Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.004721697 = product of:
  0.03305188 = sum of:
    0.03305188 = product of:
      0.06610376 = sum of:
        0.06610376 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06610376 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.004612363 = product of:
  0.03228654 = sum of:
    0.03228654 = product of:
      0.06457308 = sum of:
        0.06457308 = weight(_text_:policy in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06457308 = score(doc=2497,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21800333 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = queryNorm
            0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 2497, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2497)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

The paper describes current work on the generation of a thesaurus format from the schedules of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition (BC2). The practical problems that occur in moving from a concept based approach to a terminological approach cluster around issues of vocabulary control that are not fully addressed in a systematic structure. These difficulties can be exacerbated within domains in the humanities because large numbers of culture specific terms may need to be accommodated in any thesaurus. The ways in which these problems can be resolved within the context of a semi-automated approach to the thesaurus generation have consequences for the management of classification data in the source vocabulary. The way in which the vocabulary is marked up for the purpose of machine manipulation is described, and some of the implications for editorial policy are discussed and examples given. The value of the classification notation as a language independent representation and mapping tool should not be sacrificed in such an exercise.

0.0027543234 = product of:
  0.019280262 = sum of:
    0.019280262 = product of:
      0.038560525 = sum of:
        0.038560525 = weight(_text_:22 in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038560525 = score(doc=2550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2550, 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=2550)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.0025495484 = product of:
  0.017846838 = sum of:
    0.017846838 = weight(_text_:standards in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017846838 = score(doc=2924,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.09848571 = fieldWeight in 2924, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2924)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Many information professionals working in small units today fail to find the published tools for subject-based organization that are appropriate to their local needs, whether they are archivists, special librarians, information officers, or knowledge or content managers. Large established standards for document description and organization are too unwieldy, unnecessarily detailed, or too expensive to install and maintain. In other cases the available systems are insufficient for a specialist environment, or don't bring things together in a helpful way. A purpose built, in-house system would seem to be the answer, but too often the skills necessary to create one are lacking. This practical text examines the criteria relevant to the selection of a subject-management system, describes the characteristics of some common types of subject tool, and takes the novice step by step through the process of creating a system for a specialist environment. The methodology employed is a standard technique for the building of a thesaurus that incidentally creates a compatible classification or taxonomy, both of which may be used in a variety of ways for document or information management. Key areas covered are: What is a thesaurus? Tools for subject access and retrieval; what a thesaurus is used for? Why use a thesaurus? Examples of thesauri; the structure of a thesaurus; thesaural relationships; practical thesaurus construction; the vocabulary of the thesaurus; building the systematic structure; conversion to alphabetic format; forms of entry in the thesaurus; maintaining the thesaurus; thesaurus software; and; the wider environment. Essential for the practising information professional, this guide is also valuable for students of library and information science.

0.0023608485 = product of:
  0.01652594 = sum of:
    0.01652594 = product of:
      0.03305188 = sum of:
        0.03305188 = weight(_text_:22 in 6392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03305188 = score(doc=6392,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6392, 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=6392)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

10. 8.2001 13:22:14