Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02325009 = product of:
  0.11625045 = sum of:
    0.11625045 = weight(_text_:22 in 4506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11625045 = score(doc=4506,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4506, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4506)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

8.10.2000 11:52:22

0.022954931 = product of:
  0.11477465 = sum of:
    0.11477465 = weight(_text_:objects in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11477465 = score(doc=1978,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.32574716 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This chapter examines the nature of semantic relations and their main applications in information science. The nature and types of semantic relations are discussed from the perspectives of linguistics and psychology. An overview of the semantic relations used in knowledge structures such as thesauri and ontologies is provided, as well as the main techniques used in the automatic extraction of semantic relations from text. The chapter then reviews the use of semantic relations in information extraction, information retrieval, question-answering, and automatic text summarization applications. Concepts and relations are the foundation of knowledge and thought. When we look at the world, we perceive not a mass of colors but objects to which we automatically assign category labels. Our perceptual system automatically segments the world into concepts and categories. Concepts are the building blocks of knowledge; relations act as the cement that links concepts into knowledge structures. We spend much of our lives identifying regular associations and relations between objects, events, and processes so that the world has an understandable structure and predictability. Our lives and work depend on the accuracy and richness of this knowledge structure and its web of relations. Relations are needed for reasoning and inferencing. Chaffin and Herrmann (1988b, p. 290) noted that "relations between ideas have long been viewed as basic to thought, language, comprehension, and memory." Aristotle's Metaphysics (Aristotle, 1961; McKeon, expounded on several types of relations. The majority of the 30 entries in a section of the Metaphysics known today as the Philosophical Lexicon referred to relations and attributes, including cause, part-whole, same and opposite, quality (i.e., attribute) and kind-of, and defined different types of each relation. Hume (1955) pointed out that there is a connection between successive ideas in our minds, even in our dreams, and that the introduction of an idea in our mind automatically recalls an associated idea. He argued that all the objects of human reasoning are divided into relations of ideas and matters of fact and that factual reasoning is founded on the cause-effect relation. His Treatise of Human Nature identified seven kinds of relations: resemblance, identity, relations of time and place, proportion in quantity or number, degrees in quality, contrariety, and causation. Mill (1974, pp. 989-1004) discoursed on several types of relations, claiming that all things are either feelings, substances, or attributes, and that attributes can be a quality (which belongs to one object) or a relation to other objects.

0.01878891 = product of:
  0.09394455 = sum of:
    0.09394455 = weight(_text_:22 in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09394455 = score(doc=2943,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

31. 7.2006 14:22:21

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.1, S.77-93

0.016607208 = product of:
  0.083036035 = sum of:
    0.083036035 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083036035 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Pages

S.11-22

0.016137939 = product of:
  0.08068969 = sum of:
    0.08068969 = weight(_text_:cd in 2461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08068969 = score(doc=2461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25286767 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.125929 = idf(docFreq=1940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.3190985 = fieldWeight in 2461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.125929 = idf(docFreq=1940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2461)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Pages

V, 107 S. + CD

0.015303287 = product of:
  0.076516435 = sum of:
    0.076516435 = weight(_text_:objects in 3634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076516435 = score(doc=3634,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32574716 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.23489517 = fieldWeight in 3634, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3634)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In the continuing search for criteria for determining the form of compound headings (i.e., headings containing more than one word), many authors have attempted to deal with the problem of entry element and citation order. Among the proposed criteria are Cutter's concept of "significance," Kaiser's formula of "concrete/process," Prevost's "noun rule," and Farradane's categories of relationships*' (q.v.). One of the problems in applying the criteria has been the difficulty in determining what is "significant," particularly when two or more words in the heading all refer to concrete objects. In the following excerpt from Subject Catalogues: Headings and Structure, a widely cited book an the alphabetical subject catalog, E. J. Coates proposes the concept of "term significance," that is, "the word which evokes the clearest mental image," as the criterion for determining the entry element in a compound heading. Since a concrete object generally evokes a clearer mental image than an action or process, Coates' theory is in line with Kaiser's theory of "concrete/process" (q.v.) which Coates renamed "thing/action." For determining the citation order of component elements in a compound heading where the elements are equally "significant" (i.e., both or all evoking clear mental images), Coates proposes the use of "term relationship" as the determining factor. He has identified twenty different kinds of relationships among terms and set down the citation order for each. Another frequently encountered problem related to citation order is the determination of the entry element for a compound heading which contains a topic and a locality. Entering such headings uniformly under either the topic or the locality has proven to be infeasible in practice. Many headings of this type have the topic as the main heading, subdivided by the locality; others are entered under the locality as the main heading with the topic as the subdivision. No criteria or rules have been proposed that ensure consistency or predictability. In the following selection, Coates attempts to deal with this problem by ranking the "main areas of knowledge according to the extent to which they appear to be significantly conditioned by locality." The theory Coates expounded in his book was put into practice in compiling the British Technology Index for which Coates served as the editor from 1961 to 1977.

0.011625045 = product of:
  0.058125224 = sum of:
    0.058125224 = weight(_text_:22 in 2245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058125224 = score(doc=2245,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2245, 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=2245)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.011625045 = product of:
  0.058125224 = sum of:
    0.058125224 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058125224 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:45:57

0.011625045 = product of:
  0.058125224 = sum of:
    0.058125224 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058125224 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.011411248 = product of:
  0.057056237 = sum of:
    0.057056237 = weight(_text_:cd in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057056237 = score(doc=1800,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25286767 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.125929 = idf(docFreq=1940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.22563674 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.125929 = idf(docFreq=1940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The SAC Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures was authorized at the 1995 Midwinter Meeting and appointed shortly before Annual Conference. Its creation was one result of a discussion of how (and why) to promote the display and use of broader-term subject heading references, and its charge reads as follows: To investigate: (1) the kinds of relationships that exist between subjects, the display of which are likely to be useful to catalog users; (2) how these relationships are or could be recorded in authorities and classification formats; (3) options for how these relationships should be presented to users of online and print catalogs, indexes, lists, etc. By the summer 1996 Annual Conference, make some recommendations to SAC about how to disseminate the information and/or implement changes. At that time assess the need for additional time to investigate these issues. The Subcommittee's work on each of the imperatives in the charge was summarized in a report issued at the 1996 Annual Conference (Appendix A). Highlights of this work included the development of a taxonomy of 165 subject relationships; a demonstration that, using existing MARC coding, catalog systems could be programmed to generate references they do not currently support; and an examination of reference displays in several CD-ROM database products. Since that time, work has continued on identifying term relationships and display options; on tracking research, discussion, and implementation of subject relationships in information systems; and on compiling a list of further research needs.

Content

Enthält: Appendix A: Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures - REPORT TO THE ALCTS/CCS SUBJECT ANALYSIS COMMITTEE - July 1996 Appendix B (part 1): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (alphabetical display) (Separat in: http://web2.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/CCS/committees/subjectanalysis/subjectrelations/msrscu2.pdf) Appendix B (part 2): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (hierarchical display) Appendix C: Checklist of Candidate Subject Relationships for Information Retrieval. Compiled by Dee Michel, Pat Kuhr, and Jane Greenberg; edited by Greg Wool - June 1997 Appendix D: Review of Reference Displays in Selected CD-ROM Abstracts and Indexes by Harriette Hemmasi and Steven Riel Appendix E: Analysis of Relationships in Six LC Subject Authority Records by Harriette Hemmasi and Gary Strawn Appendix F: Report of a Preliminary Survey of Subject Referencing in OPACs by Gregory Wool Appendix G: LC Subject Referencing in OPACs--Why Bother? by Gregory Wool Appendix H: Research Needs on Subject Relationships and Reference Structures in Information Access compiled by Jane Greenberg and Steven Riel with contributions from Dee Michel and others edited by Gregory Wool Appendix I: Bibliography on Subject Relationships compiled mostly by Dee Michel with additional contributions from Jane Greenberg, Steven Riel, and Gregory Wool

0.009964324 = product of:
  0.04982162 = sum of:
    0.04982162 = weight(_text_:22 in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04982162 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2246, 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=2246)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.008303604 = product of:
  0.041518018 = sum of:
    0.041518018 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041518018 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2021 14:24:32

0.0058125225 = product of:
  0.029062612 = sum of:
    0.029062612 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029062612 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2146182 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06128745 = queryNorm
        0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.