-
Milstead, J.L.: Standards for relationships between subject indexing terms (2001)
0.15
0.14562103 = product of:
0.19416137 = sum of:
0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01029941 = score(doc=1148,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1148, 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=1148)
0.16261986 = weight(_text_:standards in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.16261986 = score(doc=1148,freq=12.0), product of:
0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.7237192 = fieldWeight in 1148, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1148)
0.021242103 = product of:
0.042484205 = sum of:
0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042484205 = score(doc=1148,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 1148, 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=1148)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- Relationships between the terms in thesauri and Indexes are the subject of national and international standards. The standards for thesauri enumerate and provide criteria for three basic types of relationship: equivalence, hierarchical, and associative. Standards and guidelines for indexes draw an the thesaurus standards to provide less detailed guidance for showing relationships between the terms used in an Index. The international standard for multilingual thesauri adds recommendations for assuring equal treatment of the languages of a thesaurus. The present standards were developed when lookup and search were essentially manual, and the value of the kinds of relationships has never been determined. It is not clear whether users understand or can use the distinctions between kinds of relationships. On the other hand, sophisticated text analysis systems may be able both to assist with development of more powerful term relationship schemes and to use the relationships to improve retrieval.
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.2
- Source
- Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.; Gilchrist, A.; Will, L.: Revision and extension of thesaurus standards (2004)
0.12
0.11920848 = product of:
0.15894464 = sum of:
0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013732546 = score(doc=2615,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
0.12518483 = weight(_text_:standards in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12518483 = score(doc=2615,freq=16.0), product of:
0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.5571193 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
0.020027246 = product of:
0.040054493 = sum of:
0.040054493 = weight(_text_:organization in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040054493 = score(doc=2615,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.22283478 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- 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.
- Series
- Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9
- Source
- Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
-
Relationships in the organization of knowledge (2001)
0.08
0.079195365 = product of:
0.10559382 = sum of:
0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 1139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014865918 = score(doc=1139,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1139, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1139)
0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 1139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0553244 = score(doc=1139,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 1139, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1139)
0.035403505 = product of:
0.07080701 = sum of:
0.07080701 = weight(_text_:organization in 1139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07080701 = score(doc=1139,freq=8.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 1139, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1139)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- With fourteen contributions grouped in two sections, "Theoretical background" and "Systems", this work discusses the most common relationships used in the organization of recorded knowledge to facilitate information retrieval: the relationships between bibliographic entities, intra- and intertextual relationships, relevance relationships, and subject relationships in thesauri and other classificatory structures. The editors' goal is to "spur further interest, debate, research, and development".
- Content
- Enthält u.a. die Beiträge: GREEN, R.: Relationships in the organization of knowledge: an overview; TILLETT, B.: Bibliographic relationships; CLARKE, S.G.D.: Thesaural relationships; MILSTEAD, J.L.: Standards for relationships between subject indexing terms; HUDON, M.: Relationships in multilingual thesauri; BODENREIDER, O. u. C.A. BEAN: Relationships among knowledge structures: vocabulary integration within a subject domain; BEGHTOL, C.: Relationships in classificatory structure and meaning; BEAN, C.A. u. R. GREEN: Relevance relationships; EL-HOSHY, L.M.: Relationships in Library of Congress Subject Headings; MOLHOLT, P.: The Art and Architecture Thesaurus: controlling relationships through rules and structure; NELSON, S.J. u.a.: Relationships in Medical Subject Headings (MeSH); NEELAMEGHAN, A.: Lateral relationships in multicultural, mulrilingual databases in the spiritual and religous domains: the OM information service; SATIJA, M.P.: Relationships in Ranganathan's Colon classification; MITCHELL, J.S.: Relationships in the Dewey Decimal Classification System
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Knowledge organization 28(2001) no.4, S.208-210 (S. Betrand-Gastaldy)
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.2
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Thesaural relationships (2001)
0.05
0.05469762 = product of:
0.10939524 = sum of:
0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012015978 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
0.09737927 = sum of:
0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049564905 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047814365 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 22. 9.2007 15:45:57
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.2
- Source
- Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
-
Green, R.: Relationships in the organization of knowledge : an overview (2001)
0.03
0.027470224 = product of:
0.054940447 = sum of:
0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 1142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012015978 = score(doc=1142,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1142, 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=1142)
0.04292447 = product of:
0.08584894 = sum of:
0.08584894 = weight(_text_:organization in 1142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08584894 = score(doc=1142,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.47760257 = fieldWeight in 1142, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1142)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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.
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.2
- Source
- Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
-
Green, R.; Fraser, L.: Patterns in verbal polysemy (2004)
0.03
0.026893519 = product of:
0.053787038 = sum of:
0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 2621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013732546 = score(doc=2621,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 2621, 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=2621)
0.040054493 = product of:
0.080108985 = sum of:
0.080108985 = weight(_text_:organization in 2621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.080108985 = score(doc=2621,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.44566956 = fieldWeight in 2621, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2621)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Series
- Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9
- Source
- Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
-
Francu, V.: ¬A linguistic approach to information languages (2003)
0.03
0.026284594 = product of:
0.05256919 = sum of:
0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 3538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017165681 = score(doc=3538,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3538, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3538)
0.035403505 = product of:
0.07080701 = sum of:
0.07080701 = weight(_text_:organization in 3538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07080701 = score(doc=3538,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 3538, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3538)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Tendencias de investigación en organización del conocimient: IV Cologuio International de Ciencas de la Documentación , VI Congreso del Capitulo Espanol de ISKO = Trends in knowledge organization research. Eds.: J.A. Frias u. C. Travieso
-
Miller, U.; Teitelbaum, R.: Pre-coordination and post-coordination : past and future (2002)
0.02
0.024407204 = product of:
0.04881441 = sum of:
0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024031956 = score(doc=1395,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1395, 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=1395)
0.024782453 = product of:
0.049564905 = sum of:
0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049564905 = score(doc=1395,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This article deals with the meaningful processing of information in relation to two systems of Information processing: pre-coordination and post-coordination. The different approaches are discussed, with emphasis an the need for a controlled vocabulary in information retrieval. Assigned indexing, which employs a controlled vocabulary, is described in detail. Types of indexing language can be divided into two broad groups - those using pre-coordinated terms and those depending an post-coordination. They represent two different basic approaches in processing and Information retrieval. The historical development of these two approaches is described, as well as the two tools that apply to these approaches: thesauri and subject headings.
- Source
- Knowledge organization. 29(2002) no.2, S.87-93
-
Peters, I.; Weller. K.: Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations in knowledge organization systems (2008)
0.02
0.023531828 = product of:
0.047063656 = sum of:
0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 1593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012015978 = score(doc=1593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1593, 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=1593)
0.03504768 = product of:
0.07009536 = sum of:
0.07009536 = weight(_text_:organization in 1593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07009536 = score(doc=1593,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 1593, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1593)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Classical knowledge representation methods have been successfully working for years with established - but in a way restricted and vague - relations such as synonymy, hierarchy (meronymy, hyponymy) and unspecified associations. Recent developments like ontologies and folksonomies show new forms of collaboration, indexing and knowledge representation and encourage the reconsideration of standard knowledge relationships for practical use. In a summarizing overview we show which relations are currently used in knowledge organization systems (controlled vocabularies, ontologies and folksonomies) and which relations are expressed explicitly or which may be inherently hidden in them.
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 59(2008) H.2, S.100-107
-
Mai, J.-E.: Actors, domains, and constraints in the design and construction of controlled vocabularies (2008)
0.02
0.02109987 = product of:
0.04219974 = sum of:
0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 1921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017165681 = score(doc=1921,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1921, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1921)
0.025034059 = product of:
0.050068118 = sum of:
0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 1921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050068118 = score(doc=1921,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 1921, 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=1921)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Classification schemes, thesauri, taxonomies, and other controlled vocabularies play important roles in the organization and retrieval of information in many different environments. While the design and construction of controlled vocabularies have been prescribed at the technical level in great detail over the past decades, the methodological level has been somewhat neglected. However, classification research has in recent years focused on developing approaches to the analysis of users, domains, and activities that could produce requirements for the design of controlled vocabularies. Researchers have often argued that the design, construction, and use of controlled vocabularies need to be based on analyses and understandings of the contexts in which these controlled vocabularies function. While one would assume that the growing body of research on human information behavior might help guide the development of controlled vocabularies shed light on these contexts, unfortunately, much of the research in this area is descriptive in nature and of little use for systems design. This paper discusses these trends and outlines a holistic approach that demonstrates how the design of controlled vocabularies can be informed by investigations of people's interactions with information. This approach is based on the Cognitive Work Analysis framework and outlines several dimensions of human-information interactions. Application of this approach will result is a comprehensive understanding of the contexts in which the controlled vocabulary will function and which can be used for the development of for the development of controlled vocabularies.
- Source
- Knowledge organization. 35(2008) no.1, S.16-29
-
Hjoerland, B.: Semantics and knowledge organization (2007)
0.02
0.02109987 = product of:
0.04219974 = sum of:
0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 1980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017165681 = score(doc=1980,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1980, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1980)
0.025034059 = product of:
0.050068118 = sum of:
0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 1980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050068118 = score(doc=1980,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 1980, 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=1980)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate that semantic issues underlie all research questions within Library and Information Science (LIS, or, as hereafter, IS) and, in particular, the subfield known as Knowledge Organization (KO). Further, it seeks to show that semantics is a field influenced by conflicting views and discusses why it is important to argue for the most fruitful one of these. Moreover, the chapter demonstrates that IS has not yet addressed semantic problems in systematic fashion and examines why the field is very fragmented and without a proper theoretical basis. The focus here is on broad interdisciplinary issues and the long-term perspective. The theoretical problems involving semantics and concepts are very complicated. Therefore, this chapter starts by considering tools developed in KO for information retrieval (IR) as basically semantic tools. In this way, it establishes a specific IS focus on the relation between KO and semantics. It is well known that thesauri consist of a selection of concepts supplemented with information about their semantic relations (such as generic relations or "associative relations"). Some words in thesauri are "preferred terms" (descriptors), whereas others are "lead-in terms." The descriptors represent concepts. The difference between "a word" and "a concept" is that different words may have the same meaning and similar words may have different meanings, whereas one concept expresses one meaning.
- Source
- Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.367-405
-
Green, R.; Bean, C.A.: Aligning systems of relationships (2006)
0.02
0.021027675 = product of:
0.04205535 = sum of:
0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 4949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013732546 = score(doc=4949,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4949, 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=4949)
0.028322803 = product of:
0.056645606 = sum of:
0.056645606 = weight(_text_:organization in 4949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056645606 = score(doc=4949,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 4949, 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=4949)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad
-
Bodenreider, O.; Bean, C.A.: Relationships among knowledge structures : vocabulary integration within a subject domain (2001)
0.02
0.021027675 = product of:
0.04205535 = sum of:
0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 1145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013732546 = score(doc=1145,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1145, 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=1145)
0.028322803 = product of:
0.056645606 = sum of:
0.056645606 = weight(_text_:organization in 1145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056645606 = score(doc=1145,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 1145, 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=1145)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.2
- Source
- Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
-
Neelameghan, A.: Lateral relationships in multicultural, multilingual databases in the spiritual and religious domains : the OM Information service (2001)
0.02
0.020920461 = product of:
0.041840922 = sum of:
0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 1146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02059882 = score(doc=1146,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1146, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1146)
0.021242103 = product of:
0.042484205 = sum of:
0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 1146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042484205 = score(doc=1146,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 1146, 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=1146)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Mapping a multidimensional universe of subjects for linear representation, such as in class number, subject heading, and faset structure is problematic. Into this context is recalled the near-seminal and postulational approach suggested by S. R Ranganathan. The non-hierarchical associative relationship or lateral relationship (LR) is distinguished at different levels-among information sources, databases, records of databases, and among concepts (LR-0). Over thirty lateral relationships at the concept level (LR-0) are identified and enumerated with examples from spiritual and religious texts. Special issues relating to LR-0 in multicultural, multilingual databases intended to be used globally by peoples of different cultures and faith are discussed, using as example the multimedia OM Information Service. Vocabulary assistance for users is described.
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.2
- Source
- Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
-
Beghtol, C.: Relationships in classificatory structure and meaning (2001)
0.02
0.017903835 = product of:
0.03580767 = sum of:
0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014565565 = score(doc=1138,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1138, 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=1138)
0.021242103 = product of:
0.042484205 = sum of:
0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042484205 = score(doc=1138,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 1138, 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=1138)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- In a changing information environment, we need to reassess each element of bibliographic control, including classification theories and systems. Every classification system is a theoretical construct imposed an "reality." The classificatory relationships that are assumed to be valuable have generally received less attention than the topics included in the systems. Relationships are functions of both the syntactic and semantic axes of classification systems, and both explicit and implicit relationships are discussed. Examples are drawn from a number of different systems, both bibliographic and non-bibliographic, and the cultural warrant (i. e., the sociocultural context) of classification systems is examined. The part-whole relationship is discussed as an example of a universally valid concept that is treated as a component of the cultural warrant of a classification system.
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.2
- Source
- Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
-
Fugmann, R.: ¬The complementarity of natural and index language in the field of information supply : an overview of their specific capabilities and limitations (2002)
0.02
0.016283836 = product of:
0.032567672 = sum of:
0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014865918 = score(doc=1412,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
0.017701752 = product of:
0.035403505 = sum of:
0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035403505 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 1412, 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=1412)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Natural text phrasing is an indeterminate process and, thus, inherently lacks representational predictability. This holds true in particular in the Gase of general concepts and of their syntactical connectivity. Hence, natural language query phrasing and searching is an unending adventure of trial and error and, in most Gases, has an unsatisfactory outcome with respect to the recall and precision ratlos of the responses. Human indexing is based an knowledgeable document interpretation and aims - among other things - at introducing predictability into the representation of documents. Due to the indeterminacy of natural language text phrasing and image construction, any adequate indexing is also indeterminate in nature and therefore inherently defies any satisfactory algorithmization. But human indexing suffers from a different Set of deficiencies which are absent in the processing of non-interpreted natural language. An optimally effective information System combines both types of language in such a manner that their specific strengths are preserved and their weaknesses are avoided. lf the goal is a large and enduring information system for more than merely known-item searches, the expenditure for an advanced index language and its knowledgeable and careful employment is unavoidable.
- Source
- Knowledge organization. 29(2002) nos.3/4, S.217-230
-
Mazzocchi, F.; Tiberi, M.; De Santis, B.; Plini, P.: Relational semantics in thesauri : an overview and some remarks at theoretical and practical levels (2007)
0.02
0.016283836 = product of:
0.032567672 = sum of:
0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014865918 = score(doc=1462,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1462, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1462)
0.017701752 = product of:
0.035403505 = sum of:
0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035403505 = score(doc=1462,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 1462, 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=1462)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- A thesaurus is a controlled vocabulary designed to allow for effective information retrieval. It con- sists of different kinds of semantic relationships, with the aim of guiding users to the choice of the most suitable index and search terms for expressing a certain concept. The relational semantics of a thesaurus deal with methods to connect terms with related meanings and arc intended to enhance information recall capabilities. In this paper, focused on hierarchical relations, different aspects of the relational semantics of thesauri, and among them the possibility of developing richer structures, are analyzed. Thesauri are viewed as semantic tools providing, for operational purposes, the representation of the meaning of the terms. The paper stresses how theories of semantics, holding different perspectives about the nature of meaning and how it is represented, affect the design of the relational semantics of thesauri. The need for tools capable of representing the complexity of knowledge and of the semantics of terms as it occurs in the literature of their respective subject fields is advocated. It is underlined how this would contribute to improving the retrieval of information. To achieve this goal, even though in a preliminary manner, we explore the possibility of setting against the framework of thesaurus design the notions of language games and hermeneutic horizon.
- Source
- Knowledge organization. 34(2007) no.4, S.196-213
-
Marcoux, Y.; Rizkallah, E.: Knowledge organization in the light of intertextual semantics : a natural-language analysis of controlled vocabularies (2008)
0.01
0.010621051 = product of:
0.042484205 = sum of:
0.042484205 = product of:
0.08496841 = sum of:
0.08496841 = weight(_text_:organization in 2241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08496841 = score(doc=2241,freq=8.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 2241, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2241)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Content
- Intertextual semantics is a semiotics-based approach to the design of communication artefacts primarily aimed at modeling XML structured documents. SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System) is a specification currently under development at the W3C that allows expressing various types of controlled vocabularies in XML. In this article, we show through an example how intertextual semantics could be applied to controlled vocabularies expressed in SKOS, and argue that it could facilitate the communication of meaning among the various persons who interact with a controlled vocabulary.
- Series
- Advances in knowledge organization; vol.11
- Source
- Culture and identity in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Tenth International ISKO Conference 5-8 August 2008, Montreal, Canada. Ed. by Clément Arsenault and Joseph T. Tennis
-
Schmitz-Esser, W.: Formalizing terminology-based knowledge for an ontology independently of a particular language (2008)
0.01
0.009198101 = product of:
0.036792405 = sum of:
0.036792405 = product of:
0.07358481 = sum of:
0.07358481 = weight(_text_:organization in 1680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07358481 = score(doc=1680,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.40937364 = fieldWeight in 1680, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1680)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Last word ontological thought and practice is exemplified on an axiomatic framework [a model for an Integrative Cross-Language Ontology (ICLO), cf. Poli, R., Schmitz-Esser, W., forthcoming 2007] that is highly general, based on natural language, multilingual, can be implemented as topic maps and may be openly enhanced by software available for particular languages. Basics of ontological modelling, conditions for construction and maintenance, and the most salient points in application are addressed, such as cross-language text mining and knowledge generation. The rationale is to open the eyes for the tremendous potential of terminology-based ontologies for principled Knowledge Organization and the interchange and reuse of formalized knowledge.
- Source
- Kompatibilität, Medien und Ethik in der Wissensorganisation - Compatibility, Media and Ethics in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings der 10. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Wien, 3.-5. Juli 2006 - Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the German Section of the International Society of Knowledge Organization Vienna, 3-5 July 2006. Ed.: H.P. Ohly, S. Netscher u. K. Mitgutsch
-
Barite, M.G.: ¬The notion of "category" : its implications in subject analysis and in the construction and evaluation of indexing languages (2000)
0.01
0.00876192 = product of:
0.03504768 = sum of:
0.03504768 = product of:
0.07009536 = sum of:
0.07009536 = weight(_text_:organization in 6036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07009536 = score(doc=6036,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 6036, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6036)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- The notion of category, from Aristotle and Kant to the present time, has been used as a basic intellectual tool for the analysis of the existence and changeableness of things. Ranganathan was the first to extrapolate the concept into the Theory of Classification, placing it as an essential axis for the logical organization of knowledge and the construction of indexing languages. This paper proposes a conceptual and methodological reexamination of the notion of category from a functional and instrumental perspective, and tries to clarify the essential characters of categories in that context, and their present implications regarding the construction and evaluation of indexing languages
- Source
- Knowledge organization. 27(2000) nos.1/2, S.4-10
