Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0059471927 = product of:
  0.029735964 = sum of:
    0.029735964 = product of:
      0.059471928 = sum of:
        0.059471928 = weight(_text_:problems in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059471928 = score(doc=108,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.39493 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The case under consideration is a project of building an interdisciplinary multilingual thesaurus (Romanian-English-French) starting from a list of indexing terms based on an abridged version of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC). The resulting thesaurus is intended for public libraries for both indexing and searching purposes in bibliographic databases covering a wide range of topics but with a fairly low level of specificity. The problems encountered in such an approach fall into two groups: 1) concordance or compatibility problems in terms of the indexing languages considered (between a classification system and a thesaurus); 2) equivalence and, hence, translatability problems in terms of the natural languages involved. Additionally, the question of ambiguity given the co-occurrence of terms in more than one class, will be discussed with reference to homographs and polysemantic words. In a thesaurus with such a wide coverage yet with a low specificity level, the method adopted in the thesaurus construction was to provide as many lead-in terms as possible and post them up to the closest in meaning broader term in order to improve the recall ratio

0.004855863 = product of:
  0.024279313 = sum of:
    0.024279313 = product of:
      0.048558626 = sum of:
        0.048558626 = weight(_text_:problems in 1593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048558626 = score(doc=1593,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.322459 = fieldWeight in 1593, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In the early 1990s, indexing with classification codes from the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) in an academic library, going from traditional to automated routines in any and all its activities, suddenly proved insufficient. Under the circumstances of online searching, the possibilities offered by the new OPAC looked much more attractive to indexers and searchers alike. Therefore, a quick shift to indexing with UDC and keywords instead of UDC numbers alone was made. Currency, precision and, more importantly, user-friendliness were strong advantages offered by keyword indexing and searching. But the larger the dictionary of keywords, the more problematic the consequences an information scattering, given the lack of control an terms. The present paper describes the advantages of the UDC in indexing by presenting some of the devices it is provided with: subdivision by analogy, common and special auxiliaries, use of synthesis, and use of connecting symbols. The solution of indexing with both UDC notation and words from a thesaurus based an UDC was prompted by some other characteristics of the schedules: a semi-faceted classification system, hierarchical organisation, richness in terminology and consistency and control of notation. The methodology used in building the thesaurus is conceived according to the international standards (ISO 2788 and 5964) to which some principles have been added, giving the specific approach of harmonising a classification structure with that of a thesaurus. Compatibility and translatability issues are also considered and some problems arising from them are treated in detail. Most of the problems discussed are illustrated with examples.

0.002965881 = product of:
  0.014829405 = sum of:
    0.014829405 = product of:
      0.02965881 = sum of:
        0.02965881 = weight(_text_:22 in 3697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02965881 = score(doc=3697,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3697, 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=3697)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2010 20:40:56

0.0024715676 = product of:
  0.0123578375 = sum of:
    0.0123578375 = product of:
      0.024715675 = sum of:
        0.024715675 = weight(_text_:22 in 4692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024715675 = score(doc=4692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4692, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.001977254 = product of:
  0.009886269 = sum of:
    0.009886269 = product of:
      0.019772539 = sum of:
        0.019772539 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019772539 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

17. 6.2015 14:40:22