Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.014752253 = product of:
  0.07376126 = sum of:
    0.07376126 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07376126 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19064626 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0544419 = 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

0.011801802 = product of:
  0.059009008 = sum of:
    0.059009008 = weight(_text_:22 in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059009008 = score(doc=4476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19064626 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0544419 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

1.10.2018 14:13:22

0.010326576 = product of:
  0.05163288 = sum of:
    0.05163288 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05163288 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19064626 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0544419 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2654, 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=2654)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31

0.008851351 = product of:
  0.044256754 = sum of:
    0.044256754 = weight(_text_:22 in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044256754 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19064626 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0544419 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2230, 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=2230)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (ACM SIGIR '96), Zürich, Switzerland, August 18-22, 1996. Eds.: H.P. Frei et al

0.008851351 = product of:
  0.044256754 = sum of:
    0.044256754 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044256754 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19064626 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0544419 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2655, 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=2655)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31

0.008816963 = product of:
  0.044084813 = sum of:
    0.044084813 = weight(_text_:needs in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044084813 = score(doc=549,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.233039 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.2805085 = idf(docFreq=1662, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0544419 = queryNorm
        0.18917353 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.2805085 = idf(docFreq=1662, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

LCSH is known as such since 1975. It always has created headings to serve the LC collections instead of a theoretical basis. It started to replace cross reference codes by thesaural codes in 1986, in a mechanical fashion. It was in no way transformed into a thesaurus. Its encyclopedic coverage, its pre-coordinate concepts make it substantially distinct, considering that thesauri usually map a restricted field of knowledge and use uniterms. The questions raised are whether the new symbols comply with thesaurus standards and if they are true to one or to several models. Explanations and definitions from other lists of subject headings and thesauri, literature in the field of classification and subject indexing will provide some answers. For instance, see refers from a subject heading not used to another or others used. Exceptionally it will lead from a specific term to a more general one. Some equate a see reference with the equivalence relationship. Such relationships are pointed by USE in LCSH. See also references are made from the broader subject to narrower parts of it and also between associated subjects. They suggest lateral or vertical connexions as well as reciprocal relationships. They serve a coordination purpose for some, lay down a methodical search itinerary for others. Since their inception in the 1950's thesauri have been devised for indexing and retrieving information in the fields of science and technology. Eventually they attended to a number of social sciences and humanities. Research derived from thesauri was voluminous. Numerous guidelines are designed. They did not discriminate between the "hard" sciences and the social sciences. RT relationships are widely but diversely used in numerous controlled vocabularies. LCSH's aim is to achieve a list almost free of RT and SA references. It thus restricts relationships to BT/NT, USE and UF. This raises the question as to whether all fields of knowledge can "fit" in the Procrustean bed of RT/NT, i.e., genus/species relationships. Standard codes were devised. It was soon realized that BT/NT, well suited to the genus/species couple could not signal a whole-part relationship. In LCSH, BT and NT function as reciprocals, the whole-part relationship is taken into account by ISO. It is amply elaborated upon by authors. The part-whole connexion is sometimes studied apart. The decision to replace cross reference codes was an improvement. Relations can now be distinguished through the distinct needs of numerous fields of knowledge are not attended to. Topic inclusion, and topic-subtopic, could provide the missing link where genus/species or whole/part are inadequate. Distinct codes, BT/NT and whole/part, should be provided. Sorting relationships with mechanical means can only lead to confusion.

0.008816963 = product of:
  0.044084813 = sum of:
    0.044084813 = weight(_text_:needs in 694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044084813 = score(doc=694,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.233039 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.2805085 = idf(docFreq=1662, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0544419 = queryNorm
        0.18917353 = fieldWeight in 694, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.2805085 = idf(docFreq=1662, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=694)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

More and more information is available on-line every day. The greater the amount of on-line information, the greater the demand for tools that process and disseminate this information. Processing electronic information in the form of text and answering users' queries about that information intelligently is one of the great challenges in natural language processing and information retrieval. The research presented in this talk is centered on the latter of these two tasks: intelligent information retrieval. In order for information to be retrieved, it first needs to be formalized in a database or knowledge base. The ontology for this formalization and assumptions it is based on are crucial to successful intelligent information retrieval. We have concentrated our effort on developing an ontology for representing knowledge in the domains of experimental sciences, molecular biology in particular. We show that existing ontological models cannot be readily applied to represent this domain adequately. For example, the fundamental notion of ontology design that every "real" object is defined as an instance of a category seems incompatible with the universe where objects can change their category as a result of experimental procedures. Another important problem is representing complex structures such as DNA, mixtures, populations of molecules, etc., that are very common in molecular biology. We present extensions that need to be made to an ontology to cover these issues: the representation of transformations that change the structure and/or category of their participants, and the component relations and spatial structures of complex objects. We demonstrate examples of how the proposed representations can be used to improve the quality and completeness of answers to user queries; discuss techniques for evaluating ontologies and show a prototype of an Information Retrieval System that we developed.