Search (33 results, page 2 of 2)

0.007510218 = product of:
  0.030040871 = sum of:
    0.030040871 = product of:
      0.060081743 = sum of:
        0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060081743 = score(doc=236,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 236, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.10

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

0.0070807007 = product of:
  0.028322803 = sum of:
    0.028322803 = product of:
      0.056645606 = sum of:
        0.056645606 = weight(_text_:organization in 2093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056645606 = score(doc=2093,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 2093, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2093)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0062585147 = product of:
  0.025034059 = sum of:
    0.025034059 = product of:
      0.050068118 = sum of:
        0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050068118 = score(doc=3849,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

Source

Knowledge organization. 44(2017) no.6, S.397-404

0.006007989 = product of:
  0.024031956 = sum of:
    0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 4696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024031956 = score(doc=4696,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 4696, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4696)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

WordNet, a lexical database for English, is organized around semantic and lexical relationships between synsets, concepts represented by sets of synonymous word senses. Offering reasonably comprehensive coverage of the nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs of general English, WordNet is a widely used resource for dealing with the ambiguity that arises from homonymy, polysemy, and synonymy. WordNet is used in many information-related tasks and applications (e.g., word sense disambiguation, semantic similarity, lexical chaining, alignment of parallel corpora, text segmentation, sentiment and subjectivity analysis, text classification, information retrieval, text summarization, question answering, information extraction, and machine translation).

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.0053105257 = product of:
  0.021242103 = sum of:
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=474,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 474, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=474)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization. 24(1997) no.2, S.72-83

0.004425438 = product of:
  0.017701752 = sum of:
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=4823,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.00426914 = product of:
  0.01707656 = sum of:
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

8.11.2015 21:27:22

0.0036413912 = product of:
  0.014565565 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 7712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=7712,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 7712, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7712)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

Source

Information technology and libraries. 15(1996) no.4, S.207-221

0.0034331365 = product of:
  0.013732546 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=1193,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.3

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=3144,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 3722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=3722,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3722, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3722)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(1995) no.9, S.646-653

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 3724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=3724,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3724, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3724)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(1995) no.9, S.654-662

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information services and use. 17(1997) nos.2/3, S.85-100