Search (40 results, page 1 of 2)

0.046352074 = product of:
  0.06952811 = sum of:
    0.014125061 = weight(_text_:in in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125061 = score(doc=1182,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 1182, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1182)
    0.05540305 = sum of:
      0.020020355 = weight(_text_:science in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020020355 = score(doc=1182,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1182, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1182)
      0.035382695 = weight(_text_:22 in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035382695 = score(doc=1182,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1182, 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=1182)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Contemporary information systems, both the private and the commercially available ones, have often been blamed for their low effectiveness in terms of precision and recall, especially when they have reached considerable size with respect to file volume and use frequency (see, for example, Belkin, 1980; Blair, 1996, p.19; Desai, 1997; Drabenstott, 1996; Knorz, 1998). Saracevic (1989), after having reviewed the contemporary design of online subject access, calls "for radically different design principles and implementation" (p. 107). Van Rijsbergen (1990) writes: "The keywords approach with statistical techniques has reached its theoretical limit and further attempts for improvement are considered a waste of time" (p. 111). Lancaster (1992) deplores that very little really significant literature an subject indexing has been published in the last thirty or so years. In her preface to the Proceedings of the Sixth International Study Conference an Classification Research in 1997, Mcllwaine (1997) writes, "many were surprised to find that the problems with which they wrestle today are not greatly different from those that have been occupying the minds of specialists in the field for over a generation, and probably a great deal longer" (p. v).

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Imprint

Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science

Source

Saving the time of the library user through subject access innovation: Papers in honor of Pauline Atherton Cochrane. Ed.: W.J. Wheeler

0.022066902 = product of:
  0.03310035 = sum of:
    0.017084066 = weight(_text_:in in 2091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017084066 = score(doc=2091,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 2091, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2091)
    0.016016284 = product of:
      0.032032568 = sum of:
        0.032032568 = weight(_text_:science in 2091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032032568 = score(doc=2091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 2091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The human's expressing general concepts in uncontrolled natural language, his information need, and meaning recognition in and essence selection from texts are indeterminate processes and therefore defy any satisfactory formalization and programming. Where the equivalence or even superiority of algorithmic approaches to these golas has been claimed, the authors have worked under artificial, experimental conditions and/or have in their evaluation referred to those approaches that are far from exploiting the capabilities of intellectual content analysis, representation and query phrasing

0.020541014 = product of:
  0.03081152 = sum of:
    0.014795236 = weight(_text_:in in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014795236 = score(doc=4781,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 4781, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4781)
    0.016016284 = product of:
      0.032032568 = sum of:
        0.032032568 = weight(_text_:science in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032032568 = score(doc=4781,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 4781, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.1

0.019867256 = product of:
  0.029800884 = sum of:
    0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 8278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012813049 = score(doc=8278,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 8278, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8278)
    0.016987834 = product of:
      0.03397567 = sum of:
        0.03397567 = weight(_text_:science in 8278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03397567 = score(doc=8278,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 8278, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8278)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The tight adherence to dogmas, created and advocated by authorities and disseminated through hearsay, constitutes an impediment to the progress badly needed in view of the low effectiveness of the vast majority of our bibliographic information systems. The Italian mathematician and physicist Galileo has become famous not only for his discoveries but also for his being exposed to the rejective and even hostile attitude on the part of his contemporaries when he contradicted several dogmas prevailing at that time. This obstructive attitude can be traced throughout the centuries and manifests itself in the field of modern information science, too. An example is the allegedly necessary, inevitable precision/recall relationship, as most recently postulated again by Lancaster (1994). It is believed to be confirmed by emprical evidence, with other empirical evidence to the contrary being neglected. This case even constitutes an example of the suppression of truth in the interest of upholding a dogma

0.019308537 = product of:
  0.028962806 = sum of:
    0.014948557 = weight(_text_:in in 4115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014948557 = score(doc=4115,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 4115, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4115)
    0.014014249 = product of:
      0.028028497 = sum of:
        0.028028497 = weight(_text_:science in 4115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028028497 = score(doc=4115,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 4115, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4115)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The comparative evaluation of different mechanized information systems continues to constitute a controversial topic in the literature. Diametrically differemt opinions, seemingly corroborated through empirical evidence, have been presented since the time of the Cranfield experiments. For literally anything an empirical 'proof' can be submitted provided that suitable examples are selected and methods are chosen. substantial advance in Library and Information Science requires abandoning empiricism. Budd's 'hermeneutic phenomenoloy' seems to constitute a promising substitute

Footnote

Dedicated to Dr. Ingetraut Dahlberg on the occasion of her retirement from ISKO presidency, in recognition of her merits for the foundation of ISKO and of her untiring efforts for its sustainment

0.01873103 = product of:
  0.028096544 = sum of:
    0.01208026 = weight(_text_:in in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01208026 = score(doc=215,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 215, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=215)
    0.016016284 = product of:
      0.032032568 = sum of:
        0.032032568 = weight(_text_:science in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032032568 = score(doc=215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 215, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: International classification 12(1985) S.106 (L. Kalok)

Series

Sarada Ranganathan Lectures; 14)(Sarada Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science series ; 16

0.011794232 = product of:
  0.035382695 = sum of:
    0.035382695 = product of:
      0.07076539 = sum of:
        0.07076539 = weight(_text_:22 in 1085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07076539 = score(doc=1085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1085, 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=1085)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

18. 8.2022 19:22:57

0.010886889 = product of:
  0.016330333 = sum of:
    0.011325245 = weight(_text_:in in 665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011325245 = score(doc=665,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.15940484 = fieldWeight in 665, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=665)
    0.0050050886 = product of:
      0.010010177 = sum of:
        0.010010177 = weight(_text_:science in 665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010010177 = score(doc=665,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.07275795 = fieldWeight in 665, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=665)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

1. Im täglichen Leben oder im Beruf steht man oftmals vor der Aufgabe, nach Wissen zu suchen, das man in einem Buch gefunden hat oder das man darin vermutet. Dann ist es für den Suchenden lästig oder sogar unzumutbar, wenn er bei dieser Suche auf planloses Blättern angewiesen ist, bis er fündig geworden ist oder bis er schließlich zu dem Schluss gelangt, dass das Gesuchte im Buch wohl nicht enthalten ist, dies vielleicht nur irrtümlich, weil er wegen Zeitmangels vorzeitig aufgeben musste. 2. Jedes Buch, in welchem wiederverwertbares Wissen niedergelegt ist und welches nicht ausschließlich der Unterhaltung dient, sollte deswegen ein Register haben. Inhaltsverzeichnisse allein können wegen ihres allzu allgemeinen Charakters keinen ausreichend gut gezielten Zugang zum Wissen des Buches vermitteln. Als Suchender würde man allzu viel Zeit brauchen, um das momentan Interessierende darin aufzufinden. 3. Buchregister werden schon seit Jahrhunderten in unterschiedlichen Varianten angefertigt, in Abhängigkeit von der Eigenart der betreffenden Bücher, von der Verfügbarkeit von Platz und Zeit, und damit auch in Abhängigkeit von dem für das Register verfügbare Geld, abhängig aber auch von Erfahrung und Sachkundigkeit der Indexer und von den verfügbaren technischen Hilfsmitteln. 4. Ein gutes Register macht das im Buch enthaltene Wissen leicht und lückenlos wiederauffindbar und wiederverwertbar. So erlangt ein Buch erst dann seinen vollen Wert, wenn es für das gezielte (Wieder-) Auffinden von darin enthaltenem Wissen in der Weise inhaltlich erschlossen ist, dass man einen gesicherten Zugriff auf das Gesuchte hat. Dies gilt besonders für Lehr- und Anleitungsbücher. Dies ist eine Erfahrung, die schon fast so alt ist wie der Buchdruck selbst (Wellisch 1986, 1994A). 5. Mehr Bücher als jemals zuvor werden heutzutage produziert, aller Konkurrenz durch die elektronischen Medien zum Trotz. An der Notwendigkeit, das Wissen in diesen Büchern zu nutzen, hat sich nichts geändert und auch nichts an der Notwendigkeit, den Inhalt dieser Bücher leicht wiederauffindbar zu machen. Man möchte möglichst vollständig zu denjenigen Stellen im Buch hingeleitet werden, wo der Gegenstand des momentanen Interesses abgehandelt ist, und man möchte hierbei möglichst wenigem Ballast an Hinweisen auf thematisch nichteinschlägige Passagen ausgesetzt sein, denn dem Menschen steht immer nur ein sehr beschränktes Maß an Zeit und Aufmerksamkeit zum Suchen zur Verfügung. Dies sind kostbare Ressourcen, mit denen sorgsam umgegangen werden muss. Es gilt das 4. Gesetz der Bibliothekswissenschaft (Ranganathan 1967): "Save the time of the reader".
6. In diesem Buch wird in den Kapiteln 2 bis 5 ein Grundkursus zur Theorie der Inhaltserschließung angeboten, wobei die Möglichkeiten und Grenzen von natursprachiger und indexsprachiger Ausdrucksweise geklärt werden, sowie auch der Unterschied zwischen Ausdruck und Begriff, zwischen den Recherchetypen von Erinnerung und Entdeckung, zwischen den Indexierungstypen von Zuteilung und Extraktion und auch der Unterschied zwischen Register und Konkordanz. Auf einer solchen Grundlage kann der Indexer besser den Nutzen der einzelnen Indexierungswerkzeuge abschätzen, sowie auch die nachteiligen Folgen, welche durch den Verzicht auf das eine oder das andere dieser Werkzeuge zwangsläufig eintreten. In der Literatur ist zwar der Standpunkt anzutreffen, dass "allzu viel Theorie" zu vermeiden sei, weil sie doch so "grau" sei. Aber wir schließen uns lieber dem Standpunkt des Physikers Ludwig Boltzmann an: "Nichts ist praktischer als Theorie", wenn eine solche Theorie das Beobachtbare erklären und das Zukünftige voraussagen kann. 7. Im Kapitel 7 werden die Bestandteile des Schlagwort-Registers in Gestalt von Schlagwort und Fundstelle, Untereintrag und Verweisung abgehandelt und das Zusammenfügen dieser Komponenten zum Register der herkömmlichen indikativen Art. Dieser Registertyp ist gekennzeichnet durch seine Beschränkungen bezüglich der Inanspruchnahme von Platz für den Druck und durch seine Beschränkungen bezüglich des Aufwandes an Zeit und Geld zu seiner Erstellung. Es werden die hiermit zwangläufig verbundenen Mängel dargelegt. 8. Im Kapitel 8 wird die Überwindung dieser Mängel durch die Einführung von reichlichen und ausführlichen Untereinträgen gezeigt. Das Register nimmt hierdurch einen ausgesprochen informativen Charakter an. Zugleich werden auf diesem Weg auch Wesen und Nutzen eines systematischen Registers dargelegt, welches zusätzlich zum herkömmlichen alphabetischen Register vorgelegt wird. 9. Die Möglichkeit zu alledem eröffnet sich dadurch, dass eine hochentwickelte Software eingesetzt wird und dass ein außergewöhnlicher Arbeitsaufwand aufseiten des Indexers nicht gescheut wird, verbunden mit entsprechend hohen Kosten. Dieser Aufwand ist erforderlich für die Formulierung von zahlreichen und ausführlichen Untereinträgen, zum Aufbau eines systematischen, thesaurusgestützten Schlagwort-Vokabulars und für eine besonders sorgfältige Indexierung. 10. Dieses Modell eines kompletten informativen Registers ist als eine Art Werkzeugkasten zu verstehen, aus welchem man diejenigen gedanklichen und technischen Werkzeuge auswählen und miteinander kombinieren kann, welche der jeweils herrschenden Bedarfslage am besten angemessen sind. Man wird von diesen Werkzeugen besonders dann ausgiebig Gebrauch machen, wenn hohe Anforderungen an die Treffsicherheit und Leichtigkeit der Recherche gestellt werden, Anforderungen, welche mit einem Register der herkömmlichen indikativen Art nicht erfüllbar sind. Der hohe Aufwand für ein gutes Register ist natürlich nur dann gerechtfertigt, wenn aufseiten der Leser auch wirklich Bedarf zum Nachschlagen besteht. Man wird kein Register für ein Buch anlegen, welches nur zur Unterhaltung und Erbauung gelesen und dann für alle Zeiten beiseite gelegt wird.

Footnote

Rez. in: Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis 58(2007) H.3, S.186 (J. Bertram): "Bei aller Kritik: Das Buch gemahnt eindrücklich daran, dass ein gutes Register sowohl den Anforderungen einer Entdeckungsrecherche als auch denen einer Erinnerungsrecherche dienlich sein sollte, um es mit Fugmanns Worten auszudrücken. Heißt: Es soll nicht nur denen zugute kommen, die das Buch gelesen haben, sondern eben gerade auch denjenigen, die es nicht gelesen haben. Nicht nur erinnerte Wortlaute sollen mit ihm wieder auffindbar sein, vielmehr soll das Register auch schnelle Antworten auf die Frage ermöglichen, ob ein Buch zum interessierenden Thema Ergiebiges enthält. Und dass für das zweite Anliegen ein Aufwand zu betreiben ist, der über ein reines Stichwortregister hinausgeht, wird von Fugmann anschaulich und überzeugend dargestellt. Auch seinem Wunsch, dass bei der Rezension vor Büchern Vorhandensein und Qualität des Registers (stärkere) Berücksichtigung finden mögen, ist uneingeschränkt zuzustimmen. Dass das vor ihm produzierte Register des Guten zu viel tut, steht auf einem anderen Blatt."
Weitere Rez. in: Knowledge organization 34(2007) no.1, S.60-61 (I. Dahlberg): "... In conclusion, I would like to congratulate Robert Fugmann for having written this book in such a short time and - may I disclose it too? - just before his 80th birthday. And I know it is his desire to show that by improving the science of book indexing in the way demonstrated in this book, the readers will be offered an instrument for making book indexing and index reading a joy for the index readers and an adventure in an enticing world thus entered into via an intelligent presentation of knowledge!"

0.010677523 = product of:
  0.032032568 = sum of:
    0.032032568 = product of:
      0.064065136 = sum of:
        0.064065136 = weight(_text_:science in 1944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064065136 = score(doc=1944,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.4656509 = fieldWeight in 1944, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1944)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 36(1985) no.2, S.116-129

0.008008142 = product of:
  0.024024425 = sum of:
    0.024024425 = product of:
      0.04804885 = sum of:
        0.04804885 = weight(_text_:science in 1674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04804885 = score(doc=1674,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 1674, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1674)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 25(1974), S.287-307

0.006164682 = product of:
  0.018494045 = sum of:
    0.018494045 = weight(_text_:in in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018494045 = score(doc=1634,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.260307 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Subject indexing: principles and practices in the 90's. Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting Held in Lisbon, Portugal, 17-18 August 1993, and sponsored by the IFLA Section on Classification and Indexing and the Instituto da Biblioteca Nacional e do Livro, Lisbon, Portugal. Ed.: R.P. Holley et al

0.0056946888 = product of:
  0.017084066 = sum of:
    0.017084066 = weight(_text_:in in 3) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017084066 = score(doc=3,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 3, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0056946888 = product of:
  0.017084066 = sum of:
    0.017084066 = weight(_text_:in in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017084066 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0056946888 = product of:
  0.017084066 = sum of:
    0.017084066 = weight(_text_:in in 1678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017084066 = score(doc=1678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 1678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1678)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0056946888 = product of:
  0.017084066 = sum of:
    0.017084066 = weight(_text_:in in 4400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017084066 = score(doc=4400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 4400, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4400)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0056946888 = product of:
  0.017084066 = sum of:
    0.017084066 = weight(_text_:in in 4762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017084066 = score(doc=4762,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 4762, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4762)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0056946888 = product of:
  0.017084066 = sum of:
    0.017084066 = weight(_text_:in in 4772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017084066 = score(doc=4772,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 4772, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4772)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0055709993 = product of:
  0.016712997 = sum of:
    0.016712997 = weight(_text_:in in 5211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016712997 = score(doc=5211,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 5211, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5211)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In der linearen Struktur eines natursprachigen Textes sind zwangsläufig viele syntaktisch verknüpfte Begriffe getrennt. Dier hierdurch bedingte Mangel an Ordnung zwingt dazu, einen Text von Anfang bis zu Ende durchzulesen, bevor man einen Überblick über das Umfeld eines gesuchten begriffes gewonnen hat. Noch im letzten Satz kann hierzu eine wichtige Aussage gemacht worden sein. Hat man in einem Informationssystem eine kategorisierte Indexsprache zur Verfügung, so lassen sich im Interesse eines besseren Überblickes und einer höheren Ordnung die zusammengehörenden Begriffe eines Textes nach einfachen Regeln zweidimensional gruppieren

Content

Mit dem Vorschlag eines sog. 'Positionsindexates', um den Kontext zu ermitteln, in dem Begriffe im Dokument vorkommen

Series

Fortschritte in der Wissensorganisation; Bd.4

Source

Analogie in der Wissensrepräsentation: Case-Based Reasoning und räumliche Modelle. 4. Tagung der deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Trier, 17.-20. Oktober 1995. Hrsg.: H. Czap u.a

0.005338771 = product of:
  0.016016312 = sum of:
    0.016016312 = weight(_text_:in in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016016312 = score(doc=1210,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Traditionally, database indexing and book indexing have been looked upon as being quite distinct and have been kept apart in textbooks and teaching. The traditional borderline between both variations of indexing, however, should not conceal fundamental commonalities of the two approaches. For example, theausurus construction and usage, quite common in databases, has hardly been encountered in book indexing so far. Database indexing, on the other hand, has hardly made use of subheadings of the syntax-displaying type, quite common in book indexing. Most database users also prefer precombining vocabulary units and reject concept analysis. However, insisting on precombining descriptors in a large database vocabulary may, in the long run, well be destructive to the quality, of indexing and of the searches. A complementary approach is conceivable which provides both precombinations and analyzed subjects, both index language syntax and subheadings, and provides access to an information system via precombinations, without jeopardizing the manageability of the vocabulary. Such an approach causes considerable costs in input because it involves a great deal of intellectual work. On the other hand, much time and costs will be saved in the use of the system. In addition, such an approach would endow an information system with survival power

0.0050334414 = product of:
  0.015100324 = sum of:
    0.015100324 = weight(_text_:in in 280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015100324 = score(doc=280,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 280, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=280)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Enthält in gut verständlicher Form u.a. eine Darstellung der Konzepte 'Vorhersagbarkeit' und 'Wiedergabetreue' von Elementen einer Indexierungssprache

Source

Anwendungen in der Klassifikation. I. Proc. 8. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Hofgeismar, 10.-13.4.1984. Hrsg.: R.G. Henzler