuing relevance of Vickery's ideas. Findings - Generic survey and specific reference are still the main functions of retrieval languages, with minor functional additions such as relevance ranking. New structures are becoming increasingly significant, through developments such as XML. Future development in artificial intelligence hold out new prospects still. Originality/value - The paper shows the continuing relevance of "traditional" ideas of information science from the 1960s and 1970s.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 62(2006) no.1, S.21-29
  20. Green, R.; Bean, C.A.: Aligning systems of relationships (2006) 0.01 
    0.005145909 = product of:
  0.025729544 = sum of:
    0.025729544 = weight(_text_:of in 4949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025729544 = score(doc=4949,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 4949, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4949)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The lateral relations of Neelameghan and Raghavan are mapped to their closest correspondents in FrameNet. Analvsis of this alignment highlights important characteristics of each system of relationships and reveals varying degrees of compatibility between them.

Authors

Languages

  • e 38
  • d 1
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 35
  • m 4
  • s 4
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Classifications