Search (99 results, page 1 of 5)

0.053414337 = product of:
  0.106828675 = sum of:
    0.106828675 = sum of:
      0.06366988 = weight(_text_:subject in 3694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06366988 = score(doc=3694,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 3694, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3694)
      0.043158792 = weight(_text_:22 in 3694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043158792 = score(doc=3694,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3694, 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=3694)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A method to develop a prototype domain ontology has been described. The domain selected for the study is Accelerator Driven Systems. This is a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary subject comprising Nuclear Physics, Nuclear and Reactor Engineering, Reactor Fuels and Radioactive Waste Management. Since Accelerator Driven Systems is a vast topic, select areas in it were singled out for the study. Both qualitative and quantitative methods such as Content analysis, Facet analysis and Clustering were used, to develop the web-based model.

Date

22. 7.2010 19:41:16

0.051916353 = product of:
  0.10383271 = sum of:
    0.10383271 = sum of:
      0.06683946 = weight(_text_:subject in 987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06683946 = score(doc=987,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.41066417 = fieldWeight in 987, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=987)
      0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03699325 = score(doc=987,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 987, 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=987)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This book covers the basics of semantic web technologies and indexing languages, and describes their contribution to improve languages as a tool for subject queries and knowledge exploration. The book is relevant to information scientists, knowledge workers and indexers. It provides a suitable combination of theoretical foundations and practical applications.

Date

23. 7.2017 13:49:22

LCSH

World Wide Web / Subject access

Subject

World Wide Web / Subject access

0.03149293 = product of:
  0.06298586 = sum of:
    0.06298586 = sum of:
      0.032158148 = weight(_text_:subject in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032158148 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
      0.03082771 = weight(_text_:22 in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03082771 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 633, 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=633)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Considering the characteristics of hypertext systems and problems such as cognitive overload and the disorientation of users, this project studies subject hypertext documents that have undergone conceptual structuring using facets for content representation and improvement of information retrieval during navigation. The main objective was to assess the possibility of the application of topic map technology for automating the compatibilization process of these structures. For this purpose, two dissertations from the UFMG Information Science Post-Graduation Program were adopted as samples. Both dissertations had been duly analyzed and structured on the MHTX (Hypertextual Map) prototype database. The faceted structures of both dissertations, which had been represented in conceptual maps, were then converted into topic maps. It was then possible to use the merge property of the topic maps to promote the semantic interrelationship between the maps and, consequently, between the hypertextual information resources proper. The merge results were then analyzed in the light of theories dealing with the compatibilization of languages developed within the realm of information technology and librarianship from the 1960s on. The main goals accomplished were: (a) the detailed conceptualization of the merge process of the topic maps, considering the possible compatibilization levels and the applicability of this technology in the integration of faceted structures; and (b) the production of a detailed sequence of steps that may be used in the implementation of topic maps based on faceted structures.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:39:23

0.027103817 = product of:
  0.054207634 = sum of:
    0.054207634 = product of:
      0.21683054 = sum of:
        0.21683054 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21683054 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38580707 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.023631316 = product of:
  0.04726263 = sum of:
    0.04726263 = product of:
      0.09452526 = sum of:
        0.09452526 = weight(_text_:subject in 3150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09452526 = score(doc=3150,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.5807668 = fieldWeight in 3150, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3150)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records (FRSAR) Working Group was formed in 2005 as the third IFLA working group of the FRBR family to address subject authority data issues and to investigate the direct and indirect uses of subject authority data by a wide range of users. This paper introduces the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD), the model developed by the FRSAR Working Group, and discusses it in the context of other related conceptual models defined in the specifications during recent years, including the British Standard BS8723-5: Structured vocabularies for information retrieval - Guide Part 5: Exchange formats and protocols for interoperability, W3C's SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference, and OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. These models enable the consideration of the functions of subject authority data and concept schemes at a higher level that is independent of any implementation, system, or specific context, while allowing us to focus on the semantics, structures, and interoperability of subject authority data.

0.018191395 = product of:
  0.03638279 = sum of:
    0.03638279 = product of:
      0.07276558 = sum of:
        0.07276558 = weight(_text_:subject in 537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07276558 = score(doc=537,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.4470745 = fieldWeight in 537, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=537)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The presentation will examine the potential of facet analysis as a basis for determining status and relationships of concepts in subject based tools using a controlled vocabulary, and the extent to which it can be used as a general theory of knowledge organization as opposed to a methodology for structuring classifications only.

0.018069211 = product of:
  0.036138423 = sum of:
    0.036138423 = product of:
      0.14455369 = sum of:
        0.14455369 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14455369 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38580707 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F1627&ei=tAtYUYrBNoHKtQb3l4GYBw&usg=AFQjCNHeaxKkKU3-u54LWxMNYGXaaDLCGw&sig2=8WykXWQoDKjDSdGtAakH2Q&bvm=bv.44442042,d.Yms.

0.018069211 = product of:
  0.036138423 = sum of:
    0.036138423 = product of:
      0.14455369 = sum of:
        0.14455369 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14455369 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38580707 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Information Technologies. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.cmu.edu%2F~cx%2Fpapers%2Fknowledge_based_text_representation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0SaTSvhWLTh__Uz_HtOtl3.

0.01797695 = product of:
  0.0359539 = sum of:
    0.0359539 = product of:
      0.0719078 = sum of:
        0.0719078 = weight(_text_:subject in 831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0719078 = score(doc=831,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.4418043 = fieldWeight in 831, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=831)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge tends to be structured differently in different types of information resources and information genres due to the different purposes of the resource/genre, and the characteristics of the media or format of the resource. This study investigates subject organization in three types of information resources: books (i.e. monographs), Web directories and information websites that provide information on particular subjects. Twelve subjects (topics) were selected in the areas of science, arts/humanities and social science, and two books, two Web directories and two information websites were sampled for each subject. The top two levels of the hierarchical subject organization in each resource were harvested and analyzed. Books have the highest proportion of general subject categories (e.g. history, theory and definition) and process categories (indicating step-by-step instructions). Information websites have the highest proportion of target user categories and genre-specific categories (e.g. about us and contact us), whereas Web directories have the highest proportion of specialty categories (i.e. sub-disciplines), industry-role categories (e.g. stores, schools and associations) and format categories (e.g. books, blogs and videos). Some disciplinary differences were also identified.

0.016709864 = product of:
  0.03341973 = sum of:
    0.03341973 = product of:
      0.06683946 = sum of:
        0.06683946 = weight(_text_:subject in 1812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06683946 = score(doc=1812,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.41066417 = fieldWeight in 1812, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1812)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper presents the theoretical foundation of Italian indexing system. A consistent integration of vocabulary control through a thesaurus (semantics) and of role analysis to construct subject strings (syntax) allows to represent the full theme of a work, even if complex, in one string. The conceptual model produces a binary scheme: each aspect (entities, relationships, etc.) consists of a couple of elements, drawing the two lines of semantics and syntax. The meaning of 'concept' and 'theme' is analysed, also in comparison with the FRBR and FRSAD models, with the proposal of an en riched model. A double existence of concepts is suggested: document-independent adn document-dependent.

Source

Subject access: preparing for the future. Conference on August 20 - 21, 2009 in Florence, the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section sponsored an IFLA satellite conference entitled "Looking at the Past and Preparing for the Future". Eds.: P. Landry et al

0.01591747 = product of:
  0.03183494 = sum of:
    0.03183494 = product of:
      0.06366988 = sum of:
        0.06366988 = weight(_text_:subject in 504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06366988 = score(doc=504,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 504, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=504)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article introduces the Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS), a Semantic Web language for representing controlled structured vocabularies, including thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading systems and taxonomies. SKOS provides a framework for publishing thesauri, classification schemes, and subject indexes on the Web, and for applying these systems to resource collections that are part of the SemanticWeb. SemanticWeb applications may harvest and merge SKOS data, to integrate and enhances retrieval service across multiple collections (e.g. libraries). This article also describes some alternatives for integrating Semantic Web services based on the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and SKOS into a distributed enterprise architecture.

0.01591747 = product of:
  0.03183494 = sum of:
    0.03183494 = product of:
      0.06366988 = sum of:
        0.06366988 = weight(_text_:subject in 538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06366988 = score(doc=538,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 538, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=538)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The presentation will briefly introduce a series of major principles for bringing subject terminology to the network level. A closer look at one KOS in particular, the Dewey Decimal Classification, should help to gain more insight into the perceived difficulties and potential benefits of building taxonomy services out and on top of classic large-scale vocabularies or taxonomies.

0.015413855 = product of:
  0.03082771 = sum of:
    0.03082771 = product of:
      0.06165542 = sum of:
        0.06165542 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06165542 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.11-22

0.015413855 = product of:
  0.03082771 = sum of:
    0.03082771 = product of:
      0.06165542 = sum of:
        0.06165542 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06165542 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5576, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5576)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13.12.2017 14:17:22

0.015413855 = product of:
  0.03082771 = sum of:
    0.03082771 = product of:
      0.06165542 = sum of:
        0.06165542 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06165542 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:07

0.015413855 = product of:
  0.03082771 = sum of:
    0.03082771 = product of:
      0.06165542 = sum of:
        0.06165542 = weight(_text_:22 in 3406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06165542 = score(doc=3406,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3406, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3406)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 5.2010 16:22:35

0.015413855 = product of:
  0.03082771 = sum of:
    0.03082771 = product of:
      0.06165542 = sum of:
        0.06165542 = weight(_text_:22 in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06165542 = score(doc=4523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4523, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2018, H.1, S.22-27

0.014381561 = product of:
  0.028763123 = sum of:
    0.028763123 = product of:
      0.057526246 = sum of:
        0.057526246 = weight(_text_:subject in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057526246 = score(doc=549,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.35344344 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

LCSH is known as such since 1975. It always has created headings to serve the LC collections instead of a theoretical basis. It started to replace cross reference codes by thesaural codes in 1986, in a mechanical fashion. It was in no way transformed into a thesaurus. Its encyclopedic coverage, its pre-coordinate concepts make it substantially distinct, considering that thesauri usually map a restricted field of knowledge and use uniterms. The questions raised are whether the new symbols comply with thesaurus standards and if they are true to one or to several models. Explanations and definitions from other lists of subject headings and thesauri, literature in the field of classification and subject indexing will provide some answers. For instance, see refers from a subject heading not used to another or others used. Exceptionally it will lead from a specific term to a more general one. Some equate a see reference with the equivalence relationship. Such relationships are pointed by USE in LCSH. See also references are made from the broader subject to narrower parts of it and also between associated subjects. They suggest lateral or vertical connexions as well as reciprocal relationships. They serve a coordination purpose for some, lay down a methodical search itinerary for others. Since their inception in the 1950's thesauri have been devised for indexing and retrieving information in the fields of science and technology. Eventually they attended to a number of social sciences and humanities. Research derived from thesauri was voluminous. Numerous guidelines are designed. They did not discriminate between the "hard" sciences and the social sciences. RT relationships are widely but diversely used in numerous controlled vocabularies. LCSH's aim is to achieve a list almost free of RT and SA references. It thus restricts relationships to BT/NT, USE and UF. This raises the question as to whether all fields of knowledge can "fit" in the Procrustean bed of RT/NT, i.e., genus/species relationships. Standard codes were devised. It was soon realized that BT/NT, well suited to the genus/species couple could not signal a whole-part relationship. In LCSH, BT and NT function as reciprocals, the whole-part relationship is taken into account by ISO. It is amply elaborated upon by authors. The part-whole connexion is sometimes studied apart. The decision to replace cross reference codes was an improvement. Relations can now be distinguished through the distinct needs of numerous fields of knowledge are not attended to. Topic inclusion, and topic-subtopic, could provide the missing link where genus/species or whole/part are inadequate. Distinct codes, BT/NT and whole/part, should be provided. Sorting relationships with mechanical means can only lead to confusion.

0.0139248865 = product of:
  0.027849773 = sum of:
    0.027849773 = product of:
      0.055699546 = sum of:
        0.055699546 = weight(_text_:subject in 841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055699546 = score(doc=841,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 841, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Conceptualization is at the core of developing domain ontologies. This paper reports a study for developing an ontology for a micro-domain - Test Blanket Module (TBM), an integral part of thermonuclear or fusion reactors. Sample data downloaded from yielded 1115 unique DEI (indexer-assigned) descriptors assigned to 548 records on TBM. The frequencies of occurrence of all the unique descriptors, the corresponding co-word DEI descriptors (AN numbers) were identified On the basis of their research linkages the descriptors were grouped into four quadrants. It was found, that the descriptors in the 2nd and 3rd quadrants were at the core of the selected subject. A total of 31 core descriptors from these were selected for conceptualization and for each the co-occurring descriptors and their frequencies of co-occurrence with the selected descriptor were noted. Only descriptor pairs that co-occurred 10 times or higher were considered. Comparison of Co-Word Word Blocks (CWWBs) and word blocks (INISWB) from the INIS thesaurus showed differences. Co-words were used to semantically enrich descriptors transforming them into more comprehensive concepts; these were used as building blocks for conceptualization and for domain ontology. This method could be replicated to generate semantic networks (which could form an Ontological layer on any subject of study) and also in query expansion during search and retrieval in interdisciplinary subject domains.

0.0139248865 = product of:
  0.027849773 = sum of:
    0.027849773 = product of:
      0.055699546 = sum of:
        0.055699546 = weight(_text_:subject in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055699546 = score(doc=5787,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 5787, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5787)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study considers the expressiveness (that is the expressive power or expressivity) of different types of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) and discusses its potential to be machine-processable in the context of the Semantic Web. For this purpose, the theoretical foundations of KOS are reviewed based on conceptualizations introduced by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) and the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS); natural language processing techniques are also implemented. Applying a comparative analysis, the dataset comprises a thesaurus (Eurovoc), a subject headings system (LCSH) and a classification scheme (DDC). These are compared with an ontology (CIDOC-CRM) by focusing on how they define and handle concepts and relations. It was observed that LCSH and DDC focus on the formalism of character strings (nomens) rather than on the modelling of semantics; their definition of what constitutes a concept is quite fuzzy, and they comprise a large number of complex concepts. By contrast, thesauri have a coherent definition of what constitutes a concept, and apply a systematic approach to the modelling of relations. Ontologies explicitly define diverse types of relations, and are by their nature machine-processable. The paper concludes that the potential of both the expressiveness and machine processability of each KOS is extensively regulated by its structural rules. It is harder to represent subject headings and classification schemes as semantic networks with nodes and arcs, while thesauri are more suitable for such a representation. In addition, a paradigm shift is revealed which focuses on the modelling of relations between concepts, rather than the concepts themselves.