Search (35 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Green, R."
  1. Green, R.: Relational aspects of subject authority control : the contributions of classificatory structure (2015) 0.03 
    0.03099543 = product of:
  0.06199086 = sum of:
    0.02150529 = weight(_text_:u in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02150529 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11888653 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 2282, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2282)
    0.0075423913 = weight(_text_:a in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075423913 = score(doc=2282,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2282, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2282)
    0.032943178 = product of:
      0.049414765 = sum of:
        0.024819015 = weight(_text_:29 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024819015 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12771805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2282, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2282)
        0.02459575 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02459575 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1271423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    The structure of a classification system contributes in a variety of ways to representing semantic relationships between its topics in the context of subject authority control. We explore this claim using the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system as a case study. The DDC links its classes into a notational hierarchy, supplemented by a network of relationships between topics, expressed in class descriptions and in the Relative Index (RI). Topics/subjects are expressed both by the natural language text of the caption and notes (including Manual notes) in a class description and by the controlled vocabulary of the RI's alphabetic index, which shows where topics are treated in the classificatory structure. The expression of relationships between topics depends on paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships between natural language terms in captions, notes, and RI terms; on the meaning of specific note types; and on references recorded between RI terms. The specific means used in the DDC for capturing hierarchical (including disciplinary), equivalence and associative relationships are surveyed.
    Date
    8.11.2015 21:27:22
    Source
    Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro
    Type
    a
  2. Green, R.: Insights into classification from the cognitive sciences : ramifications for index languages (1992) 0.02 
    0.019337542 = product of:
  0.058012627 = sum of:
    0.051612694 = weight(_text_:u in 2104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051612694 = score(doc=2104,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11888653 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.43413407 = fieldWeight in 2104, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2104)
    0.0063999314 = weight(_text_:a in 2104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0063999314 = score(doc=2104,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2104, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2104)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Source
    Classification research for knowledge representation and organization. Proc. 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991. Ed. by N.J. Williamson u. M. Hudon
    Type
    a
  3. Green, R.; Panzer, M.: Relations in the notational hierarchy of the Dewey Decimal Classification (2011) 0.02 
    0.018660344 = product of:
  0.03732069 = sum of:
    0.02150529 = weight(_text_:u in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02150529 = score(doc=4823,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11888653 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
    0.0075423913 = weight(_text_:a in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075423913 = score(doc=4823,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
    0.0082730055 = product of:
      0.024819015 = sum of:
        0.024819015 = weight(_text_:29 in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024819015 = score(doc=4823,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12771805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    As part of a larger assessment of relationships in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system, this study investigates the semantic nature of relationships in the DDC notational hierarchy. The semantic relationship between each of a set of randomly selected classes and its parent class in the notational hierarchy is examined against a set of relationship types (specialization, class-instance, several flavours of whole-part).The analysis addresses the prevalence of specific relationship types, their lexical expression, difficulties encountered in assigning relationship types, compatibility of relationships found in the DDC with those found in other knowledge organization systems (KOS), and compatibility of relationships found in the DDC with those in a shared formalism like the Web Ontology Language (OWL). Since notational hierarchy is an organizational mechanism shared across most classification schemes and is often considered to provide an easy solution for ontological transformation of a classification system, the findings of the study are likely to generalize across classification schemes with respect to difficulties that might be encountered in such a transformation process.
    Date
    21.11.2011 12:29:56
    Source
    Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero
    Type
    a
  4. Green, R.: ¬The expression of syntagmatic relationships in indexing : are frame-based index languages the answer? (1992) 0.01 
    0.013932822 = product of:
  0.041798465 = sum of:
    0.03440846 = weight(_text_:u in 2093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03440846 = score(doc=2093,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11888653 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.28942272 = fieldWeight in 2093, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2093)
    0.0073900046 = weight(_text_:a in 2093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0073900046 = score(doc=2093,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 2093, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2093)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    The frame structure matches the profile of features desirable in a syntagmatic relationship system and should be incorporated as the basic structural unit in index languages. The construction of frame-based index languages is discussed. Selected findings based on the case study analysis of implementing a New Testament-oriented frame-based indexing language are presented
    Source
    Classification research for knowledge representation and organization. Proc. 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991. Ed. by N.J. Williamson u. M. Hudon
    Type
    a
  5. Green, R.: Internally-structured conceptual models in cognitive semantics (2002) 0.01 
    0.012891694 = product of:
  0.03867508 = sum of:
    0.03440846 = weight(_text_:u in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03440846 = score(doc=1193,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11888653 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.28942272 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
    0.0042666206 = weight(_text_:a in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0042666206 = score(doc=1193,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Source
    The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: Green, R., C.A. Bean u. S.H. Myaeng
    Type
    a
  6. Bean, C.A.; Green, R.: Relevance relationships (2001) 0.01 
    0.01219122 = product of:
  0.03657366 = sum of:
    0.030107405 = weight(_text_:u in 1150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030107405 = score(doc=1150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11888653 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.25324488 = fieldWeight in 1150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1150)
    0.0064662537 = weight(_text_:a in 1150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0064662537 = score(doc=1150,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1150, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1150)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Relevance arises from relationships between user needs and documents/information. In the quest for relevant retrieval, some content-based relationships are best used initially to cast a net that emphasizes recall, while others, both content- and non-content-based, are best used subsequently as filtering devices to achieve better precision. Topical relevance, the primary factor in the initial retrieval operation, extends far beyond topic matching, as often assumed. Empirical studies demonstrate that topical relevance relationships are drawn from a broad but systematic inventory of semantic relationships.
    Source
    Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
    Type
    a
  7. Green, R.: See-also relationships in the Dewey Decimal Classification (2011) 0.01 
    0.01219122 = product of:
  0.03657366 = sum of:
    0.030107405 = weight(_text_:u in 4615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030107405 = score(doc=4615,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11888653 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.25324488 = fieldWeight in 4615, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4615)
    0.0064662537 = weight(_text_:a in 4615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0064662537 = score(doc=4615,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 4615, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4615)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    This paper investigates the semantics of topical, associative see-also relationships in schedule and table entries of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system. Based on the see-also relationships in a random sample of 100 classes containing one or more of these relationships, a semi-structured inventory of sources of see-also relationships is generated, of which the most important are lexical similarity, complementarity, facet difference, and relational configuration difference. The premise that see-also relationships based on lexical similarity may be language-specific is briefly examined. The paper concludes with recommendations on the continued use of see-also relationships in the DDC.
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
    Type
    a
  8. Green, R.: Relationships in the organization of knowledge : an overview (2001) 0.01 
    0.011795694 = product of:
  0.03538708 = sum of:
    0.030107405 = weight(_text_:u in 1142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030107405 = score(doc=1142,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11888653 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.25324488 = fieldWeight in 1142, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1142)
    0.005279674 = weight(_text_:a in 1142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005279674 = score(doc=1142,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 1142, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1142)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
    Type
    a
  9. Green, R.: Semantic types, classes, and instantiation (2006) 0.01 
    0.0112148775 = product of:
  0.03364463 = sum of:
    0.025806347 = weight(_text_:u in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025806347 = score(doc=236,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11888653 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 236, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=236)
    0.007838283 = weight(_text_:a in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007838283 = score(doc=236,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 236, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=236)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Semantic types provide a level of abstraction over particulars with shared behavior, such as in the participant structure of semantic frames. The paper presents a preliminary investigation, drawing on data from WordNet and FrameNet, into the relationship between hierarchical level and the semantic types that name frame elements (a.k.a. slots). Patterns discovered include: (1) The level of abstraction of a frame is generally matched by the level of abstraction of its frame elements. (2) The roles played by persons tend to be expressed very specifically. (3) Frame elements that mirror the name of the frame tend to be expressed specifically. (4) Some frame participants tend to be expressed at a constant (general) level of abstraction, regardless of the level of abstraction of the overall frame.
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
    Type
    a
  10. Green, R.; Bean, C.A.: Aligning systems of relationships (2006) 0.01 
    0.006423574 = product of:
  0.019270722 = sum of:
    0.006033913 = weight(_text_:a in 4949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006033913 = score(doc=4949,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 4949, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4949)
    0.013236808 = product of:
      0.03971042 = sum of:
        0.03971042 = weight(_text_:29 in 4949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03971042 = score(doc=4949,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12771805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 4949, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4949)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Date
    29. 2.2008 19:20:53
    Source
    Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad
    Type
    a
  11. Green, R.; Fraser, L.: Patterns in verbal polysemy (2004) 0.01 
    0.006423574 = product of:
  0.019270722 = sum of:
    0.006033913 = weight(_text_:a in 2621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006033913 = score(doc=2621,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2621, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2621)
    0.013236808 = product of:
      0.03971042 = sum of:
        0.03971042 = weight(_text_:29 in 2621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03971042 = score(doc=2621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12771805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2621, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2621)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Although less well studied than noun polysemy, verb polysemy affects both natural language and controlled vocabulary searching. This paper reports the preliminary conclusions of an empirical investigation of the semantic relationships between ca. 600 verb sense pairs in English, illustrating six classes of semantic relationships that account for a significant proportion of verbal polysemy.
    Pages
    S.29-34
    Type
    a
  12. Green, R.: Indigenous Peoples in the U.S., sovereign nations, and the DDC (2015) 0.01 
    0.006326159 = product of:
  0.018978477 = sum of:
    0.009050869 = weight(_text_:a in 2201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009050869 = score(doc=2201,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 2201, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2201)
    0.009927606 = product of:
      0.029782817 = sum of:
        0.029782817 = weight(_text_:29 in 2201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029782817 = score(doc=2201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12771805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2201, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2201)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Claims of bias within the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system in its treatment of indigenous peoples in the U.S. focus on marginalization through ghettoization, historicization, diasporization, and missing topics, such as the status of indigenous peoples as sovereign nations. Investigation into the treatment of indigenous peoples in the U.S. from DDC 16 to DDC 23 reveals that two of the most central concerns, ghettoization and historicization, are not borne out. Diasporization turns out to be a legitimate, but resolvable, concern. The current failure to recognize indigenous peoples as sovereign nations leads to a proposal for a series of expansions in Table 2 for the geographic areas over which indigenous peoples are sovereign; a mismatch between organization by the DDC and by indigenous peoples in the U.S. leads to the supplying of a Manual note table going from names of tribes (a Table 5 concept) to sovereign nations (a Table 2 concept).
    Date
    4. 9.2015 18:53:29
    Type
    a
  13. Green, R.: Facet detection using WorldCat and WordNet (2014) 0.01 
    0.0055858972 = product of:
  0.016757691 = sum of:
    0.005279674 = weight(_text_:a in 1419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005279674 = score(doc=1419,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 1419, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1419)
    0.011478017 = product of:
      0.03443405 = sum of:
        0.03443405 = weight(_text_:22 in 1419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03443405 = score(doc=1419,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1271423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1419, 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=1419)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Because procedures for establishing facets tend toward subjectivity, this pilot project investigates whether the facet structure of a subject literature can be discerned automatically on the basis of its own metadata. Nouns found in the titles of works retrieved from the WorldCat bibliographic database based on Dewey number are mapped against the nodes of the WordNet noun network. Density measures are computed for these nodes to identify nodes best summarizing the title noun data / best corresponding to facets of the subject. Results of the work to date are promising enough to warrant further investigation.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
    Type
    a
  14. Green, R.: Facet analysis and semantic frames (2017) 0.00 
    0.0040147337 = product of:
  0.012044201 = sum of:
    0.0037711957 = weight(_text_:a in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0037711957 = score(doc=3849,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
    0.0082730055 = product of:
      0.024819015 = sum of:
        0.024819015 = weight(_text_:29 in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024819015 = score(doc=3849,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12771805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03630739 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.
    Date
    29. 9.2017 18:58:02
    Type
    a
  15. Green, R.: ¬The design of a relational database for large-scale bibliographic retrieval (1996) 0.00 
    0.0015084783 = product of:
  0.009050869 = sum of:
    0.009050869 = weight(_text_:a in 7712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009050869 = score(doc=7712,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 7712, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7712)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a study, conducted by Maryland University, College of Library and Information Services, to establish the basic logical design of large scale bibliographic databases using the entity relationship (ER) model, with a view to the eventual conversion of the ER based conceptual schemas into relational databases. A fully normalized relational bibliographic database promises relief from the update, insertion, and deletion anomalies that plague bibliographic databases using MARC formats and USMARC formats internally. Presents the conceptual design of a full scale bibliographic database (inclusing bibliographic, authority, holdings, and classification data), based on entity relationship modelling. This design translates easily into a logical relational design. Discusses the treatment of format integration and the differentiation between the intellectual and bibliographic levels of description and between collective and individual levels of description. Unfortunately, the complexities of bibliographic data result in a tension between the semantic integrity of the relatioal approach and the inefficiencies of normalization and decomposition. Outlines compromise approaches to the dilemma
    Type
    a
  16. Green, R.: Relationships in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) : plan of study (2008) 0.00 
    0.0014222069 = product of:
  0.008533241 = sum of:
    0.008533241 = weight(_text_:a in 3397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008533241 = score(doc=3397,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 3397, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3397)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    EPC Exhibit 129-36.1 presented intermediate results of a project to connect Relative Index terms to topics associated with classes and to determine if those Relative Index terms approximated the whole of the corresponding class or were in standing room in the class. The Relative Index project constitutes the first stage of a long(er)-term project to instill a more systematic treatment of relationships within the DDC. The present exhibit sets out a plan of study for that long-term project.
  17. Green, R.: Development of a relational thesaurus (1996) 0.00 
    0.0013913163 = product of:
  0.008347898 = sum of:
    0.008347898 = weight(_text_:a in 5159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008347898 = score(doc=5159,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 5159, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5159)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Various shortcomings typically attend thesaural relationships: failure to support extended relevance relationships; lack of effort in identifying a common relational inventory across types of retrieval systems; limitation to binary relationships; inattention to relationships built into the meaning of lexical units. To counteract this failings, a preliminary inventory of relational structures underlying the ca. 1250 most frequently occuring English verbs is presented. The inventory is compact and corresponds to a combination of semantic role-based verb types as identified by Chafe (1970), and image schemata, as identified by Johnson (1987). The nature of hierarchical relationships among relational structures within the inventory is surveyed
    Type
    a
  18. Green, R.: Syntagmatic relationships in index languages : a reassessment (1995) 0.00 
    0.0012444311 = product of:
  0.0074665863 = sum of:
    0.0074665863 = weight(_text_:a in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074665863 = score(doc=3144,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Effective use of syntagmatic relationships in index languages has suffered from inaccurate or incomplete characterization in both linguistics and information science. A number of 'myths' about syntagmatic relationships are debunked: the exclusivity of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships, linearity as a defining characteristic of syntagmatic relationships, the restriction of syntagmatic relationships to surface linguistic units, the limitation of syntagmatic relationship benefits in document retrieval to precision, and the general irrelevance of syntagmatic relationships for document retrieval. None of the mechanisms currently used with index languages is powerful enough to achieve the levels of precision and recall that the expression of conceptual syntagmatic relationships is in theory capable of. New designs for expressing these relationships in index languages will need to take into account such characteristics as their semantic nature, systematicity, generalizability and constituent nature
    Type
    a
  19. Green, R.: Automated identification of frame semantic relational structures (2000) 0.00 
    0.0012444311 = product of:
  0.0074665863 = sum of:
    0.0074665863 = weight(_text_:a in 110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074665863 = score(doc=110,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 110, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=110)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Preliminary attempts to identify semantic frames and their internal structure automatically have met with a degree of success. In a first stage, clustering is used to detect 4 previously identified semantic frames (COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION, HIT, JUDGING, RISK) from verb definitions in Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English. In a second stage, nouns used in the definitions of frame-invoking verbs or in whose definitions the frame-invoking verbs occur in certain forms are searched in WordNet to identify frame elements. Suggestions for refinement of the processes are discussed
    Type
    a
  20. Green, R.: ¬The profession's models of information : a cognitive linguistic analysis (1991) 0.00 
    0.0011925569 = product of:
  0.007155341 = sum of:
    0.007155341 = weight(_text_:a in 2724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007155341 = score(doc=2724,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.041864127 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03630739 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2724, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2724)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    This study establishes 3 predominant cognitive models of information and the information transfer process manifest in the literature of library and information science, based on a linguistic analysis of phrases incoporating the word 'information' from a random sample of abstracts in the LISA database. The direct communication (DC) and indirect communication (IC) models (drawn from Reddy's frameworks of metalinguistic usage) adopt the perspective of the information system; the information-seeking (IS) model takes the viewpoint of the information user. 2 disturbing findings are presented: 1. core elements of the DC and IC models are more weakly supported by the data than are most of the peripheral elements; and 2. even though the IS model presents the information user's perspective, the data emphasise the role of the information system. These findings suggest respectively that the field lacks a coherent model of information transfer per se and that our model of information retrieval is mechanistic, oblivious to the cognitive models of end users
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 34
  • p 1
  • More… Less…

Themes