Search (35 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 3724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=3724,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3724, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3724)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The assumption of topic matching between user needs and texts topically relevant to those needs is often erroneous. Reports an emprical investigantion of the question 'what relationship types actually account for topical relevance'? In order to avoid the bias to topic matching search strategies, user needs are back generated from a randomly selected subset of the subject headings employed in a user oriented topical concordance. The corresponding relevant texts are those indicated in the concordance under the subject heading. Compares the topics of the user needs with the topics of the relevant texts to determine the relationships between them. Topical relevance relationships include a large variety of relationships, only some of which are matching relationships. Others are examples of paradigmatic or syntagmatic relationships. There appear to be no constraints on the kinds of relationships that can function as topical relevance relationships. They are distinguishable from other types of relationships only on functional grounds

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=474,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 474, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=474)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper is divided into 3 parts. The 1st develops a framework for evaluating the indexing needs of the humanities with reference to 4 sets of contrasts: user (need)-oriented vs. document-oriented indexing; subject indexing vs. attribute indexing; scientific writing vs. humanistic writing; and topical relevance vs. logical relevance vs. evidential relevance vs. aesthetic relevance. The indexing needs for the humanities range broadly across these contrasts. The 2nd part establishes the centrality of relationships to the communication of indexable matter and examines the advantages and disadvantages of means used for their expression inboth natural languages and indexing languages. The use of relational structure, such as a frame, is shown to represent perhaps the best available option. The 3rd part illustrates where the use of relational structures in humanities indexing would help meet some of the needs previously identified. Although not a panacea, the adoption of frame-based indexing in the humanities might substantially improve the retrieval of its literature

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 4949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=4949,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 6425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=6425,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 6425, 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=6425)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper examines the role of attributes within entity-relationship-based conceptual modeling, investigating the interplay between attributes and relationships within (1) data modeling and (2) natural language use. Attribution is found to be an important relationship type. The lack of distinctiveness between attributes and relationships leads to a re-examination of how hierarchy should be treated in both the practice and theory of knowledge organization

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 2621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=2621,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 2730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=2730,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2730, 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=2730)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper examines whether a concept's hierarchical level affects the likelihood of its universality across schemes for knowledge representation and knowledge organization. Empirical data an equivalents are drawn from a bilingual thesaurus, a pair of biomedical vocabularies, and two ontologies. Conceptual equivalence across resources occurs significantly more often at the basic level than at subordinate or superordinate levels. Attempts to integrate knowledge representation or knowledge organization tools should concentrate an establishing equivalences at the basic level. 1. Rationale The degree of success attainable in the integration of multiple knowledge representation systems or knowledge organization schemes is constrained by limitations an the universality of human conceptual systems. For example, human languages do not all lexicalize the same set of concepts; nor do they structure (quasi-)equivalent concepts in the same relational patterns (Riesthuis, 2001). As a consequence, even multilingual thesauri designed from the outset from the perspective of multiple languages may routinely include situations where corresponding terms are not truly equivalent (Hudon, 1997, 2001). Intuitively, where inexactness and partialness in equivalence mappings across knowledge representation schemes and knowledge organizations schemes exist, a more difficult retrieval scenario arises than where equivalence mappings reflect full and exact conceptual matches. The question we address in this paper is whether a concept's hierarchical level af ects the likelihood of its universality/full equivalence across schemes for knowledge representation and knowledge organization. Cognitive science research has shown that one particular hierarchical level-called the basic level--enjoys a privileged status (Brown, 1958; Rosch et al., 1976). Our underlying hypothesis is that concepts at the basic level (e.g., apple, shoe, chair) are more likely to match across knowledge representation schemes and knowledge organization schemes than concepts at the superordinate (e.g., fruit, footwear, furniture) or subordinate (e.g., Granny Smith, sneaker, recliner) levels. This hypothesis is consistent with ethnobiological data showing that folk classifications of flora are more likely to agree at the basic level than at superordinate or subordinate levels (Berlin, 1992).

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 3960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=3960,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3960, 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=3960)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Subject retrieval in a networked environment: Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting held in Dublin, OH, 14-16 August 2001 and sponsored by the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section, the IFLA Information Technology Section and OCLC. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 2629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=2629,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2629, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2629)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Within the overall conference theme-integration of knowledge across boundaries-an important subtheme is universality: Where universals of knowledge organization and representation exist, knowledge integration is more likely. Thus, knowledge of conceptual universals should inform efforts at knowledge integration. In this paper, natural language is used as a model for exploring conceptual universals, since the phenomenon of translating between languages validates, but also circumscribes, the existence of semantic and lexical universals. The paper explores a representative inventory of semantic and lexical universals that should be accounted for in knowledge organization and representation systems, especially those that aim to be comprehensive.

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 3685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=3685,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 3685, 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=3685)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The significant differences that exist between the print and digital worlds are sometimes felt to diminish the need for bibliographic description in the electronic world. An analysis of these differences, especially with respect to (1) the control of production and distribution of documents and (2) the need for software intermediation, coupled with a discussion of the functions of bibliographic description in the task of document retrieval argue, however, for an increased role for bibliographic description in the electronic world

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 1142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=1142,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 3530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=3530,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 3530, 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=3530)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Classes in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system function as neighborhoods around focal topics in captions and notes. Topical neighborhoods are generated through specialization and instantiation, complex topic synthesis, index terms and mapped headings, hierarchical force, rules for choosing between numbers, development of the DDC over time, and use of the system in classifying resources. Implications of representation using a formal knowledge representation language are explored.

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 1394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=1394,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 1394, 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=1394)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The main idea of this panel was to create a platform for discussing knowledge organization in the past, present, and future within ISKO. During the panel discussion the following three questions were asked: 1) What is knowledge organization (KO)? 2) What changes do you foresee in the future that will prove to be the most challenging for ISKO? 3) What is your ideal picture of what the ISKO of the future could be? How do we get there? Teilnehmer: Rebecca Green, Claudio Gnoli, Dagobert Soergel, Hans-Peter Ohly, Inegtraut Dahlberg, Joseph Tennis, Vera Dodebei, Rosa San Segundo, Wieslaw Babik, Amos David, Grant Campbell, Laura Ridenour, Jill McTavish.

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=1193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=3849,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 2236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=2236,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 2236, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a