Search (32 results, page 1 of 2)

0.043962225 = product of:
  0.06594334 = sum of:
    0.055953935 = weight(_text_:development in 1921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055953935 = score(doc=1921,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.34946 = fieldWeight in 1921, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1921)
    0.009989405 = product of:
      0.029968213 = sum of:
        0.029968213 = weight(_text_:29 in 1921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029968213 = score(doc=1921,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1921, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1921)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Classification schemes, thesauri, taxonomies, and other controlled vocabularies play important roles in the organization and retrieval of information in many different environments. While the design and construction of controlled vocabularies have been prescribed at the technical level in great detail over the past decades, the methodological level has been somewhat neglected. However, classification research has in recent years focused on developing approaches to the analysis of users, domains, and activities that could produce requirements for the design of controlled vocabularies. Researchers have often argued that the design, construction, and use of controlled vocabularies need to be based on analyses and understandings of the contexts in which these controlled vocabularies function. While one would assume that the growing body of research on human information behavior might help guide the development of controlled vocabularies shed light on these contexts, unfortunately, much of the research in this area is descriptive in nature and of little use for systems design. This paper discusses these trends and outlines a holistic approach that demonstrates how the design of controlled vocabularies can be informed by investigations of people's interactions with information. This approach is based on the Cognitive Work Analysis framework and outlines several dimensions of human-information interactions. Application of this approach will result is a comprehensive understanding of the contexts in which the controlled vocabulary will function and which can be used for the development of for the development of controlled vocabularies.

Source

Knowledge organization. 35(2008) no.1, S.16-29

0.039474797 = product of:
  0.059212193 = sum of:
    0.04522703 = weight(_text_:development in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04522703 = score(doc=1395,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.28246516 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
    0.013985164 = product of:
      0.041955493 = sum of:
        0.041955493 = weight(_text_:29 in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041955493 = score(doc=1395,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.03383554 = product of:
  0.05075331 = sum of:
    0.038766023 = weight(_text_:development in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038766023 = score(doc=5585,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.242113 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
    0.011987286 = product of:
      0.035961855 = sum of:
        0.035961855 = weight(_text_:29 in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035961855 = score(doc=5585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper forms part of the series "60 years of the best in information research", marking the 60th anniversary of the Journal of Documentation. It aims to review the influence of Brian Vickery's 1971 paper, "Structure and function in retrieval languages". The paper is not an update of Vickery's work, but a comment on a greatly changed environment, in which his analysis still has much validity. Design/methodology/approach - A commentary on selected literature illustrates the continuing relevance of Vickery's ideas. Findings - Generic survey and specific reference are still the main functions of retrieval languages, with minor functional additions such as relevance ranking. New structures are becoming increasingly significant, through developments such as XML. Future development in artificial intelligence hold out new prospects still. Originality/value - The paper shows the continuing relevance of "traditional" ideas of information science from the 1960s and 1970s.

Source

Journal of documentation. 62(2006) no.1, S.21-29

0.018563017 = product of:
  0.055689048 = sum of:
    0.055689048 = product of:
      0.08353357 = sum of:
        0.041955493 = weight(_text_:29 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041955493 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
        0.04157808 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04157808 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1535205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

2. 3.2013 12:29:05

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.017229345 = product of:
  0.05168803 = sum of:
    0.05168803 = weight(_text_:development in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05168803 = score(doc=4781,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.32281733 = fieldWeight in 4781, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4781)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Contemporary research in information science has concentrated on the development of methods for the algorithmic processing of natural language texts. Often, the equivalence of this approach to the intellectual technique of content analysis and indexing is claimed. It is, however, disregarded that contemporary intellectual techniques are far from exploiting their full capabilities. This is largely due to the omission of vocabulary categorisation. It is demonstrated how categorisation can drastically improve the quality of indexing and classification, and, hence, of retrieval

0.015075676 = product of:
  0.04522703 = sum of:
    0.04522703 = weight(_text_:development in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04522703 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.28246516 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Several attempts have been made to develop a classification of relationships, but none of these have been widely accepted or applied within information science. It would seem that information scientists, while appreciating the potential value of a classification of relationships, have found all previous classifications to be too complicated in application relative to the benefits they provide. This paper begins by reviewing previous attempts and drawing lessons from these. It then surveys a range of sources within and beyond the field of knowledge organization that can together provide the basis for the development of a novel classification of relationships. One critical insight is that relationships governing causation/influence should be accorded priority.

0.012922008 = product of:
  0.038766023 = sum of:
    0.038766023 = weight(_text_:development in 5448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038766023 = score(doc=5448,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.242113 = fieldWeight in 5448, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5448)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this paper the possibility to develop a richer relational structure for thesauri is explored and described. The development of a new environmental thesaurus - EARTh (Environmental Applications Reference Thesaurus) - is serving as a case study for exploring the refinement of thesaurus relational structure by specialising standard relationships into different subtypes. Together with benefits and opportunities, implications and possible challenges that an expanded set of thesaurus relations may cause are evaluated.

0.012922008 = product of:
  0.038766023 = sum of:
    0.038766023 = weight(_text_:development in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038766023 = score(doc=1148,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.242113 = fieldWeight in 1148, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1148)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Relationships between the terms in thesauri and Indexes are the subject of national and international standards. The standards for thesauri enumerate and provide criteria for three basic types of relationship: equivalence, hierarchical, and associative. Standards and guidelines for indexes draw an the thesaurus standards to provide less detailed guidance for showing relationships between the terms used in an Index. The international standard for multilingual thesauri adds recommendations for assuring equal treatment of the languages of a thesaurus. The present standards were developed when lookup and search were essentially manual, and the value of the kinds of relationships has never been determined. It is not clear whether users understand or can use the distinctions between kinds of relationships. On the other hand, sophisticated text analysis systems may be able both to assist with development of more powerful term relationship schemes and to use the relationships to improve retrieval.

0.012922008 = product of:
  0.038766023 = sum of:
    0.038766023 = weight(_text_:development in 2241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038766023 = score(doc=2241,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.242113 = fieldWeight in 2241, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2241)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Intertextual semantics is a semiotics-based approach to the design of communication artefacts primarily aimed at modeling XML structured documents. SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System) is a specification currently under development at the W3C that allows expressing various types of controlled vocabularies in XML. In this article, we show through an example how intertextual semantics could be applied to controlled vocabularies expressed in SKOS, and argue that it could facilitate the communication of meaning among the various persons who interact with a controlled vocabulary.

0.012922008 = product of:
  0.038766023 = sum of:
    0.038766023 = weight(_text_:development in 2202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038766023 = score(doc=2202,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.242113 = fieldWeight in 2202, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2202)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The paper presents the rationale, significance, method and procedure of building a taxonomy of semantic relations in the oil spill domain for supporting knowledge discovery through inference. Difficult problems during the development of the taxonomy are discussed and partial solutions are proposed. A preliminary functional evaluation of the taxonomy for supporting knowledge discovery was performed. Durability an expansibility of the taxonomy were evaluated by using the taxonomy to classifying the terms in a biomedical relation ontology. The taxonomy was found to have full expansibility and high degree of durability. The study proposes more research problems than solutions.

0.010768341 = product of:
  0.03230502 = sum of:
    0.03230502 = weight(_text_:development in 1139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230502 = score(doc=1139,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.20176083 = fieldWeight in 1139, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1139)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

With fourteen contributions grouped in two sections, "Theoretical background" and "Systems", this work discusses the most common relationships used in the organization of recorded knowledge to facilitate information retrieval: the relationships between bibliographic entities, intra- and intertextual relationships, relevance relationships, and subject relationships in thesauri and other classificatory structures. The editors' goal is to "spur further interest, debate, research, and development".

0.010655365 = product of:
  0.031966094 = sum of:
    0.031966094 = product of:
      0.09589828 = sum of:
        0.09589828 = weight(_text_:29 in 1592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09589828 = score(doc=1592,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.6218451 = fieldWeight in 1592, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1592)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Library science with a slant to documentation. 11(1974), S.23-29

0.009239574 = product of:
  0.027718721 = sum of:
    0.027718721 = product of:
      0.08315616 = sum of:
        0.08315616 = weight(_text_:22 in 4506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08315616 = score(doc=4506,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1535205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4506, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4506)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

8.10.2000 11:52:22

0.007537838 = product of:
  0.022613514 = sum of:
    0.022613514 = weight(_text_:development in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022613514 = score(doc=1800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.14123258 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.007466703 = product of:
  0.02240011 = sum of:
    0.02240011 = product of:
      0.067200325 = sum of:
        0.067200325 = weight(_text_:22 in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067200325 = score(doc=2943,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1535205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

31. 7.2006 14:22:21

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.1, S.77-93

0.0066596037 = product of:
  0.01997881 = sum of:
    0.01997881 = product of:
      0.059936427 = sum of:
        0.059936427 = weight(_text_:29 in 2566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059936427 = score(doc=2566,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 2566, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2566)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

6. 1.1999 9:29:10

0.0066596037 = product of:
  0.01997881 = sum of:
    0.01997881 = product of:
      0.059936427 = sum of:
        0.059936427 = weight(_text_:29 in 3538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059936427 = score(doc=3538,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 3538, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3538)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

11. 6.2005 19:38:29

0.006599696 = product of:
  0.019799087 = sum of:
    0.019799087 = product of:
      0.059397258 = sum of:
        0.059397258 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059397258 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1535205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Pages

S.11-22

0.006461004 = product of:
  0.019383011 = sum of:
    0.019383011 = weight(_text_:development in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019383011 = score(doc=1978,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.1210565 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Linguists in the structuralist tradition (e.g., Lyons, 1977; Saussure, 1959) have asserted that concepts cannot be defined on their own but only in relation to other concepts. Semantic relations appear to reflect a logical structure in the fundamental nature of thought (Caplan & Herrmann, 1993). Green, Bean, and Myaeng (2002) noted that semantic relations play a critical role in how we represent knowledge psychologically, linguistically, and computationally, and that many systems of knowledge representation start with a basic distinction between entities and relations. Green (2001, p. 3) said that "relationships are involved as we combine simple entities to form more complex entities, as we compare entities, as we group entities, as one entity performs a process on another entity, and so forth. Indeed, many things that we might initially regard as basic and elemental are revealed upon further examination to involve internal structure, or in other words, internal relationships." Concepts and relations are often expressed in language and text. Language is used not just for communicating concepts and relations, but also for representing, storing, and reasoning with concepts and relations. We shall examine the nature of semantic relations from a linguistic and psychological perspective, with an emphasis on relations expressed in text. The usefulness of semantic relations in information science, especially in ontology construction, information extraction, information retrieval, question-answering, and text summarization is discussed. Research and development in information science have focused on concepts and terms, but the focus will increasingly shift to the identification, processing, and management of relations to achieve greater effectiveness and refinement in information science techniques. Previous chapters in ARIST on natural language processing (Chowdhury, 2003), text mining (Trybula, 1999), information retrieval and the philosophy of language (Blair, 2003), and query expansion (Efthimiadis, 1996) provide a background for this discussion, as semantic relations are an important part of these applications.

0.0053276825 = product of:
  0.015983047 = sum of:
    0.015983047 = product of:
      0.04794914 = sum of:
        0.04794914 = weight(_text_:29 in 4949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04794914 = score(doc=4949,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 4949, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4949)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

29. 2.2008 19:20:53