Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

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

0.017903835 = product of:
  0.03580767 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 3431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=3431,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3431, 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=3431)
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 3431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=3431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 3431, 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=3431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

With the current information environment characterized by the proliferation of digital resources, including collaboratively created and shared resources, Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) is facing the challenges of effective and efficient subject-based organization and retrieval of digital resources. To explore the feasibility of utilizing LCSH in a digital environment, we might need to revisit its basic characteristics. The objectives of our study were to analyze LCSH in both syntactic and relational structures, to discover the structural characteristics of LCSH, and to identify problems and issues for the feasibility of LCSH as an effective subject access tool. This study reports and discusses issues raised by the syntactic and hierarchical structures of LCSH that present challenges to its use in a networked environment. Given the results of this study, we recommend a number of provisional future directions for the development of LCSH towards further becoming a viable system for digital and networked resources.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.4, S.677-687

0.016071692 = product of:
  0.032143384 = sum of:
    0.022129761 = weight(_text_:standards in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022129761 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09848571 = fieldWeight in 664, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=664)
    0.010013623 = product of:
      0.020027246 = sum of:
        0.020027246 = weight(_text_:organization in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020027246 = score(doc=664,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.11141739 = fieldWeight in 664, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=664)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 34(2007) no.1, S.58-60 (P. Buizza): "This Nuovo soggettario is the first sign of subject indexing renewal in Italy. Italian subject indexing has been based until now on Soggettario per i cataloghi delle biblioteche italiane (Firenze, 1956), a list of preferred terms and see references, with suitable hierarchical subdivisions and cross references, derived from the subject catalogue of the National Library in Florence (BNCF). New headings later used in Bibliografia nazionale italiana (BNI) were added without references, nor indeed with any real maintenance. Systematic instructions on how to combine the terms are lacking: the indexer using this instrument is obliged to infer the order of terms absent from the lists by consulting analogous entries. Italian libraries are suffering from the limits of this subject catalogue: vocabulary is inadequate, obsolete and inconsistent, the syndetic structure incomplete and inaccurate, and the syntax ill-defined, poorly explained and unable to reflect complex subjects. In the nineties, the Subject Indexing Research Group (Gruppo di ricerca sull'indicizzazione per soggetto, GRIS) of the AIB (Italian Library Association) developed the indexing theory and some principles of PRECIS and drew up guidelines based on consistent principles for vocabulary, semantic relationships and subject string construction, the latter according to role syntax (Guida 1997). In overhauling the Soggettario, the National Library in Florence aimed at a comprehensive indexing system. (A report on the method and evolution of the work has been published in Knowledge Organization (Lucarelli 2005), while the feasibility study is available in Italian (Per un nuovo Soggettario 2002). Any usable terms from the old Soggettario will be transferred to the new system, while taking into consideration international norms and interlinguistic compatibility, as well as applications outside the immediate library context. The terms will be accessible via a suitable OPAC operating on the most advanced software.
The guide Nuovo soggettario was presented on February 8' 2007 at a one-day seminar in the Palazzo Vecchio, Florence, in front of some 500 spellbound people. The Nuovo soggettario comes in two parts: the guide in book-form and an accompanying CD-ROM, by way of which a prototype of the thesaurus may be accessed on the Internet. In the former, rules are stated; the latter contains a pdf version of the guide and the first installment of the controlled vocabulary, which is to be further enriched and refined. Syntactic instructions (general application guidelines, as well as special annotations of particular terms) and the compiled subject strings file have yet to be added. The essentials of the new system are: 1) an analytic-synthetic approach, 2) use of terms (units of controlled vocabulary) and subject strings (which represent subjects by combining terms in linear order to form syntactic relationships), instead of main headings and subdivisions, 3) specificity of terms and strings, with a view to the co-extension of subject string and subject matter and 4) a clear distinction between semantic and syntactic relationships, with full control of them both. Basic features of the vocabulary include the uniformity and univocality of terms and thesaural management of a priori (semantic) relationships. Starting from its definition, each term can be categorially analyzed: four macro-categories are represented (agents, action, things, time), for which there are subcategories called facets (e.g., for actions: activities, disciplines, processes), which in turn have sub-facets. Morphological instructions conform to national and international standards, including BS 8723, ANSI/ NISO Z39.19 and the IFLA draft of Guidelines for multilingual thesauri, even for syntactic factorization. Different kinds of semantic relationships are represented thoroughly, and particular attention is paid to poly-hierarchies, which are used only in moderation: both top terms must actually be relevant. Node labels are used to specify the principle of division applied. Instance relationships are also used.

0.015395639 = product of:
  0.030791279 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=5920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5920, 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=5920)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=5920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5920, 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=5920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), a system originally designed as a tool for subject access to the Library's own collection in the late nineteenth century, has become, in the course of the last century, the main subject retrieval tool in library catalogs throughout the United States and in many other countries. It is one of the largest non-specialized controlled vocabularies in the world. As LCSH enters a new century, it faces an information environment that has undergone vast changes from what had prevailed when LCSH began, or, indeed, from its state in the early days of the online age. In order to continue its mission and to be useful in spheres outside library catalogs as well, LCSH must adapt to the multifarious environment. One possible approach is to adopt a series of scalable and flexible syntax and application rules to meet the needs of different user communities

Date

27. 5.2001 16:22:21

0.015395639 = product of:
  0.030791279 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3837, 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=3837)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3837, 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=3837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

27. 8.2011 14:22:13

Source

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

0.0036413912 = product of:
  0.014565565 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 2323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=2323,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2323, 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=2323)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Partial coordination is a new method for cataloging documents for subject access. It is especially designed to enhance the precision of document searches in online environments. This article reports a preliminary evaluation of partial coordination that shows promising results compared with full-text retrieval. We also report the difficulties in empirically evaluating the effectiveness of automatic full-text retrieval in contrast to mixed methods such as partial coordination which combine human cataloging with computerized retrieval. Based on our study, we propose research in this area will substantially benefit from a common framework for failure analysis and a common data set. This will allow information retrieval researchers adapting 'library style'cataloging to large electronic document collections, as well as those developing automated or mixed methods, to directly compare their proposals for indexing and retrieval. This article concludes by suggesting guidelines for constructing such as testbed

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.14, S.1270-1282

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 2322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=2322,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2322, 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=2322)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.14, S.1254-1269