Search (260 results, page 1 of 13)

  • × theme_ss:"Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus"
  1. Kempf, A.O.; Neubert, J.: ¬The role of thesauri in an Open Web : a case study of the STW Thesaurus for economics (2016) 0.07 
    0.06983731 = product of:
  0.1920526 = sum of:
    0.013711456 = weight(_text_:of in 2912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013711456 = score(doc=2912,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 2912, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2912)
    0.064626575 = weight(_text_:technological in 2912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064626575 = score(doc=2912,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3522307 = fieldWeight in 2912, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2912)
    0.011073467 = weight(_text_:on in 2912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011073467 = score(doc=2912,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2912, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2912)
    0.1026411 = weight(_text_:great in 2912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1026411 = score(doc=2912,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.52788556 = fieldWeight in 2912, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2912)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    This paper illustrates the changing role of thesauri interlinked with overall changes of modern information infrastructure services, referring to "STW Thesaurus for Economics" as a case study. It starts with an overview of the history and development of the STW and describes the far-reaching changes brought about by its publication on the Web, with regard to subject indexing, retrieval and new uses for Linked Open Data. It argues that only the most recent technological developments help thesauri to exploit their full potential which is why they more than ever have a place in current information retrieval and infrastructure.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].
  2. White, M.: ¬The value of taxonomies, thesauri and metadata in enterprise search (2016) 0.06 
    0.05868722 = product of:
  0.16138986 = sum of:
    0.05263353 = weight(_text_:higher in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263353 = score(doc=2964,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2901765 = fieldWeight in 2964, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2964)
    0.0139941955 = weight(_text_:of in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0139941955 = score(doc=2964,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 2964, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2964)
    0.009227889 = weight(_text_:on in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009227889 = score(doc=2964,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2964, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2964)
    0.085534245 = weight(_text_:great in 2964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085534245 = score(doc=2964,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.43990463 = fieldWeight in 2964, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2964)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    Although the technical, mathematical and linguistic principles of search date back to the early 1960s and enterprise search applications have been commercially available since the 1980s; it is only since the launch of Microsoft SharePoint 2010 and the integration of the Apache Lucene and Solr projects in 2010 that there has been a wider adoption of enterprise search applications. Surveys carried out over the last five years indicate that although enterprises accept that search applications are essential in locating information, there has not been any significant investment in search teams to support these applications. Where taxonomies, thesauri and metadata have been used to improve the search user interface and enhance the search experience, the indications are that levels of search satisfaction are significantly higher. The challenges faced by search managers in developing and maintaining these tools include a lack of published research on the use of these tools and difficulty in recruiting search team members with the requisite skills and experience. There would seem to be an important and immediate opportunity to bring together the research, knowledge organization and enterprise search communities to explore how good practice in the use of taxonomies, thesauri and metadata in enterprise search can be established, enhanced and promoted.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].
  3. Dextre Clarke, S.G.; Vernau, J.: Questions and answers on current developments inspired by the thesaurus tradition : points of view (2016) 0.04 
    0.043386273 = product of:
  0.159083 = sum of:
    0.007463572 = weight(_text_:of in 2914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007463572 = score(doc=2914,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 2914, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2914)
    0.014764623 = weight(_text_:on in 2914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014764623 = score(doc=2914,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 2914, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2914)
    0.1368548 = weight(_text_:great in 2914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1368548 = score(doc=2914,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.7038474 = fieldWeight in 2914, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2914)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Content
    Resumee zu einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].
  4. MacFarlane, A.: Knowledge organisation and its role in multimedia information retrieval (2016) 0.03 
    0.03317206 = product of:
  0.12163088 = sum of:
    0.007916314 = weight(_text_:of in 2911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007916314 = score(doc=2911,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14660224 = fieldWeight in 2911, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2911)
    0.011073467 = weight(_text_:on in 2911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011073467 = score(doc=2911,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2911, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2911)
    0.1026411 = weight(_text_:great in 2911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1026411 = score(doc=2911,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.52788556 = fieldWeight in 2911, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2911)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Various kinds of knowledge organisation, such as thesauri, are routinely used to label or tag multimedia content such as images and music and to support information retrieval, i.e. user search for such content. In this paper, we outline why this is the case, in particular focusing on the semantic gap between content and concept based multimedia retrieval. We survey some indexing vocabularies used for multimedia retrieval, and argue that techniques such as thesauri will be needed for the foreseeable future in order to support users in their need for multimedia content. In particular, we argue that artificial intelligence techniques are not mature enough to solve the problem of indexing multimedia conceptually and will not be able to replace human indexers for the foreseeable future.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].
  5. ¬The Great Debate, 19 February 2015, ISKO UK (2015) 0.03 
    0.030703267 = product of:
  0.112578645 = sum of:
    0.0139941955 = weight(_text_:of in 2105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0139941955 = score(doc=2105,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 2105, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2105)
    0.013050207 = weight(_text_:on in 2105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013050207 = score(doc=2105,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 2105, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2105)
    0.085534245 = weight(_text_:great in 2105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085534245 = score(doc=2105,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.43990463 = fieldWeight in 2105, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2105)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Once upon a time, the thesaurus was venerated. It marked a breakthrough in the retrieval of very specific needles of information hidden in large haystacks. Some of the veneration rubbed off on to the trained information professionals, who alone mastered the occult art of using it to concoct effective search strategies. All this was in the time before we had a computer on every desk, when a collection of 10,000 articles was considered large, and long before the Google era. But now, who has the patience to consult a complicated thesaurus? Only a dedicated few. Has the thesaurus passed its sell-by date? And even its use-by date? These questions, and more, were tossed around at the Great Debate by a community of enthusiasts. While some limitations of the old-fashioned (?) thesaurus were noted, it still received a happy vote of confidence at the end. - Judi Vernau (2015) First speaker for the proposition - Vanda Broughton (2015) First speaker for the opposition - Helen Lippell (2015) Second speaker for the proposition - Leonard Will (2015) Second speaker for the opposition - Cross-examination of expert witnesses - Martin White (2015) Questions and discussion from the floor
  6. Hudon, M.: Multilingual thesaurus construction : integrating the views of different cultures in one gateway to knowledge and concepts (1997) 0.03 
    0.030258104 = product of:
  0.11094638 = sum of:
    0.01727841 = weight(_text_:of in 1804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01727841 = score(doc=1804,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 1804, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1804)
    0.07539768 = weight(_text_:technological in 1804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07539768 = score(doc=1804,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.41093582 = fieldWeight in 1804, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1804)
    0.01827029 = weight(_text_:on in 1804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01827029 = score(doc=1804,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 1804, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1804)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Based on the premise that in a multilingual thesaurus all languages are equal, reviews the options and solutions offered by the guidelines to the developer of specialized thesauri. Introduces other problems of a sociocultural, and even of a truly political nature, which are a prominent features in the daily life of the thesaurus designer but with which the theory and the guidelines do not deal very well. Focuses in turn on semantic, managerial, and technological aspects of multilingual thesaurus construction, from the perspective of giving equal treatment to all languages involved
  7. Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Origins and trajectory of the long thesaurus debate (2016) 0.03 
    0.029731393 = product of:
  0.10901511 = sum of:
    0.010430659 = weight(_text_:of in 2913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010430659 = score(doc=2913,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 2913, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2913)
    0.013050207 = weight(_text_:on in 2913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013050207 = score(doc=2913,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 2913, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2913)
    0.085534245 = weight(_text_:great in 2913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085534245 = score(doc=2913,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.43990463 = fieldWeight in 2913, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2913)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    The information retrieval thesaurus emerged in the 1950s, settled down to a more-or-less standard format in the 1970s and has continued to evolve marginally since then. Throughout its whole lifetime, doubts have been expressed about its efficacy with emphasis latterly on cost-effectiveness. Prolonged testing of different styles of index language in the 1970s failed to settle the doubts. The arena occupied by the debate has moved from small isolated databases in the post-war era to diverse situations nowadays with the whole Internet at one extreme and small in-house collections at the other. Sophisticated statistical techniques now dominate the retrieval landscape on the Internet but leave opportunities for the thesaurus and other knowledge organization techniques in niches such as image libraries and corporate intranets. The promise of an ontology-driven semantic web with linked data resources opens another opportunity. Thus much scope remains for research to establish the usefulness of the thesaurus in these places and to inspire its continuing evolution.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].
  8. Hjoerland, B.: Does the traditional thesaurus have a place in modern information retrieval? (2016) 0.03 
    0.029442545 = product of:
  0.10795599 = sum of:
    0.013193856 = weight(_text_:of in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013193856 = score(doc=2915,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
    0.009227889 = weight(_text_:on in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009227889 = score(doc=2915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
    0.085534245 = weight(_text_:great in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085534245 = score(doc=2915,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.43990463 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    The introduction (1.0) of this article considers the status of the thesaurus within LIS and asks about the future prospect for thesauri. The main following points are: (2.0) Any knowledge organization system (KOS) is today threatened by Google-like systems, and it is therefore important to consider if there still is a need for knowledge organization (KO) in the traditional sense. (3.0) A thesaurus is a somewhat reduced form of KOS compared to, for example, an ontology, and its "bundling" and restricted number of semantic relations has never been justified theoretically or empirically. Which semantic relations are most fruitful for a given task is thus an open question, and different domains may need different kinds of KOS including different sets of relations between terms. (4.0) A KOS is a controlled vocabulary (CV) and should not be considered a "perfect language" (Eco 1995) that is simply able to remove the ambiguity of natural language; rather much ambiguity in language represents a battle between many "voices" (Bakhtin 1981) or "paradigms" (Kuhn 1962). In this perspective, a specific KOS, e.g. a specific thesaurus, is just one "voice" among many voices, and that voice has to demonstrate its authority and utility. It is concluded (5.0) that the traditional thesaurus does not have a place in modern information retrieval, but that more flexible semantic tools based on proper studies of domains will always be important.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].
  9. García-Marco, F.-J.: Enhancing the visibility and relevance of thesauri in the Web : searching for a hub in the linked data environment (2016) 0.03 
    0.028688945 = product of:
  0.105192795 = sum of:
    0.010430659 = weight(_text_:of in 2916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010430659 = score(doc=2916,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 2916, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2916)
    0.009227889 = weight(_text_:on in 2916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009227889 = score(doc=2916,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2916, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2916)
    0.085534245 = weight(_text_:great in 2916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085534245 = score(doc=2916,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.43990463 = fieldWeight in 2916, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2916)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Thesauri have triumphed in many domains that require precise and exhaustive information because of their representational power, their capability to integrate the concept-based and alphabetical approaches to organizing information, and their standardization and, more recently, formalization. Nevertheless, there is room to improve their relevance in the digital age by embracing the open linked data initiatives and by taking advantage of their structural and functional proximity to some of the big collaborative knowledge repositories in the Internet, notably the Wikipedia environment. With a focus on its implications for enhanced interoperability, this structural proximity is analysed, and the benefits of such collaboration for the different potential stakeholders are considered. It is proposed that better devices for ensuring semantic browsing are provided when necessary, and that an open hub for thesauri interconnection is developed, perhaps using existing big open Internet semantic facilities, such as Wikipedia.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].
  10. Hudon, M.: ¬A preliminary investigation of the usefulness of semantic relations and of standardized definitions for the purpose of specifying meaning in a thesaurus (1998) 0.03 
    0.026447162 = product of:
  0.09697293 = sum of:
    0.064219736 = weight(_text_:effect in 55) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064219736 = score(doc=55,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 55, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=55)
    0.021679718 = weight(_text_:of in 55) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021679718 = score(doc=55,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.4014868 = fieldWeight in 55, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=55)
    0.011073467 = weight(_text_:on in 55) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011073467 = score(doc=55,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 55, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=55)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    The terminological consistency of indexers working with a thesaurus as indexing aid remains low. This suggests that indexers cannot perceive easily or very clearly the meaning of each descriptor available as index term. This paper presents the background nd some of the findings of a small scale experiment designed to study the effect on interindexer terminological consistency of modifying the nature of the semantic information given with descriptors in a thesaurus. The study also provided some insights into the respective usefulness of standardized definitions and of traditional networks of hierarchical and associative relationships as means of providing essential meaning information in the thesaurus used as indexing aid
    Source
    Structures and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 5th International ISKO-Conference, Lille, 25.-29.8.1998. Ed.: W. Mustafa el Hadi et al
  11. Hedden, H.: ¬The accidental taxonomist (2012) 0.03 
    0.025945576 = product of:
  0.095133774 = sum of:
    0.011800943 = weight(_text_:of in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011800943 = score(doc=2915,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21854173 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
    0.07054629 = weight(_text_:innovations in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07054629 = score(doc=2915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23478 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.30047828 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
    0.012786539 = weight(_text_:on in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012786539 = score(doc=2915,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.16835764 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    "Clearly details the conceptual and practical notions of controlled vocabularies. . provides a crash course for newcomers and offers experienced practitioners a common frame of reference. A valuable book." - Christine Connors, TriviumRLG LLC The Accidental Taxonomist is the most comprehensive guide available to the art and science of building information taxonomies. Heather Hedden-one of today's leading writers, instructors, and consultants on indexing and taxonomy topics-walks readers through the process, displaying her trademark ability to present highly technical information in straightforward, comprehensible English. Drawing on numerous real-world examples, Hedden explains how to create terms and relationships, select taxonomy management software, design taxonomies for human versus automated indexing, manage enterprise taxonomy projects, and adapt taxonomies to various user interfaces. The result is a practical and essential guide for information professionals who need to effectively create or manage taxonomies, controlled vocabularies, and thesauri. "A wealth of descriptive reference content is balanced with expert guidance. . Open The Accidental Taxonomist to begin the learning process or to refresh your understanding of the depth and breadth of this demanding discipline." - Lynda Moulton, Principal Consultant, LWM Technology Services "From the novice taxonomist to the experienced professional, all will find helpful, practical advice in The Accidental Taxonomist." - Trish Yancey, TCOO, Synaptica, LLC "This book squarely addresses the growing demand for and interest in taxonomy. ...Hedden brings a variety of background experience, including not only taxonomy construction but also abstracting and content categorization and creating back-of-the-book indexes. These experiences serve her well by building a broad perspective on the similarities as well as real differences between often overlapping types of work." - Marjorie M. K. Hlava, President and Chairman, Access Innovations, Inc., and Chair, SLA Taxonomy Division
  12. Tudhope, D.; Binding, C.: Still quite popular after all those years : the continued relevance of the information retrieval thesaurus (2016) 0.02 
    0.02115501 = product of:
  0.11635256 = sum of:
    0.013711456 = weight(_text_:of in 2908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013711456 = score(doc=2908,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 2908, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2908)
    0.1026411 = weight(_text_:great in 2908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1026411 = score(doc=2908,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.52788556 = fieldWeight in 2908, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2908)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    The recent ISKO-UK conference considered the question of whether the traditional thesaurus has any place in modern information retrieval. This note is intended to continue in the spirit of that good-natured debate, arguing that there is indeed a role today and highlighting some recent work showing the continued relevance of the thesaurus, particularly in the linked data area. Key functionality that a thesaurus makes possible is discussed. A brief outline is provided of prominent work hat employs thesauri in three key areas of infrastructure underpinning advanced retrieval functionality today: metadata enrichment,vocabulary mapping and web services.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].
  13. Osigwe, C.C.: ¬The effect of semantic and syntactic relationships in the choice of descriptor elements for precision in document indexing and information retrieval (1992) 0.02 
    0.019406635 = product of:
  0.10673649 = sum of:
    0.08562632 = weight(_text_:effect in 4238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08562632 = score(doc=4238,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.46816036 = fieldWeight in 4238, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4238)
    0.02111017 = weight(_text_:of in 4238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02111017 = score(doc=4238,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 4238, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4238)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Examines some of the problems arising from the interaction between semantic and syntactic relationships in the working of information retrieval systems and proposes the introduction of a generalised thesaurus, universal programs for database storage and retrieval and for the construction of a common data input format for international information exchange
    Source
    Quarterly bulletin of the International Association of Agricultural Information Specialists. 37(1992) no.4, S.205-208
  14. Saldanha, G.; Silveira, N.C.: ¬The treasure of tesauro : knowledge organization, rhetoric and language (2016) 0.02 
    0.017586157 = product of:
  0.096723855 = sum of:
    0.010555085 = weight(_text_:of in 4903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010555085 = score(doc=4903,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 4903, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4903)
    0.08616877 = weight(_text_:technological in 4903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08616877 = score(doc=4903,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.46964094 = fieldWeight in 4903, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4903)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei
  15. Mooers, C.N.: ¬The indexing language of an information retrieval system (1985) 0.02 
    0.017557705 = product of:
  0.06437825 = sum of:
    0.013853548 = weight(_text_:of in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013853548 = score(doc=3644,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25655392 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
    0.04233729 = weight(_text_:great in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04233729 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21774168 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
    0.008187402 = product of:
      0.016374804 = sum of:
        0.016374804 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016374804 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Calvin Mooers' work toward the resolution of the problem of ambiguity in indexing went unrecognized for years. At the time he introduced the "descriptor" - a term with a very distinct meaning-indexers were, for the most part, taking index terms directly from the document, without either rationalizing them with context or normalizing them with some kind of classification. It is ironic that Mooers' term came to be attached to the popular but unsophisticated indexing methods which he was trying to root out. Simply expressed, what Mooers did was to take the dictionary definitions of terms and redefine them so clearly that they could not be used in any context except that provided by the new definition. He did, at great pains, construct such meanings for over four hundred words; disambiguation and specificity were sought after and found for these words. He proposed that all indexers adopt this method so that when the index supplied a term, it also supplied the exact meaning for that term as used in the indexed document. The same term used differently in another document would be defined differently and possibly renamed to avoid ambiguity. The disambiguation was achieved by using unabridged dictionaries and other sources of defining terminology. In practice, this tends to produce circularity in definition, that is, word A refers to word B which refers to word C which refers to word A. It was necessary, therefore, to break this chain by creating a new, definitive meaning for each word. Eventually, means such as those used by Austin (q.v.) for PRECIS achieved the same purpose, but by much more complex means than just creating a unique definition of each term. Mooers, however, was probably the first to realize how confusing undefined terminology could be. Early automatic indexers dealt with distinct disciplines and, as long as they did not stray beyond disciplinary boundaries, a quick and dirty keyword approach was satisfactory. The trouble came when attempts were made to make a combined index for two or more distinct disciplines. A number of processes have since been developed, mostly involving tagging of some kind or use of strings. Mooers' solution has rarely been considered seriously and probably would be extremely difficult to apply now because of so much interdisciplinarity. But for a specific, weIl defined field, it is still weIl worth considering. Mooers received training in mathematics and physics from the University of Minnesota and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was the founder of Zator Company, which developed and marketed a coded card information retrieval system, and of Rockford Research, Inc., which engages in research in information science. He is the inventor of the TRAC computer language.
    Footnote
    Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.
    Source
    Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al
  16. Maculan, B.C.M. dos; Lima, G.A. de; Oliveira, E.D.: Conversion methods from thesaurus to ontologies : a review (2016) 0.02 
    0.017024064 = product of:
  0.09363235 = sum of:
    0.007463572 = weight(_text_:of in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007463572 = score(doc=4695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 4695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4695)
    0.08616877 = weight(_text_:technological in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08616877 = score(doc=4695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.46964094 = fieldWeight in 4695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4695)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei
  17. Garcla-Marco, F.J.: Teaching thesaurus construction : a top-down approach for LIS undergraduate programmes (2016) 0.02 
    0.017024064 = product of:
  0.09363235 = sum of:
    0.007463572 = weight(_text_:of in 4958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007463572 = score(doc=4958,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 4958, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4958)
    0.08616877 = weight(_text_:technological in 4958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08616877 = score(doc=4958,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.46964094 = fieldWeight in 4958, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4958)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei
  18. Fischer, D.H.: Converting a thesaurus to OWL : Notes on the paper "The National Cancer Institute's Thesaurus and Ontology" (2004) 0.02 
    0.016870381 = product of:
  0.061858065 = sum of:
    0.0130612515 = weight(_text_:of in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0130612515 = score(doc=2362,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
    0.006459522 = weight(_text_:on in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006459522 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.08505116 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
    0.04233729 = weight(_text_:great in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04233729 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21774168 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    The paper analysed here is a kind of position paper. In order to get a better under-standing of the reported work I used the retrieval interface of the thesaurus, the so-called NCI DTS Browser accessible via the Web3, and I perused the cited OWL file4 with numerous "Find" and "Find next" string searches. In addition the file was im-ported into Protégé 2000, Release 2.0, with OWL Plugin 1.0 and Racer Plugin 1.7.14. At the end of the paper's introduction the authors say: "In the following sections, this paper will describe the terminology development process at NCI, and the issues associated with converting a description logic based nomenclature to a semantically rich OWL ontology." While I will not deal with the first part, i.e. the terminology development process at NCI, I do not see the thesaurus as a description logic based nomenclature, or its cur-rent state and conversion already result in a "rich" OWL ontology. What does "rich" mean here? According to my view there is a great quantity of concepts and links but a very poor description logic structure which enables inferences. And what does the fol-lowing really mean, which is said a few lines previously: "Although editors have defined a number of named ontologic relations to support the description-logic based structure of the Thesaurus, additional relation-ships are considered for inclusion as required to support dependent applications."
    According to my findings several relations available in the thesaurus query interface as "roles", are not used, i.e. there are not yet any assertions with them. And those which are used do not contribute to complete concept definitions of concepts which represent thesaurus main entries. In other words: The authors claim to already have a "description logic based nomenclature", where there is not yet one which deserves that title by being much more than a thesaurus with strict subsumption and additional inheritable semantic links. In the last section of the paper the authors say: "The most time consuming process in this conversion was making a careful analysis of the Thesaurus to understand the best way to translate it into OWL." "For other conversions, these same types of distinctions and decisions must be made. The expressive power of a proprietary encoding can vary widely from that in OWL or RDF. Understanding the original semantics and engineering a solution that most closely duplicates it is critical for creating a useful and accu-rate ontology." My question is: What decisions were made and are they exemplary, can they be rec-ommended as "the best way"? I raise strong doubts with respect to that, and I miss more profound discussions of the issues at stake. The following notes are dedicated to a critical description and assessment of the results of that conversion activity. They are written in a tutorial style more or less addressing students, but myself being a learner especially in the field of medical knowledge representation I do not speak "ex cathedra".
  19. Jones, S.; Gatford, M.; Robertson, S.; Hancock-Beaulieu, M.; Secker, J.; Walker, S.: Interactive thesaurus navigation : intelligence rules OK? (1995) 0.02 
    0.01653086 = product of:
  0.09091973 = sum of:
    0.07492303 = weight(_text_:effect in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07492303 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.4096403 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
    0.0159967 = weight(_text_:of in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0159967 = score(doc=180,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    We discuss whether it is feasible to build intelligent rule- or weight-based algorithms into general-purpose software for interactive thesaurus navigation. We survey some approaches to the problem reported in the literature, particularly those involving the assignement of 'link weights' in a thesaurus network, and point out some problems of both principle and practice. We then describe investigations which entailed logging the behavior of thesaurus users and testing the effect of thesaurus-based query enhancement in an IR system using term weighting, in an attempt to identify successful strategies to incorporate into automatic procedures. The results cause us to question many of the assumptions made by previous researchers in this area
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(1995) no.1, S.52-59
  20. Scheven, E.: ¬Die neue Thesaurusnorm ISO 25964 und die GND (2017) 0.02 
    0.015076845 = product of:
  0.082922645 = sum of:
    0.07368694 = weight(_text_:higher in 3505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07368694 = score(doc=3505,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.4062471 = fieldWeight in 3505, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3505)
    0.0092357 = weight(_text_:of in 3505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0092357 = score(doc=3505,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 3505, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3505)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Source
    Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 220
  • el 24
  • n 10
  • m 9
  • s 5
  • x 4
  • r 3
  • b 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications