Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × author_ss:"Green, R."
  1. Green, R.: Relationships in knowledge organization (2008) 0.03
    0.03079044 = product of:
      0.06158088 = sum of:
        0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 2135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012015978 = score(doc=2135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2135, 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=2135)
        0.049564905 = product of:
          0.09912981 = sum of:
            0.09912981 = weight(_text_:organization in 2135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09912981 = score(doc=2135,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.5514879 = fieldWeight in 2135, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2135)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Relationships that interconnect entity classes of import to knowledge organization (knowledge, documents, concepts, beings, information needs, language) include both non-subject bibliographic relationships (document-to-document relationships, responsibility relationships) and conceptual content relationships (subject relationships, relevance relationships). While the MARC format allows the recording of most bibliographic relationships, many of them are not expressed systematically. Conceptual content relationships include, in turn, interconcept and intraconcept relationships. The expression of interconcept relationships is covered by standard thesaural relationships, which typically do not distinguish fully between the underlying lexical relationship types. The full expression of complex intraconcept relationships includes indication of the basic nature of the relationship (including a set of semantic roles), the set of entities that participate in the relationship, and a mapping between participants and semantic roles. Knowledge organization schemes seldom express these relationships fully.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 35(2008) nos.2/3, S.150-159
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Bean, C.A.; Green, R.: Improving subject retrieval with frame representation (2003) 0.02
    0.021027675 = product of:
      0.04205535 = sum of:
        0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 3960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013732546 = score(doc=3960,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3960, 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=3960)
        0.028322803 = product of:
          0.056645606 = sum of:
            0.056645606 = weight(_text_:organization in 3960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.056645606 = score(doc=3960,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 3960, 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=3960)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Frames are integrated structures that address equivalence, hierarchical, and associative relationships. The richness of their internal organization and extemal relationality provide power and flexibility in meeting user needs for both high recall and high precision, as required.
    Source
    Subject retrieval in a networked environment: Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting held in Dublin, OH, 14-16 August 2001 and sponsored by the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section, the IFLA Information Technology Section and OCLC. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
  6. Bean, C.A.; Green, R.: Relevance relationships (2001) 0.02
    0.020887807 = product of:
      0.041775614 = sum of:
        0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 1150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01699316 = score(doc=1150,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1150, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1150)
        0.024782453 = product of:
          0.049564905 = sum of:
            0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 1150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049564905 = score(doc=1150,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 1150, 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=1150)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Relevance arises from relationships between user needs and documents/information. In the quest for relevant retrieval, some content-based relationships are best used initially to cast a net that emphasizes recall, while others, both content- and non-content-based, are best used subsequently as filtering devices to achieve better precision. Topical relevance, the primary factor in the initial retrieval operation, extends far beyond topic matching, as often assumed. Empirical studies demonstrate that topical relevance relationships are drawn from a broad but systematic inventory of semantic relationships.
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.2
    Source
    Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
  7. Green, R.: Conceptual universals in knowledge organization and representation (2003) 0.01
    0.011874698 = product of:
      0.047498792 = sum of:
        0.047498792 = product of:
          0.094997585 = sum of:
            0.094997585 = weight(_text_:organization in 2629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.094997585 = score(doc=2629,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.5284991 = fieldWeight in 2629, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2629)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Within the overall conference theme-integration of knowledge across boundaries-an important subtheme is universality: Where universals of knowledge organization and representation exist, knowledge integration is more likely. Thus, knowledge of conceptual universals should inform efforts at knowledge integration. In this paper, natural language is used as a model for exploring conceptual universals, since the phenomenon of translating between languages validates, but also circumscribes, the existence of semantic and lexical universals. The paper explores a representative inventory of semantic and lexical universals that should be accounted for in knowledge organization and representation systems, especially those that aim to be comprehensive.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.8
    Source
    Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas
  8. Green, R.; Bean, C.A.; Hudon, M.: Universality and basic level concepts (2003) 0.01
    0.009366888 = product of:
      0.03746755 = sum of:
        0.03746755 = product of:
          0.0749351 = sum of:
            0.0749351 = weight(_text_:organization in 2730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0749351 = score(doc=2730,freq=14.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.4168857 = fieldWeight in 2730, product of:
                  3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                    14.0 = termFreq=14.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2730)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This paper examines whether a concept's hierarchical level affects the likelihood of its universality across schemes for knowledge representation and knowledge organization. Empirical data an equivalents are drawn from a bilingual thesaurus, a pair of biomedical vocabularies, and two ontologies. Conceptual equivalence across resources occurs significantly more often at the basic level than at subordinate or superordinate levels. Attempts to integrate knowledge representation or knowledge organization tools should concentrate an establishing equivalences at the basic level. 1. Rationale The degree of success attainable in the integration of multiple knowledge representation systems or knowledge organization schemes is constrained by limitations an the universality of human conceptual systems. For example, human languages do not all lexicalize the same set of concepts; nor do they structure (quasi-)equivalent concepts in the same relational patterns (Riesthuis, 2001). As a consequence, even multilingual thesauri designed from the outset from the perspective of multiple languages may routinely include situations where corresponding terms are not truly equivalent (Hudon, 1997, 2001). Intuitively, where inexactness and partialness in equivalence mappings across knowledge representation schemes and knowledge organizations schemes exist, a more difficult retrieval scenario arises than where equivalence mappings reflect full and exact conceptual matches. The question we address in this paper is whether a concept's hierarchical level af ects the likelihood of its universality/full equivalence across schemes for knowledge representation and knowledge organization. Cognitive science research has shown that one particular hierarchical level-called the basic level--enjoys a privileged status (Brown, 1958; Rosch et al., 1976). Our underlying hypothesis is that concepts at the basic level (e.g., apple, shoe, chair) are more likely to match across knowledge representation schemes and knowledge organization schemes than concepts at the superordinate (e.g., fruit, footwear, furniture) or subordinate (e.g., Granny Smith, sneaker, recliner) levels. This hypothesis is consistent with ethnobiological data showing that folk classifications of flora are more likely to agree at the basic level than at superordinate or subordinate levels (Berlin, 1992).
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.8
    Source
    Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas
  9. Green, R.: Automated identification of frame semantic relational structures (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 110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07009536 = score(doc=110,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 110, 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=110)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.7
    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
  10. Green, R.: Making visible hidden relationships in the Dewey Decimal Classification : how relative index terms relate to DDC classes (2008) 0.01
    0.00876192 = product of:
      0.03504768 = sum of:
        0.03504768 = product of:
          0.07009536 = sum of:
            0.07009536 = weight(_text_:organization in 2236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07009536 = score(doc=2236,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 2236, 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=2236)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    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
  11. Green, R.: Semantic types, classes, and instantiation (2006) 0.01
    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
  12. Green, R.: WordNet (2009) 0.01
    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
  13. Green, R.: Internally-structured conceptual models in cognitive semantics (2002) 0.00
    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