Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.11994544 = sum of:
  0.019938158 = product of:
    0.07975263 = sum of:
      0.07975263 = weight(_text_:authors in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07975263 = score(doc=3523,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22619869 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04961788 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.10000728 = product of:
    0.20001456 = sum of:
      0.20001456 = weight(_text_:r.r in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20001456 = score(doc=3523,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3582188 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.2195506 = idf(docFreq=87, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04961788 = queryNorm
          0.55835867 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.2195506 = idf(docFreq=87, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This work tries to propose a set of evaluation dimensions for the analysis of the knowledge organization systems (KOS), building over previous research and the available literature on the subject. It presents a compiled taxonomy of KOSs, a set of tentative characteristics proposed in the literature and the authors' spectra proposal. The full details of the typology are not covered in the scope of the article, but will be available as an ontology in the near future.

0.11994544 = sum of:
  0.019938158 = product of:
    0.07975263 = sum of:
      0.07975263 = weight(_text_:authors in 139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07975263 = score(doc=139,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22619869 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04961788 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 139, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=139)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.10000728 = product of:
    0.20001456 = sum of:
      0.20001456 = weight(_text_:r.r in 139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20001456 = score(doc=139,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3582188 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.2195506 = idf(docFreq=87, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04961788 = queryNorm
          0.55835867 = fieldWeight in 139, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.2195506 = idf(docFreq=87, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=139)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper analyzes previous work on the classification of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS), discusses strengths and weaknesses, and proposes a new and integrative framework. It argues that current analyses of the KOS tend to be idiosyncratic and incomplete, relying on a limited number of dimensions of analysis. The paper discusses why and how KOS should be classified on a new basis. Based on the available literature and previous work, the authors propose a wider set of dimensions for the analysis of KOS. These are represented in a taxonomy of KOS. Issues arising are discussed.

0.020167613 = product of:
  0.040335227 = sum of:
    0.040335227 = product of:
      0.08067045 = sum of:
        0.08067045 = weight(_text_:22 in 100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08067045 = score(doc=100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17375337 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04961788 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 100, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.016806345 = product of:
  0.03361269 = sum of:
    0.03361269 = product of:
      0.06722538 = sum of:
        0.06722538 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06722538 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17375337 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04961788 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, 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=539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:07

0.010083807 = product of:
  0.020167613 = sum of:
    0.020167613 = product of:
      0.040335227 = sum of:
        0.040335227 = weight(_text_:22 in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040335227 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17375337 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04961788 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1347, 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=1347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2014 17:12:54

0.009969079 = product of:
  0.019938158 = sum of:
    0.019938158 = product of:
      0.07975263 = sum of:
        0.07975263 = weight(_text_:authors in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07975263 = score(doc=2294,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22619869 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04961788 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 2294, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2294)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose: Investigate the combination of controlled and folksonomy approaches to support resource discovery in repositories and digital collections. Aim: Investigate whether use of an established controlled vocabulary can help improve social tagging for better resource discovery. Objectives: (1) Investigate indexing aspects when using only social tagging versus when using social tagging with suggestions from a controlled vocabulary; (2) Investigate above in two different contexts: tagging by readers and tagging by authors; (3) Investigate influence of only social tagging versus social tagging with a controlled vocabulary on retrieval. - Vgl.: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/projects/enhanced-tagging/.

0.008544925 = product of:
  0.01708985 = sum of:
    0.01708985 = product of:
      0.0683594 = sum of:
        0.0683594 = weight(_text_:authors in 202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0683594 = score(doc=202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22619869 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04961788 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=202)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors present a model of information searching in thesaurus-enhanced search systems, intended as a reference model for system developers. The model focuses on user-system interaction and charts the specific stages of searching an indexed collection with a thesaurus. It was developed based on literature, findings from empirical studies, and analysis of existing systems. The model describes in detail the entities, processes, and decisions when interacting with a search system augmented with a thesaurus. A basic search scenario illustrates this process through the model. Graphical and textual depictions of the model are complemented by a concise matrix representation for evaluation purposes. Potential problems at different stages of the search process are discussed, together with possibilities for system developers. The aim is to set out a framework of processes, decisions, and risks involved in thesaurus-based search, within which system developers can consider potential avenues for support.

0.0049845395 = product of:
  0.009969079 = sum of:
    0.009969079 = product of:
      0.039876316 = sum of:
        0.039876316 = weight(_text_:authors in 2677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039876316 = score(doc=2677,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22619869 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04961788 = queryNorm
            0.17628889 = fieldWeight in 2677, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2677)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

1. Introduction The need for research into the application of linguistic techniques in Information Retrieval (IR) in general, and a similar need in faceted Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) has been indicated by various authors. Smeaton (1997) points out the inherent limitations of conventional approaches to IR based an "bags of words", mainly difficulties caused by lexical ambiguity in the words concerned, and goes an to suggest the possibility of using Natural Language Processing (NLP) in query formulation. Past experience with a faceted retrieval system highlighted the need for integrating the linguistic perspective in order to fully utilise the potential of a KOS (Tudhope et al." 2002). The present research seeks to address some of these needs in using NLP to improve the efficacy of KOS tools in query and retrieval systems. Syntactic parsing and part-of-speech tagging can substantially reduce lexical ambiguity through homograph disambiguation. Given the two strings "1 fable the motion" and "I put the motion an the fable", for instance, the parser used in this research clearly indicates that 'fable' in the first string is a verb, while 'table' in the second string is a noun, a distinction that would be missed in the "bag of words" approach. This syntactic disambiguation enables a more precise matching from free text to the controlled vocabulary of a KOS and vice versa. The use of a general linguistic resource, namely Roget's Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases (RTEWP), as an intermediary in this process, is investigated. The adaptation of the Link parser (Sleator & Temperley, 1993) to the purposes of the research is reported. The design and implementation of the early practical stages of the project are described, and the results of the initial experiments are presented and evaluated. Applications of the techniques developed are foreseen in the areas of query disambiguation, information retrieval and automatic indexing. In the first section of the paper a brief review of the literature and relevant current work in the field is presented. The second section includes reports an the development of algorithms, the construction of data sets and theoretical and experimental work undertaken to date. The third section evaluates the results obtained, and outlines directions for future research.