-
Williamson, N.J.: Thesauri in the digital age : stability and dynamism in their development and use (2000)
0.13
0.12849905 = product of:
0.17133206 = sum of:
0.04589845 = weight(_text_:c in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04589845 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.3048872 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
0.084923245 = weight(_text_:et in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084923245 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.41471857 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
0.040510375 = product of:
0.08102075 = sum of:
0.08102075 = weight(_text_:al in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08102075 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.4050777 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Source
- Dynamism and stability in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 6th International ISKO-Conference, 10-13 July 2000, Toronto, Canada. Ed.: C. Beghtol et al
-
Riesthuis, G.J.A.: Multilingual subject access and the Guidelines for the establishment and development of multilingual thesauri : an experimental study (2000)
0.10
0.09637429 = product of:
0.12849905 = sum of:
0.03442384 = weight(_text_:c in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03442384 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
0.06369243 = weight(_text_:et in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06369243 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.3110389 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
0.03038278 = product of:
0.06076556 = sum of:
0.06076556 = weight(_text_:al in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06076556 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.30380827 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Source
- Dynamism and stability in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 6th International ISKO-Conference, 10-13 July 2000, Toronto, Canada. Ed.: C. Beghtol et al
-
Shiri, A.A.; Revie, C.; Chowdhurry, G.: Assessing the impact of user interaction with thesaural knowledge structures : a quantitative analysis framework (2003)
0.06
0.06424952 = product of:
0.08566603 = sum of:
0.022949224 = weight(_text_:c in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022949224 = score(doc=2766,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
0.042461623 = weight(_text_:et in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042461623 = score(doc=2766,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
0.020255188 = product of:
0.040510375 = sum of:
0.040510375 = weight(_text_:al in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040510375 = score(doc=2766,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- Thesauri have been important information and knowledge organisation tools for more than three decades. The recent emergence and phenomenal growth of the World Wide Web has created new opportunities to introduce thesauri as information search and retrieval aids to end user communities. While the number of web-based and hypertextual thesauri continues to grow, few investigations have yet been carried out to evaluate how end-users, for whom all these efforts are ostensibly made, interact with and make use of thesauri for query building and expansion. The present paper reports a pilot study carried out to determine the extent to which a thesaurus-enhanced search interface to a web-based database aided end-users in their selection of search terms. The study also investigated the ways in which users interacted with the thesaurus structure, terms, and interface. Thesaurusbased searching and browsing behaviours adopted by users while interacting with the thesaurus-enhanced search interface were also examined. 1. Introduction The last decade has witnessed the emergence of a broad range of applications for knowledge structures in general and thesauri in particular. A number of researchers have predicted that thesauri will increasingly be used in retrieval rather than for indexing (Milstead, 1998; Aitchison et al., 1997) and that their application in information retrieval systems will become more diverse due to the growth of fulltext databases accessed over the Internet (Williamson, 2000). Some researchers have emphasised the need for tailoring the structure and content of thesauri as tools for end-user searching (Bates, 1986; Strong and Drott, 1986; Anderson and Rowley, 1991; Lopez-Huertas, 1997) while others have suggested thesaurus-enhanced user interfaces to support query formulation and expansion (Pollitt et.al., 1994; Jones et.al., 1995; Beaulieu, 1997). The recent phenomenal growth of the World Wide Web has created new opportunities to introduce thesauri as information search and retrieval aids to end user communities. While the number of web-based and hypertextual thesauri continues to grow, few investigations have been carried out to evaluate the ways in which end-users interact with and make use of online thesauri for query building and expansion. The work reported here expands an a pilot study (Shiri and Revie, 2001) carried out to investigate user - thesaurus interaction in the domains of biology and veterinary medicine.
-
García Marco, F.J. et al: Proyectos internacionales de reforma y ampliación de las normas sobre tesauros para su adaptación a los nuevos contextos de integración e interoperabilidad en el entorno digital (2007)
0.06
0.06271681 = product of:
0.12543362 = sum of:
0.084923245 = weight(_text_:et in 1099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084923245 = score(doc=1099,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.41471857 = fieldWeight in 1099, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1099)
0.040510375 = product of:
0.08102075 = sum of:
0.08102075 = weight(_text_:al in 1099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08102075 = score(doc=1099,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.4050777 = fieldWeight in 1099, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1099)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
-
Moreira, A.; Alvarenga, L.; Paiva Oliveira, A. de: "Thesaurus" and "Ontology" : a study of the definitions found in the computer and information science literature (2004)
0.05
0.05258964 = product of:
0.10517928 = sum of:
0.0712103 = weight(_text_:et in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0712103 = score(doc=3726,freq=10.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.3477521 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
0.03396898 = product of:
0.06793796 = sum of:
0.06793796 = weight(_text_:al in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06793796 = score(doc=3726,freq=10.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.33966798 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Content
- "Ontologies" definitions taken from the computer science literature "[...] ontology is a representation vocabulary, often specialized to some domain or subject matter." (Chandrasekaran et al. 1999, 1) "[...] ontology is sometimes used to refer to a body of knowledge describing some domain, typically a commonsense knowledge domain, using a representation vocabulary." (Chandrasekaran et al. 1999, 1) "An ontology is a declarative model of the terms and relationships in a domain." (Eriksson et al. 1994, 1) " [...] an ontology is the (unspecified) conceptual system which we may assume to underlie a particular knowledge base." (Guarino and Giaretta 1995, 1) Ontology as a representation of a conceptual system via a logical theory". (Guarino and Giaretta 1995, 1) "An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization." (Gruber 1993, 1) "[...] An ontology is a formal description of entities and their properties, relationships, constraints, behaviors." (Gruninger and Fox 1995, 1) "An ontology is set of terms, associated with definitions in natural language and, if possible, using formal relations and constraints, about some domain of interest ..." (Hovy 1998, 2) "Fach Ontology is a set of terms of interest in a particular information domain, expressed using DL ..." (Mena et al. 1996, 3) "[...] An ontology is a hierarchically structured set of terms for describing a domain that can be used as a skeletal foundation for a knowledge base." (Swartout et al. 1996, 1) "An ontology may take a variety of forms, but necessarily it will include a vocabulary of terms and some specification of their meaning." (Uschold 1996,3) "Ontologies are agreements about shared conceptualizations." (Uschold and Grunninger 1996, 6) "[...] a vocabulary of terms and a specification of their relationships." (Wiederhold 1994, 6)
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.; Gilchrist, A.; Will, L.: Revision and extension of thesaurus standards (2004)
0.03
0.031358406 = product of:
0.06271681 = sum of:
0.042461623 = weight(_text_:et in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042461623 = score(doc=2615,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
0.020255188 = product of:
0.040510375 = sum of:
0.040510375 = weight(_text_:al in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040510375 = score(doc=2615,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The current standards for monolingual and multilingual thesauri are long overdue for an update. This applies to the international standards ISO 2788 and ISO 5964, as well as the corresponding national standards in several countries and the American standard ANSI/NISO Z39.19. Work is now under way in the UK and in the USA to revise and extend the standards, with particular emphasis on interoperability needs in our world of vast electronic networks. Work in the UK is starting with the British Standards, in the hope of leading on to one international standard to serve all. Some of the issues still under discussion include the treatment of facet analysis, coverage of additional types of controlled vocabulary such as classification schemes, taxonomies and ontologies, and mapping from one vocabulary to another. 1. Are thesaurus standards still needed? Since the 1960s, even before the renowned Cranfield experiments (Cleverdon et al., 1966; Cleverdon, 1967) arguments have raged over the usefulness or otherwise of controlled vocabularies. The case has never been proved definitively one way or the other. At the same time, a recognition has become widespread that no one search method can answer all retrieval requirements. In today's environment of very large networks of resources, the skilled information professional uses a range of techniques. Among these, controlled vocabularies are valued alongside others. The first international standard for monolingual thesauri was issued in 1974. In those days, the main application was for postcoordinate indexing and retrieval from document collections or bibliographic databases. For many information professionals the only practicable alternative to a thesaurus was a classification scheme. And so the thesaurus developed a strong following. After computer systems with full text search capability became widely available, however, the arguments against controlled vocabularies gained more followers. The cost of building and maintaining a thesaurus or a classification scheme was a strong disincentive. Today's databases are typically immense compared with those three decades ago. Full text searching is taken for granted, not just in discrete databases but across all the resources in an intranet or even the Internet. But intranets have brought particular frustration as users discover that despite all the computer power, they cannot find items which they know to be present an the network. So the trend against controlled vocabularies is now being reversed, as many information professionals are turning to them for help. Standards to guide them are still in demand.
-
Yoon, J.W.: Towards a user-oriented thesaurus for non-domain-specific image collections (2009)
0.03
0.031358406 = product of:
0.06271681 = sum of:
0.042461623 = weight(_text_:et in 4221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042461623 = score(doc=4221,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 4221, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4221)
0.020255188 = product of:
0.040510375 = sum of:
0.040510375 = weight(_text_:al in 4221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040510375 = score(doc=4221,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 4221, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4221)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This study explored how user-supplied tags can be applied to designing a thesaurus that reflects the unique features of image documents. Tags from the popular image-sharing Web site Flickr were examined in terms of two central components of a thesaurus-selected concepts and their semantic relations-as well as the features of image documents. Shatford's facet category and Rosch et al.'s basic-level theory were adopted for examining concepts to be included in a thesaurus. The results suggested that the best approach to Color and Generic category descriptors is to focus on basic-level terms and to include frequently used superordinate- and subordinate-level terms. In the Abstract category, it was difficult to specify a set of abstract terms that can be used consistently and dominantly, so it was suggested to enhance browsability using hierarchical and associative relations. Study results also indicate a need for greater inclusion of Specific category terms, which were shown to be an important tool in establishing related tags. Regarding semantic relations, the study indicated that in the identification of related terms, it is important that descriptors not be limited only to the category in which a main entry belongs but broadened to include terms from other categories as well. Although future studies are needed to ensure the effectiveness of this user-oriented approach, this study yielded promising results, demonstrating that user-supplied tags can be a helpful tool in selecting concepts to be included in a thesaurus and in identifying semantic relations among the selected concepts. It is hoped that the results of this study will provide a practical guideline for designing a thesaurus for image documents that takes into account both the unique features of these documents and the unique information-seeking behaviors of general users.
-
Burkart, M.: Thesaurus (2004)
0.02
0.017387636 = product of:
0.034775272 = sum of:
0.022949224 = weight(_text_:c in 2913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022949224 = score(doc=2913,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 2913, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2913)
0.011826049 = product of:
0.023652097 = sum of:
0.023652097 = weight(_text_:22 in 2913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023652097 = score(doc=2913,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2913, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2913)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Der Thesaurus als Dokumentationssprache wird in der DIN 1463-1in seinen wesentlichen Merkmalen beschrieben. Dort wird der Thesaurus im informationswissenschaftlichen Sinne so definiert: "Ein Thesaurus im Bereich der Information und Dokumentation ist eine geordnete Zusammenstellung von Begriffen und ihren (vorwiegend natürlichsprachigen) Bezeichnungen, die in einem Dokumentationsgebiet zum Indexieren, Speichern und Wiederauffinden dient. Er ist durch folgende Merkmale gekennzeichnet: a) Begriffe und Bezeichnungen werden eindeutig aufeinander bezogen ("terminologische Kontrolle"), indem - Synonyme möglichst vollständig erfasst werden, - Homonyme und Polyseme besonders gekennzeichnet werden, - für jeden Begriff eine Bezeichnung (Vorzugsbenennung, Begriffsnummer oder Notation) festgelegt wird, die den Begriff eindeutig vertritt, b) Beziehungen zwischen Begriffen (repräsentiert durch ihre Bezeichnungen) werden dargestellt." Diese Definition wäre zu ergänzen um folgende: c) Der Thesaurus ist präskriptiv, indem er für seinen Geltungsbereich festlegt, welche begrifflichen Einheiten zur Verfügung gestellt werden und durch welche Bezeichnungen diese repräsentiert werden. Im Folgenden sollen die wichtigsten Elemente und Prinzipien von Thesauri und die Thesaurusmethodik vorgestellt werden. Dies kann in diesem Rahmen nur auf eine sehr kursorische und allgemeine Art und Weise geschehen. Außerdem beschränkt sich die Darstellung auf den Thesauruseinsatz im klassischen Bereich von Information und Dokumentation. Auf die Behandlung von Spezialproblemen oder auf besondere Thesaurusformen (z.B. mehrsprachige Thesauri) kann hier nicht eingegangen werden, ebenso auf die erweiterten Anforderungen, die an Thesauri im Kontext von Wissensrepräsentation oder Hypertext zu stellen sind. Allerdings überschneidet sich der klassische IuD-Bereich zunehmend mit erweiterten Formen (etwa im Rahmen von Internetanwendungen). Da der Thesaurus im dokumentarischen Sinn alle Grundelemente des Thesaurusprinzips in klarer Form aufweist, wird dieser Bereich für eine Einführung gewählt. Für eine intensivere Auseinandersetzung mit der Thematik wird die Lektüre von Wersig empfohlen, auf den sich auch die folgenden Ausführungen in weiten Teilen stützen. Eine weitere grundsätzliche Einführung in diesen Bereich, allerdings eher ausgerichtet auf die Spezifika des englischen Sprachraums, findet sich bei Lancaster.
- Date
- 5. 4.2013 10:18:22
-
Shiri, A.A.; Revie, C.; Chowdhury, G.: Thesaurus-enhanced search interfaces (2002)
0.02
0.01721192 = product of:
0.06884768 = sum of:
0.06884768 = weight(_text_:c in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06884768 = score(doc=3807,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.45733082 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Landry, P.: Multilingual subject access : the linking approach of MACS (2004)
0.02
0.015923107 = product of:
0.06369243 = sum of:
0.06369243 = weight(_text_:et in 5009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06369243 = score(doc=5009,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.3110389 = fieldWeight in 5009, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5009)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- The MACS (Multilingual access to subjects) project is one of the many projects that are currently exploring solutions to multilingual subject access to online catalogs. Its strategy is to develop a Web based link and search interface through which equivalents between three Subject Heading Languages: SWD/RSWK (Schlagwortnormdatei/Regeln für den Schlagwortkatalog) for German, RAMEAU (Repertoire d'Autorite-Matière Encyclopedique et Alphabetique Unifie) for French and LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings) for English can be created and maintained, and by which users can access online databases in the language of their choice. Factors that have lead to this approach will be examined and the MACS linking strategy will be explained. The trend to using mapping or linking strategies between different controlled vocabularies to create multilingual access challenges the traditional view of the multilingual thesaurus.
-
Broughton, V.: Essential thesaurus construction (2006)
0.02
0.015679203 = product of:
0.031358406 = sum of:
0.021230811 = weight(_text_:et in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021230811 = score(doc=2924,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.10367964 = fieldWeight in 2924, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2924)
0.010127594 = product of:
0.020255188 = sum of:
0.020255188 = weight(_text_:al in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020255188 = score(doc=2924,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.101269424 = fieldWeight in 2924, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2924)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Mitt. VÖB 60(2007) H.1, S.98-101 (O. Oberhauser): "Die Autorin von Essential thesaurus construction (and essential taxonomy construction, so der implizite Untertitel, vgl. S. 1) ist durch ihre Lehrtätigkeit an der bekannten School of Library, Archive and Information Studies des University College London und durch ihre bisherigen Publikationen auf den Gebieten (Facetten-)Klassifikation und Thesaurus fachlich einschlägig ausgewiesen. Nach Essential classification liegt nun ihr Thesaurus-Lehrbuch vor, mit rund 200 Seiten Text und knapp 100 Seiten Anhang ein handliches Werk, das seine Genese zum Grossteil dem Lehrbetrieb verdankt, wie auch dem kurzen Einleitungskapitel zu entnehmen ist. Das Buch ist der Schule von Jean Aitchison et al. verpflichtet und wendet sich an "the indexer" im weitesten Sinn, d.h. an alle Personen, die ein strukturiertes, kontrolliertes Fachvokabular für die Zwecke der sachlichen Erschliessung und Suche erstellen wollen bzw. müssen. Es möchte dieser Zielgruppe das nötige methodische Rüstzeug für eine solche Aufgabe vermitteln, was einschliesslich der Einleitung und der Schlussbemerkungen in zwanzig Kapiteln geschieht - eine ansprechende Strukturierung, die ein wohldosiertes Durcharbeiten möglich macht. Zu letzterem tragen auch die von der Autorin immer wieder gestellten Übungsaufgaben bei (Lösungen jeweils am Kapitelende). Zu Beginn der Darstellung wird der "information retrieval thesaurus" von dem (zumindest im angelsächsischen Raum) weit öfter mit dem Thesaurusbegriff assoziierten "reference thesaurus" abgegrenzt, einem nach begrifflicher Ähnlichkeit angeordneten Synonymenwörterbuch, das gerne als Mittel zur stilistischen Verbesserung beim Abfassen von (wissenschaftlichen) Arbeiten verwendet wird. Ohne noch ins Detail zu gehen, werden optische Erscheinungsform und Anwendungsgebiete von Thesauren vorgestellt, der Thesaurus als postkoordinierte Indexierungssprache erläutert und seine Nähe zu facettierten Klassifikationssystemen erwähnt. In der Folge stellt Broughton die systematisch organisierten Systeme (Klassifikation/ Taxonomie, Begriffs-/Themendiagramme, Ontologien) den alphabetisch angeordneten, wortbasierten (Schlagwortlisten, thesaurusartige Schlagwortsysteme und Thesauren im eigentlichen Sinn) gegenüber, was dem Leser weitere Einordnungshilfen schafft. Die Anwendungsmöglichkeiten von Thesauren als Mittel der Erschliessung (auch als Quelle für Metadatenangaben bei elektronischen bzw. Web-Dokumenten) und der Recherche (Suchformulierung, Anfrageerweiterung, Browsing und Navigieren) kommen ebenso zur Sprache wie die bei der Verwendung natürlichsprachiger Indexierungssysteme auftretenden Probleme. Mit Beispielen wird ausdrücklich auf die mehr oder weniger starke fachliche Spezialisierung der meisten dieser Vokabularien hingewiesen, wobei auch Informationsquellen über Thesauren (z.B. www.taxonomywarehouse.com) sowie Thesauren für nicht-textuelle Ressourcen kurz angerissen werden.
-
Stein, R.; Saro, C.: Online-Plattform für kontrolliertes Vokabular (2006)
0.01
0.014343265 = product of:
0.05737306 = sum of:
0.05737306 = weight(_text_:c in 3443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05737306 = score(doc=3443,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.381109 = fieldWeight in 3443, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3443)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Naumis Pena, C.: Evaluation of educational thesauri (2006)
0.01
0.014199109 = product of:
0.056796435 = sum of:
0.056796435 = weight(_text_:c in 2257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056796435 = score(doc=2257,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.3772787 = fieldWeight in 2257, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2257)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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
-
Tudhope, D.; Binding, C.: Faceted thesauri (2008)
0.01
0.011474612 = product of:
0.04589845 = sum of:
0.04589845 = weight(_text_:c in 1855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04589845 = score(doc=1855,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.3048872 = fieldWeight in 1855, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1855)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Keränen, S.: Equivalence and focus of translation in multicultural thesaurus construction (2006)
0.01
0.010040285 = product of:
0.04016114 = sum of:
0.04016114 = weight(_text_:c in 237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04016114 = score(doc=237,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 237, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=237)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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
-
Shiri, A.A.; Revie, C.: Thesauri on the Web : current developments and trends (2000)
0.01
0.010040285 = product of:
0.04016114 = sum of:
0.04016114 = weight(_text_:c in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04016114 = score(doc=2558,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 2558, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2558)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Schwartz, C.: Thesauri and facets and tags, Oh my! : a look at three decades in subject analysis (2008)
0.01
0.010040285 = product of:
0.04016114 = sum of:
0.04016114 = weight(_text_:c in 5566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04016114 = score(doc=5566,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 5566, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5566)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Qin, J.; Paling, S.: Converting a controlled vocabulary into an ontology : the case of GEM (2001)
0.01
0.008869536 = product of:
0.035478145 = sum of:
0.035478145 = product of:
0.07095629 = sum of:
0.07095629 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07095629 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3895, 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=3895)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 24. 8.2005 19:20:22
-
Shiri, A.A.; Revie, C.; Chowdhury, G.: Thesaurus-assisted search term selection and query expansion : a review of user-centred studies (2002)
0.01
0.00860596 = product of:
0.03442384 = sum of:
0.03442384 = weight(_text_:c in 1330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03442384 = score(doc=1330,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 1330, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1330)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Shiri, A.A.; Revie, C.: End-user interaction with thesauri : an evaluation of cognitive overlap in search term selection (2004)
0.01
0.00860596 = product of:
0.03442384 = sum of:
0.03442384 = weight(_text_:c in 2658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03442384 = score(doc=2658,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 2658, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2658)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
