Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.004164351 = product of:
  0.016657405 = sum of:
    0.016657405 = weight(_text_:information in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016657405 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.45, [=Suppl.10]

0.004164351 = product of:
  0.016657405 = sum of:
    0.016657405 = weight(_text_:information in 5314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016657405 = score(doc=5314,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 5314, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5314)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0035694437 = product of:
  0.014277775 = sum of:
    0.014277775 = weight(_text_:information in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014277775 = score(doc=3678,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3678, 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=3678)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper explores the relationships between natural language lexicons in lexical semantics and thesauri in information retrieval research. These different areas of knowledge have different restrictions on use of vocabulary; thesauri are used only in information search and retrieval contexts, whereas lexicons are mental systems and generally applicable in all domains of life. A set of vocabulary requirements that defines the more concrete characteristics of vocabulary items in the 2 contexts can be derived from this framework: lexicon items have to be learnable, complex, transparent, etc., whereas thesaurus terms must be effective, current and relevant, searchable, etc. The differences in vocabulary properties correlate with 2 other factors, the well-known dimension of Control (deliberate, social activities of building and maintaining vocabularies), and Syntagmatization, which is less known and describes vocabulary items' varying formal preparedness to exit the thesaurus/lexicon, enter into linear syntactic constructions, and, finally, acquire communicative functionality. It is proposed that there is an inverse relationship between Control and Syntagmatization.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.6, S.1480-1490

0.003091229 = product of:
  0.012364916 = sum of:
    0.012364916 = weight(_text_:information in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012364916 = score(doc=3644,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ich unternehme in diesem Beitrag den Versuch, die Informationswissenschaft - hier gedeutet als 'Information Retrieval'- Disziplin - einer synchronen Querschnittsanalyse zu unterziehen, welche die aktuelle Position dieser Disziplin im Feld anderer zeichen- und wortschatzorientierter Disziplinen (neben der Linguistik die Terminologielehre und die Fachsprachenforschung) näher bestimmen soll. Im Rahmen der Analyse wird von einem Information Retrieval-Kern der Informationswissenschaft ausgegangen, welcher den Informationssuchkontext sowie die Konzepte des Informationsbedarfs und der Relevanz als für diese Disziplin zentrale Komponenten ansieht. Synchron wird das Verhältnis der Informationswissenschaft zu benachbarten Disziplinen durch eine Reihe disziplinspezifischer Zeichenanforderungen erklärt, wodurch ein systemischer Zusammenhang entsteht, der die Informationswissenschaft mit den drei anderen zeichenbezogenen und vokabularorientierten Disziplinen in Beziehung setzt. Das Verhältnis zwischen diesen Disziplinen wird anhand der Dimensionen Kontrolle/Verbindlichkeit sowie Verortung des Vokabulars ("im Kopf" vs. in externen Dokumenten) aufgezeigt, und es wird ein übergeordnetes Prinzip der Syntagmatisierung, welches die beiden Dimensionen vereint, vorgeschlagen.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 65(2014) H.2, S.99-108

0.0025760243 = product of:
  0.010304097 = sum of:
    0.010304097 = weight(_text_:information in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010304097 = score(doc=1462,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0025239778 = product of:
  0.010095911 = sum of:
    0.010095911 = weight(_text_:information in 55) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010095911 = score(doc=55,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 55, 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=55)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The terminological consistency of indexers working with a thesaurus as indexing aid remains low. This suggests that indexers cannot perceive easily or very clearly the meaning of each descriptor available as index term. This paper presents the background nd some of the findings of a small scale experiment designed to study the effect on interindexer terminological consistency of modifying the nature of the semantic information given with descriptors in a thesaurus. The study also provided some insights into the respective usefulness of standardized definitions and of traditional networks of hierarchical and associative relationships as means of providing essential meaning information in the thesaurus used as indexing aid

0.002379629 = product of:
  0.009518516 = sum of:
    0.009518516 = weight(_text_:information in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009518516 = score(doc=2615,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

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

0.0021033147 = product of:
  0.008413259 = sum of:
    0.008413259 = weight(_text_:information in 6050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008413259 = score(doc=6050,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 6050, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6050)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: SCHMITZ-ESSER, W.: Language of general communication and concept compatibility; RIESTHUIS, G.: Theory of compatibility of information languages; DAHLBERG, I.: The compatibility guidelines - a re-evaluation; SOERGEL, D.: Data structure and software support for integrated thesauri; MURASZKIEWICZ, M., H. RYBINSKI u. W. STRUK: Software problems of merging multilingual thesauri; CHMIELEWSKA-GORCZYCA, E.: Compatibility of indexing tools in multidatabase environment; NEGRINI, G.: Towards structural compatibility between concept systems; SCIBOR, E.: Some remarks on the establishment of concordances between a universal classification system and an interdisciplinary thesaurus; HOPPE, S.: The UMLS - a model for knowledge integration in a subject field; DEXTRE-CLARKE, S.: Integrating thesauri in the agricultural sciences; ROULIN, C.: Bringing multilingual thesauri together: a feasibility study; ZIMMERMANN, H.: Conception and application possibilities of classification concordances in an OPAC environment; SOSINSKA-KALATA, B.: The Universal Decimal Classification as an international standard for knowledge organization in bibliographic databases and library catalogues; WOZNIAK, J. u. T. GLOWACKA: KABA Subject Authority File - an example of an integrated Polish-French-English subject headings system; BABIK, W.: Terminology as a level for the compatibility of indexing languages - some remarks; STANCIKOVA, P.: International integrated database systems linked to multilingual thesauri covering the field of environment and agriculture; SAMEK, T.: Indexing languages integration and the EUROVOC Thesaurus in the Czech Republic; SIWEK, K.: Compatibility discrepancies between Polish and foreign databases; GLINSKI, W. u. M. MURASZKIEWICZ: An intelligent front-end processor for accessing information systems

0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.2

0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=3644,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Calvin Mooers' work toward the resolution of the problem of ambiguity in indexing went unrecognized for years. At the time he introduced the "descriptor" - a term with a very distinct meaning-indexers were, for the most part, taking index terms directly from the document, without either rationalizing them with context or normalizing them with some kind of classification. It is ironic that Mooers' term came to be attached to the popular but unsophisticated indexing methods which he was trying to root out. Simply expressed, what Mooers did was to take the dictionary definitions of terms and redefine them so clearly that they could not be used in any context except that provided by the new definition. He did, at great pains, construct such meanings for over four hundred words; disambiguation and specificity were sought after and found for these words. He proposed that all indexers adopt this method so that when the index supplied a term, it also supplied the exact meaning for that term as used in the indexed document. The same term used differently in another document would be defined differently and possibly renamed to avoid ambiguity. The disambiguation was achieved by using unabridged dictionaries and other sources of defining terminology. In practice, this tends to produce circularity in definition, that is, word A refers to word B which refers to word C which refers to word A. It was necessary, therefore, to break this chain by creating a new, definitive meaning for each word. Eventually, means such as those used by Austin (q.v.) for PRECIS achieved the same purpose, but by much more complex means than just creating a unique definition of each term. Mooers, however, was probably the first to realize how confusing undefined terminology could be. Early automatic indexers dealt with distinct disciplines and, as long as they did not stray beyond disciplinary boundaries, a quick and dirty keyword approach was satisfactory. The trouble came when attempts were made to make a combined index for two or more distinct disciplines. A number of processes have since been developed, mostly involving tagging of some kind or use of strings. Mooers' solution has rarely been considered seriously and probably would be extremely difficult to apply now because of so much interdisciplinarity. But for a specific, weIl defined field, it is still weIl worth considering. Mooers received training in mathematics and physics from the University of Minnesota and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was the founder of Zator Company, which developed and marketed a coded card information retrieval system, and of Rockford Research, Inc., which engages in research in information science. He is the inventor of the TRAC computer language.

Footnote

Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.

0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=1800,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The SAC Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures was authorized at the 1995 Midwinter Meeting and appointed shortly before Annual Conference. Its creation was one result of a discussion of how (and why) to promote the display and use of broader-term subject heading references, and its charge reads as follows: To investigate: (1) the kinds of relationships that exist between subjects, the display of which are likely to be useful to catalog users; (2) how these relationships are or could be recorded in authorities and classification formats; (3) options for how these relationships should be presented to users of online and print catalogs, indexes, lists, etc. By the summer 1996 Annual Conference, make some recommendations to SAC about how to disseminate the information and/or implement changes. At that time assess the need for additional time to investigate these issues. The Subcommittee's work on each of the imperatives in the charge was summarized in a report issued at the 1996 Annual Conference (Appendix A). Highlights of this work included the development of a taxonomy of 165 subject relationships; a demonstration that, using existing MARC coding, catalog systems could be programmed to generate references they do not currently support; and an examination of reference displays in several CD-ROM database products. Since that time, work has continued on identifying term relationships and display options; on tracking research, discussion, and implementation of subject relationships in information systems; and on compiling a list of further research needs.

Content

Enthält: Appendix A: Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures - REPORT TO THE ALCTS/CCS SUBJECT ANALYSIS COMMITTEE - July 1996 Appendix B (part 1): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (alphabetical display) (Separat in: http://web2.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/CCS/committees/subjectanalysis/subjectrelations/msrscu2.pdf) Appendix B (part 2): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (hierarchical display) Appendix C: Checklist of Candidate Subject Relationships for Information Retrieval. Compiled by Dee Michel, Pat Kuhr, and Jane Greenberg; edited by Greg Wool - June 1997 Appendix D: Review of Reference Displays in Selected CD-ROM Abstracts and Indexes by Harriette Hemmasi and Steven Riel Appendix E: Analysis of Relationships in Six LC Subject Authority Records by Harriette Hemmasi and Gary Strawn Appendix F: Report of a Preliminary Survey of Subject Referencing in OPACs by Gregory Wool Appendix G: LC Subject Referencing in OPACs--Why Bother? by Gregory Wool Appendix H: Research Needs on Subject Relationships and Reference Structures in Information Access compiled by Jane Greenberg and Steven Riel with contributions from Dee Michel and others edited by Gregory Wool Appendix I: Bibliography on Subject Relationships compiled mostly by Dee Michel with additional contributions from Jane Greenberg, Steven Riel, and Gregory Wool

0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 2461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=2461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2461, 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=2461)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Moderne Verfahren des Information Retrieval verlangen nach aussagekräftigen und detailliert relationierten Dokumentationssprachen. Der selektive Transfer einzelner Modellierungsstrategien aus dem Bereich semantischer Technologien für die Gestaltung und Relationierung bestehender Dokumentationssprachen wird diskutiert. Am Beispiel des Gegenstandsbereichs "Theater" der Schlagwortnormdatei wird ein hierarchisch strukturiertes Relationeninventar definiert, welches sowohl hinreichend allgemeine als auch zahlreiche spezifische Relationstypen enthält, welche eine detaillierte und damit funktionale Relationierung des Vokabulars ermöglichen. Die Relationierung des Gegenstandsbereichs wird als Ontologie im OWL-Format modelliert. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Ansätzen und Überlegungen zur Schaffung von Relationeninventaren entwickelt der vorgestellte Vorschlag das Relationeninventar aus der Begriffsmenge eines vorgegebenen Gegenstandsbereichs heraus. Das entwickelte Inventar wird als eine hierarchisch strukturierte Taxonomie gestaltet, was einen Zugewinn an Übersichtlichkeit und Funktionalität bringt.

0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Moderne Verfahren des Information Retrieval verlangen nach aussagekräftigen und detailliert relationierten Dokumentationssprachen. Der selektive Transfer einzelner Modellierungsstrategien aus dem Bereich semantischer Technologien für die Gestaltung und Relationierung bestehender Dokumentationssprachen wird diskutiert. In Form einer Taxonomie wird ein hierarchisch strukturiertes Relationeninventar definiert, welches sowohl hinreichend allgemeine als auch zahlreiche spezifische Relationstypen enthält, die eine detaillierte und damit aussagekräftige Relationierung des Vokabulars ermöglichen. Das bringt einen Zugewinn an Übersichtlichkeit und Funktionalität. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Ansätzen und Überlegungen zur Schaffung von Relationeninventaren entwickelt der vorgestellte Vorschlag das Relationeninventar aus der Begriffsmenge eines bestehenden Gegenstandsbereichs heraus.

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=1148,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.2

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 1837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=1837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1837, 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=1837)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Moderne Verfahren des Information Retrieval verlangen nach aussagekräftigen und detailliert relationierten Dokumentationssprachen. Der selektive Transfer einzelner Modellierungsstrategien aus dem Bereich semantischer Technologien für die Gestaltung und Relationierung bestehender Dokumentationssprachen wird diskutiert. Am Beispiel des Gegenstandsbereichs "Theater" der Schlagwortnormdatei wird ein hierarchisch strukturiertes Relationeninventar definiert, welches sowohl hinreichend allgemeine als auch zahlreiche spezifische Relationstypen enthält, welche eine detaillierte und damit funktionale Relationierung des Vokabulars ermöglichen. Die Relationierung des Gegenstandsbereichs wird als Ontologie im OWL-Format modelliert. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Ansätzen und Überlegungen zur Schaffung von Relationeninventaren entwickelt der vorgestellte Vorschlag das Relationeninventar aus der Begriffsmenge eines vorgegebenen Gegenstandsbereichs heraus. Das entwickelte Inventar wird als eine hierarchisch strukturierte Taxonomie gestaltet, was einen Zugewinn an Übersichtlichkeit und Funktionalität bringt.

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=1520,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of digital information. 1(2001) no.8