Search (65 results, page 1 of 4)

0.045087967 = product of:
  0.15780787 = sum of:
    0.05685091 = weight(_text_:networks in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05685091 = score(doc=2615,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19231078 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.29562 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
    0.10095696 = weight(_text_:standards in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10095696 = score(doc=2615,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.5571193 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The current standards for monolingual and multilingual thesauri are long overdue for an update. This applies to the international standards ISO 2788 and ISO 5964, as well as the corresponding national standards in several countries and the American standard ANSI/NISO Z39.19. Work is now under way in the UK and in the USA to revise and extend the standards, with particular emphasis on interoperability needs in our world of vast electronic networks. Work in the UK is starting with the British Standards, in the hope of leading on to one international standard to serve all. Some of the issues still under discussion include the treatment of facet analysis, coverage of additional types of controlled vocabulary such as classification schemes, taxonomies and ontologies, and mapping from one vocabulary to another. 1. Are thesaurus standards still needed? Since the 1960s, even before the renowned Cranfield experiments (Cleverdon et al., 1966; Cleverdon, 1967) arguments have raged over the usefulness or otherwise of controlled vocabularies. The case has never been proved definitively one way or the other. At the same time, a recognition has become widespread that no one search method can answer all retrieval requirements. In today's environment of very large networks of resources, the skilled information professional uses a range of techniques. Among these, controlled vocabularies are valued alongside others. The first international standard for monolingual thesauri was issued in 1974. In those days, the main application was for postcoordinate indexing and retrieval from document collections or bibliographic databases. For many information professionals the only practicable alternative to a thesaurus was a classification scheme. And so the thesaurus developed a strong following. After computer systems with full text search capability became widely available, however, the arguments against controlled vocabularies gained more followers. The cost of building and maintaining a thesaurus or a classification scheme was a strong disincentive. Today's databases are typically immense compared with those three decades ago. Full text searching is taken for granted, not just in discrete databases but across all the resources in an intranet or even the Internet. But intranets have brought particular frustration as users discover that despite all the computer power, they cannot find items which they know to be present an the network. So the trend against controlled vocabularies is now being reversed, as many information professionals are turning to them for help. Standards to guide them are still in demand.

0.029680314 = product of:
  0.10388109 = sum of:
    0.08735515 = weight(_text_:government in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08735515 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23146805 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6930003 = idf(docFreq=404, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.37739617 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6930003 = idf(docFreq=404, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
    0.01652594 = product of:
      0.03305188 = sum of:
        0.03305188 = weight(_text_:22 in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03305188 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 260, 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=260)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The need for Persian thesauri became apparent during the late 1960s with the advent of documentation centres in Iran. The first Persian controlled vocabulary was published by IRANDOC in 1977. Other centres worked on translations of existing thesauri, but it was soon realised that these efforts did not meet the needs of the centres. After the Islamic revolution in 1979, the foundation of new centres intensified the need for Persian thesauri, especially in the fields of history and government documents. Also, during the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian research centres produced reports in scientific and technical fields, both to support military requirements and to meet society's needs. In order to provide a comprehensive thesaurus, the Council of Scientific Research of Iran approved a project for the compilation of such a work. Nowadays, 12 Persian thesauri are available and others are being prepared, based on the literary corpus and conformity with characteristics of Iranian culture.

Source

Indexer. 25(2006) no.1, S.19-22

0.026691983 = product of:
  0.093421936 = sum of:
    0.07138735 = weight(_text_:standards in 4092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07138735 = score(doc=4092,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.39394283 = fieldWeight in 4092, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4092)
    0.022034585 = product of:
      0.04406917 = sum of:
        0.04406917 = weight(_text_:22 in 4092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04406917 = score(doc=4092,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4092, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4092)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Editor

National Information Standards Organization

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 22(1995) no.3/4, S.180-181 (M. Hudon)

0.026355332 = product of:
  0.09224366 = sum of:
    0.07571772 = weight(_text_:standards in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07571772 = score(doc=5005,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.41783947 = fieldWeight in 5005, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5005)
    0.01652594 = product of:
      0.03305188 = sum of:
        0.03305188 = weight(_text_:22 in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03305188 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5005, 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=5005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

After a period of experiment and evolution in the 1950s and 1960s, a fairly standard format for thesauri was established with the publication of the influential Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) in 1967. This and other early thesauri relied primarily an the presentation of terms in alphabetical order. The value of a classified presentation was subsequently realised, and in particular the technique of facet analysis has profoundly influenced thesaurus evolution. Thesaurofacet and the Art & Architecture Thesaurus have acted as models for two distinct breeds of thesaurus using faceted displays of terms. As of the 1990s, the expansion of end-user access to vast networked resources is imposing further requirements an the style and structure of controlled vocabularies. The international standards for thesauri, first conceived in a print-based era, are badly in need of updating. Work is in hand in the UK and the USA to revise and develop standards in support of electronic thesauri.

Date

22. 9.2007 15:46:13

0.02523924 = product of:
  0.17667468 = sum of:
    0.17667468 = weight(_text_:standards in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17667468 = score(doc=187,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.9749588 = fieldWeight in 187, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=187)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Editor

American National Standards Institute

Imprint

New York : American National Standards Institute

0.02523924 = product of:
  0.17667468 = sum of:
    0.17667468 = weight(_text_:standards in 5015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17667468 = score(doc=5015,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.9749588 = fieldWeight in 5015, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5015)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Editor

British Standards Institution

Imprint

London : British Standards Institution

0.02523924 = product of:
  0.17667468 = sum of:
    0.17667468 = weight(_text_:standards in 4365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17667468 = score(doc=4365,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.9749588 = fieldWeight in 4365, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4365)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Editor

National Information Standards Organization

Imprint

Gaithersburg, MD : National Information Standards Organization

0.020396387 = product of:
  0.1427747 = sum of:
    0.1427747 = weight(_text_:standards in 7930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1427747 = score(doc=7930,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.78788567 = fieldWeight in 7930, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7930)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Gives an overview of recommendations given in the International and British Standards for construction of thesauri. Details: vocabulary control of monolingual thesauri, form and chooice of terms, homographs and polysemes, scope notes and definitions, compound terms, displaying and distinguishing basic relationships linking terms, multilingual aspects, thesaurus displays, and construction techniques. Outlines the future of the thesaurus and thesaurus standards

Source

Standards for the international exchange of bibliographic information: papers presented at a course held at the School of Library, Archive and Information Studies, University College, London, 3-18 August 1990. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.018735275 = product of:
  0.13114692 = sum of:
    0.13114692 = weight(_text_:standards in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13114692 = score(doc=1148,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.7237192 = fieldWeight in 1148, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1148)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.01802803 = product of:
  0.1261962 = sum of:
    0.1261962 = weight(_text_:standards in 5131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1261962 = score(doc=5131,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.69639915 = fieldWeight in 5131, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5131)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Editor

British Standards Institution

Imprint

London : British Standards Institution

0.017846838 = product of:
  0.124927856 = sum of:
    0.124927856 = weight(_text_:standards in 5217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.124927856 = score(doc=5217,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.68939996 = fieldWeight in 5217, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5217)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

An attempt is made to compare the existing standards and guidelines for thesaurus consruction and development, focussing particularly on the ISO, BSI standards as well as on the guidelines suggested by Aitchison and Gilchrist, and UNISIST. The different facets/aspects considered are: linguistic aspects of thesauri; formal requirements suggested by the standards/guidelines with special emphasis on problems associated with the compound terms, homographs, forms of terms, etc.; semantic relationships between terms - synonymy, BT/NT, and associativity; problems peculiar to multilingual thesauri, especially the problem of inexact equivalence between terms; and presentation and arrangement of terms in a thesaurus

0.01766379 = product of:
  0.12364653 = sum of:
    0.12364653 = weight(_text_:standards in 4864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12364653 = score(doc=4864,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.68232906 = fieldWeight in 4864, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4864)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Amy Warner, Project Leader for NISO's Thesaurus Development Team, discusses her involvement in the revision of Z39.19 Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Thesauri. Keywords: Z39.19 Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Thesauri, thesaurus standards, controlled vocabulary standards, National Information Standards Organization, NISO

0.016639076 = product of:
  0.11647353 = sum of:
    0.11647353 = weight(_text_:government in 8200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11647353 = score(doc=8200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23146805 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6930003 = idf(docFreq=404, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.50319487 = fieldWeight in 8200, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6930003 = idf(docFreq=404, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8200)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Discusses the background to and the process of thesaurus construction in an interdisciplinary soft science subject, environmental protection, for a specific government organization, the Environmental Protection Authority, Western Australia. Discusses and recommends methods of construction and develops a decision making checklists to aid in managing the task. Concentrates on the difficulties of creating a thesaurus in the real world compared to textual advice on thesaurus construction

0.01626286 = product of:
  0.056920003 = sum of:
    0.030149749 = weight(_text_:networks in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030149749 = score(doc=3243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19231078 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.15677617 = fieldWeight in 3243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3243)
    0.026770255 = weight(_text_:standards in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026770255 = score(doc=3243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.14772856 = fieldWeight in 3243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3243)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 32(2005) no.2, S.95-97 (A. Gilchrist):"It might be thought unfortunate that the word thesaurus is assonant with prehistoric beasts but as this book clearly demonstrates, the thesaurus is undergoing a notable revival, and we can remind ourselves that the word comes from the Greek thesaurus, meaning a treasury. This is a useful and timely source book, bringing together ten chapters, following an Editorial introduction and culminating in an interview with a member of the team responsible for revising the NISO Standard Guidelines for the construction, format and management of monolingual thesauri; formal proof of the thesaural renaissance. Though predominantly an American publication, it is good to see four English authors as well as one from Canada and one from Denmark; and with a good balance of academics and practitioners. This has helped to widen the net in the citing of useful references. While the techniques of thesaurus construction are still basically sound, the Editors, in their introduction, point out that the thesaurus, in its sense of an information retrieval tool is almost exactly 50 years old, and that the information environment of today is radically different. They claim three purposes for the compilation: "to acquaint or remind the Library and Information Science community of the history of the development of the thesaurus and standards for thesaurus construction. to provide bibliographies and tutorials from which any reader can become more grounded in her or his understanding of thesaurus construction, use and evaluation. to address topics related to thesauri but that are unique to the current digital environment, or network of networks." This last purpose, understandably, tends to be the slightly more tentative part of the book, but as Rosenfeld and Morville said in their book Information architecture for the World Wide Web "thesauri [will] become a key tool for dealing with the growing size and importance of web sites and intranets". The evidence supporting their belief has been growing steadily in the seven years since the first edition was published.

0.014559193 = product of:
  0.101914346 = sum of:
    0.101914346 = weight(_text_:government in 8201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.101914346 = score(doc=8201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23146805 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6930003 = idf(docFreq=404, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.44029552 = fieldWeight in 8201, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6930003 = idf(docFreq=404, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8201)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Describes the compilation of a subject thesaurus to provide a controlled vocabulary for indexing the New South Wales Government Printing Office's collection of historical photographs. Discusses the use of interactive videodiscs for preserving, presenting and retrieving pictorial collections and describes the software, online access, and data entry. Considers the development of the subject thesaurus and outlines 3 approaches that might be used by institutions faced with describing and indexing a collection of photographs. Discusses some possible authorities for subject analysis of pictorial materials. Describes the building process focusing on compilation and maintenance, classes excluded, strucutre of the thesaurus and the question of publication

0.01261962 = product of:
  0.08833734 = sum of:
    0.08833734 = weight(_text_:standards in 4431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08833734 = score(doc=4431,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.4874794 = fieldWeight in 4431, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4431)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper describes the Laurin thesaurus, which is used for indexing and searching in the Laurin system, a software package for digital clipping archives. As a multilingual thesaurus it complies with the corresponding standards, though presenting some approaches going beyond some of the standards' recommendations. The Laurin thesaurus integrates all kind of indexing terms, not only keywords, but proper names as well. The system of categories and relationships is described in detail.

0.0114856195 = product of:
  0.080399334 = sum of:
    0.080399334 = weight(_text_:networks in 6581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.080399334 = score(doc=6581,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19231078 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.4180698 = fieldWeight in 6581, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6581)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.010816817 = product of:
  0.07571772 = sum of:
    0.07571772 = weight(_text_:standards in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07571772 = score(doc=708,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.41783947 = fieldWeight in 708, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=708)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39-19-2005.pdf.

Editor

National Information Standards Organization

0.010816817 = product of:
  0.07571772 = sum of:
    0.07571772 = weight(_text_:standards in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07571772 = score(doc=2695,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.41783947 = fieldWeight in 2695, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2695)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In the UK, the aim to make public sector information much more available to the citizen has led to establishment of an "e-Govemment Interoperability Framework" based an a set of core standards. Among the standards is a controlled vocabulary, known as the Govemment Category List (GCL), used to select keywords for the metadata of all electronic resources originating from central or local govemment. The GCL is a small and simple taxonomy, designed to facilitate high-level browsing rather than deep searching. Specialized thesauri for particular subject areas may optionally complement the GCL. To ease the indexing burden, GCL terms will often be selected by direct mapping from the specialized vocabularies.

0.010816817 = product of:
  0.07571772 = sum of:
    0.07571772 = weight(_text_:standards in 4724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07571772 = score(doc=4724,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.41783947 = fieldWeight in 4724, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4724)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - With the growing recognition that thesauri aid information retrieval, organisations are beginning to adopt, and in many cases, create thesauri. This paper offers some guidance on the construction process. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece with a practical focus, based on recent experiences gleaned from consultancy work. Findings - A number of steps can be taken to ensure any thesaurus under construction is fit for purpose. Due consideration is therefore given to aspects such as term selection, structure and notation, thesauri standards, software and Web display issues, thesauri evaluation and maintenance. This paper also notes that creating new subject schemes from scratch, however attractive, contributes to the plethora of terminologies currently in existence and can limit user searching within particular contexts. The decision to create a "new" thesaurus should therefore be taken carefully and observance of standards is paramount. Practical implications - This paper offers advice to assist practitioners in the development of thesauri. Originality/value - Useful guidance for those practitioners new to the area of thesaurus construction is provided, together with an overview of selected key processes involved in the construction of a thesaurus.