Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 6068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=6068,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 6068, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6068)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Over the past 50 years, a variety of language-related capabilities has been developed in machine translation, information retrieval, speech recognition, text summarization, and so on. These applications rest upon a set of core techniques such as language modeling, information extraction, parsing, generation, and multimedia planning and integration; and they involve methods using statistics, rules, grammars, lexicons, ontologies, training techniques, and so on. It is a puzzling fact that although all of this work deals with language in some form or other, the major applications have each developed a separate research field. For example, there is no reason why speech recognition techniques involving n-grams and hidden Markov models could not have been used in machine translation 15 years earlier than they were, or why some of the lexical and semantic insights from the subarea called Computational Linguistics are still not used in information retrieval.
This picture will rapidly change. The twin challenges of massive information overload via the web and ubiquitous computers present us with an unavoidable task: developing techniques to handle multilingual and multi-modal information robustly and efficiently, with as high quality performance as possible. The most effective way for us to address such a mammoth task, and to ensure that our various techniques and applications fit together, is to start talking across the artificial research boundaries. Extending the current technologies will require integrating the various capabilities into multi-functional and multi-lingual natural language systems. However, at this time there is no clear vision of how these technologies could or should be assembled into a coherent framework. What would be involved in connecting a speech recognition system to an information retrieval engine, and then using machine translation and summarization software to process the retrieved text? How can traditional parsing and generation be enhanced with statistical techniques? What would be the effect of carefully crafted lexicons on traditional information retrieval? At which points should machine translation be interleaved within information retrieval systems to enable multilingual processing?

0.0018719747 = product of:
  0.0037439493 = sum of:
    0.0037439493 = product of:
      0.0074878987 = sum of:
        0.0074878987 = weight(_text_:a in 6067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0074878987 = score(doc=6067,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14100032 = fieldWeight in 6067, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=6067)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This final report defines the problem of multilingual subject access, summarises the work carried out by the CoBRA+ working group on multilingual subject access from autumn 1997 until February 1999 and its results, identifies and discusses issues to be resolved, and presents a proposal for a prototype to the directors of the institutions concerned. For a summary of results, and the proposal, see 'CoBRA+ working group on multilingual subject access: proposals for discussion, March 18th 1999. This report will be distributed to members of the CENL and posted on the GABRIEL website. Genevieve Clavel has compiled it on the basis of the group's reports, discussions within the group and comments provided by the partners.

Content

Backgrund to the study: The question of multilingual access to bibliographic databases affects not only searchers in countries in which several languages are spoken such as Switzerland, but also all those who search material in databases containing material in more than one language, which is the case in the majority of scientific or research databases. he growth of networks means that we can easily access catalogues outside our own immediate circle - in another town, another country, another continent. In doing so we encounter problems concerning not only search interfaces, but also concerning subject access or even author access in another language. In France for example, each document, independently of the language in which it has been written, is indexed using a French-language subject heading language. Thus, in order to search by subject headings for documents written in English or German, held in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, the researcher from abroad has to master the French language. In theory, the indexer should be able to analyse a document and assign headings in his/her native language, while the user should be able to search in his/her native language. The language of the document itself should have no influence on the language of the subject heading language used for indexing nor on the language used for searching. (Practically speaking of course, there are restrictions, since there is a limit to the number of languages in which subject headings languages could be maintained and thus in which the user may search.) In the example below, we are concerned with three languages: German, French and English. If we can imagine a system in which there are equivalents among subject headings in these three languages, the following scenario may be envisaged: a German-speaking indexer will use German-language subject headings to index all the documents received, regardless of the language in which they are written. The user may search for these documents by entering subject headings in German, but also in French or in English, thanks to the equivalents that have been established, in French or in English without the necessity to know the other languages or the structure of the other SHLs. Ideally, this approach should not be confined to one database, but would allow the different databases to be brought together in virtual system: an English-speaking user in London should be able to search the database of the Deutsche Bibliothek in Frankfurt using English-language headings, and retrieving documents which have been indexed using the German subject headings' list.

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=2433,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This report presents the results of desk-top based study of projects and initiatives in the area of linking and mapping subject tools. While its goal is to provide areas of further study for cross-language subject access in the European Library, and specifically the national libraries of the Ten New Member States, it is not restricted to cross-language mappings since some of the tools used to create links across thesauri or subject headings in the same language may also be appropriate for cross-language mapping. Tools reviewed have been selected to represent a variety of approaches (e.g. subject heading to subject heading, thesaurus to thesaurus, classification to subject heading) reflecting the variety of subject access tools in use in the European Library. The results show that there is no single solution that would be appropriate for all libraries but that parts of several initiatives may be applicable on a technical, organisational or content level.