Search (36 results, page 1 of 2)

0.09741354 = product of:
  0.14612031 = sum of:
    0.052695833 = weight(_text_:resources in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052695833 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28231642 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
    0.09342447 = sum of:
      0.044929106 = weight(_text_:management in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044929106 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = queryNorm
          0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.04849536 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04849536 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A thesaurus in the controlled vocabulary environment is a tool designed to support effective infonnation retrieval (IR) by guiding indexers and searchers consistently to choose the same terms for expressing a given concept or combination of concepts. Terms in the thesaurus are linked by relationships of three well-known types: equivalence, hierarchical, and associative. The functions and properties of these three basic types and some subcategories are described, as well as some additional relationship types conunonly found in thesauri. Progressive automation of IR processes and the capability for simultaneous searching of vast networked resources are creating some pressures for change in the categorization and consistency of relationships.

Date

22. 9.2007 15:45:57

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.2

0.056310337 = product of:
  0.0844655 = sum of:
    0.052695833 = weight(_text_:resources in 6773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052695833 = score(doc=6773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28231642 = fieldWeight in 6773, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6773)
    0.031769674 = product of:
      0.06353935 = sum of:
        0.06353935 = weight(_text_:management in 6773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06353935 = score(doc=6773,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.36866072 = fieldWeight in 6773, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Members offer comments and suggest resources on programs for creating, maintaining, and publishing thesauri. Formerly a tool for writers and indexers, the thesaurus has taken on a new role as an essential component of the corporate information infrastructure. Many people are using word processor or database programs to create and maintain thesauri, while others are using specialized tools that perform consistency checks and offer special reporting capabilities. Some also use thesaurus modules integrated into another application, such as web publishing, content management, or e-commerce. This article includes material comes from our own experience, email responses from members, and comments from participants in our seminars and roundtables. There's also an introduction to thesauri in a corporate information management system

0.056310337 = product of:
  0.0844655 = sum of:
    0.052695833 = weight(_text_:resources in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052695833 = score(doc=3817,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28231642 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
    0.031769674 = product of:
      0.06353935 = sum of:
        0.06353935 = weight(_text_:management in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06353935 = score(doc=3817,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.36866072 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Reports an integrated system that employs an open structure for managing the distributed resources (thesauri and databases) and integrates a thesaurus management system with a crossthesaurus search system. Describes the functions of the system that highlight the unique design for the networked environment.

0.048266005 = product of:
  0.072399005 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=708,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 708, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=708)
    0.027231153 = product of:
      0.054462306 = sum of:
        0.054462306 = weight(_text_:management in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054462306 = score(doc=708,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.31599492 = fieldWeight in 708, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=708)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This Standard presents guidelines and conventions for the contents, display, construction, testing, maintenance, and management of monolingual controlled vocabularies. This Standard focuses on controlled vocabularies that are used for the representation of content objects in knowledge organization systems including lists, synonym rings, taxonomies, and thesauri. This Standard should be regarded as a set of recommendations based on preferred techniques and procedures. Optional procedures are, however, sometimes described, e.g., for the display of terms in a controlled vocabulary. The primary purpose of vocabulary control is to achieve consistency in the description of content objects and to facilitate retrieval. Vocabulary control is accomplished by three principal methods: defining the scope, or meaning, of terms; using the equivalence relationship to link synonymous and nearly synonymous terms; and distinguishing among homographs.

Content

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

0.04396772 = product of:
  0.06595158 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 5005, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5005)
    0.020783724 = product of:
      0.04156745 = sum of:
        0.04156745 = weight(_text_:22 in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04156745 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.032409407 = product of:
  0.048614107 = sum of:
    0.031938497 = weight(_text_:resources in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031938497 = score(doc=3243,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.17110959 = fieldWeight in 3243, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3243)
    0.016675608 = product of:
      0.033351216 = sum of:
        0.033351216 = weight(_text_:management in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033351216 = score(doc=3243,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.19350658 = fieldWeight in 3243, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3243)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

Enthält u.a. folgende Aussage von J. Aitchison u. S. Dextre Clarke: "We face a paradox. Ostensibly, the need and the opportunity to apply thesauri to information retrieval are greater than ever before. On the other hand, users resist most efforts to persuade them to apply one. The drive for interoperability of systems means we must design our vocabularies for easy integration into downstream applications such as content management systems, indexing/metatagging interfaces, search engines, and portals. Summarizing the search for vocabularies that work more intuitively, we see that there are trends working in opposite directions. In the hugely popular taxonomies an the one hand, relationships between terms are more loosely defined than in thesauri. In the ontologies that will support computer-to-computer communications in AI applications such as the Semantic Web, we see the need for much more precisely defined term relationships."
Enthält die Beiträge: Spiteri, L.F.: Word association testing and thesaurus construction: a pilot study. Aitchison, J., S.G. Dextre-Clarke: The Thesaurus: a historical viewpoint, with a look to the future. Thomas, A.R.: Teach yourself thesaurus: exercises, reading, resources. Shearer, J.R.: A practical exercise in building a thesaurus. Nielsen, M.L.: Thesaurus construction: key issues and selected readings. Riesland, M.A.: Tools of the trade: vocabulary management software. Will, L.: Thesaurus consultancy. Owens, L.A., P.A. Cochrane: Thesaurus evaluation. Greenberg, J.: User comprehension and application of information retrieval thesauri. Johnson, E.H.: Distributed thesaurus Web services. Thomas, A.R., S.K. Roe: An interview with Dr. Amy J. Warner. Landry, P.: Multilingual subject access: the linking approach of MACS.

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.
The didactic parts of the book are a collection of exercises, readings and resources constituting a "Teach yourself " chapter written by Alan Thomas, ending with the warning that "New challenges include how to devise multi-functional and usersensitive vocabularies, corporate taxonomies and ontologies, and how to apply the transformative technology to them." This is absolutely right, and there is a need for some good writing that would tackle these issues. Another chapter, by James Shearer, skilfully manages to compress a practical exercise in building a thesaurus into some twenty A5 size pages. The third chapter in this set, by Marianne Lykke Nielsen, contains extensive reviews of key issues and selected readings under eight headings from the concept of the thesaurus, through the various construction stages and ending with automatic construction techniques. . . . This is a useful and approachable book. It is a pity that the index is such a poor advertisement for vocabulary control and usefulness."

0.02789284 = product of:
  0.041839257 = sum of:
    0.022583928 = weight(_text_:resources in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022583928 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.12099275 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
    0.01925533 = product of:
      0.03851066 = sum of:
        0.03851066 = weight(_text_:management in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03851066 = score(doc=1169,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

T.1: Today's thesauri are mostly electronic tools, having moved on from the paper-based era when thesaurus standards were first developed. They are built and maintained with the support of software and need to integrate with other software, such as search engines and content management systems. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals trained in indexing and searching, today there is a demand for vocabularies that untrained users will find to be intuitive. ISO 25964 makes the transition needed for the world of electronic information management. However, part 1 retains the assumption that human intellect is usually involved in the selection of indexing terms and in the selection of search terms. If both the indexer and the searcher are guided to choose the same term for the same concept, then relevant documents will be retrieved. This is the main principle underlying thesaurus design, even though a thesaurus built for human users may also be applied in situations where computers make the choices. Efficient exchange of data is a vital component of thesaurus management and exploitation. Hence the inclusion in this standard of recommendations for exchange formats and protocols. Adoption of these will facilitate interoperability between thesaurus management systems and the other computer applications, such as indexing and retrieval systems, that will utilize the data. Thesauri are typically used in post-coordinate retrieval systems, but may also be applied to hierarchical directories, pre-coordinate indexes and classification systems. Increasingly, thesaurus applications need to mesh with others, such as automatic categorization schemes, free-text search systems, etc. Part 2 of ISO 25964 describes additional types of structured vocabulary and gives recommendations to enable interoperation of the vocabularies at all stages of the information storage and retrieval process.
T.2: The ability to identify and locate relevant information among vast collections and other resources is a major and pressing challenge today. Several different types of vocabulary are in use for this purpose. Some of the most widely used vocabularies were designed a hundred years ago and have been evolving steadily. A different generation of vocabularies is now emerging, designed to exploit the electronic media more effectively. A good understanding of the previous generation is still essential for effective access to collections indexed with them. An important object of ISO 25964 as a whole is to support data exchange and other forms of interoperability in circumstances in which more than one structured vocabulary is applied within one retrieval system or network. Sometimes one vocabulary has to be mapped to another, and it is important to understand both the potential and the limitations of such mappings. In other systems, a thesaurus is mapped to a classification scheme, or an ontology to a thesaurus. Comprehensive interoperability needs to cover the whole range of vocabulary types, whether young or old. Concepts in different vocabularies are related only in that they have the same or similar meaning. However, the meaning can be found in a number of different aspects within each particular type of structured vocabulary: - within terms or captions selected in different languages; - in the notation assigned indicating a place within a larger hierarchy; - in the definition, scope notes, history notes and other notes that explain the significance of that concept; and - in explicit relationships to other concepts or entities within the same vocabulary. In order to create mappings from one structured vocabulary to another it is first necessary to understand, within the context of each different type of structured vocabulary, the significance and relative importance of each of the different elements in defining the meaning of that particular concept. ISO 25964-1 describes the key characteristics of thesauri along with additional advice on best practice. ISO 25964-2 focuses on other types of vocabulary and does not attempt to cover all aspects of good practice. It concentrates on those aspects which need to be understood if one of the vocabularies is to work effectively alongside one or more of the others. Recognizing that a new standard cannot be applied to some existing vocabularies, this part of ISO 25964 provides informative description alongside the recommendations, the aim of which is to enable users and system developers to interpret and implement the existing vocabularies effectively. The remainder of ISO 25964-2 deals with the principles and practicalities of establishing mappings between vocabularies.

0.017743612 = product of:
  0.053230833 = sum of:
    0.053230833 = weight(_text_:resources in 2583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053230833 = score(doc=2583,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28518265 = fieldWeight in 2583, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2583)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - Seeks to share with digital library practitioners the development process of an online image collection that integrates the syndetic structure of a controlled vocabulary to improve end-user search and browse functionality. Design/methodology/approach - Surveys controlled vocabulary structures and their utility for catalogers and end-users. Reviews research literature and usability findings that informed the specifications for integration of the controlled vocabulary structure into search and browse functionality. Discusses database functions facilitating query expansion using a controlled vocabulary structure, and web application handling of user queries and results display. Concludes with a discussion of open-source alternatives and reuse of database and application components in other environments. Findings - Affirms that structured forms of browse and search can be successfully integrated into digital collections to significantly improve the user's discovery experience. Establishes ways in which the technologies used in implementing enhanced search and browse functionality can be abstracted to work in other digital collection environments. Originality/value - Significant amounts of research on integrating thesauri structures into search and browse functionalities exist, but examples of online resources that have implemented this approach are few in comparison. The online image collection surveyed in this paper can serve as a model to other designers of digital library resources for integrating controlled vocabularies and metadata structures into more dynamic search and browse functionality for end-users.

0.017565278 = product of:
  0.052695833 = sum of:
    0.052695833 = weight(_text_:resources in 4855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052695833 = score(doc=4855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28231642 = fieldWeight in 4855, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4855)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.017565278 = product of:
  0.052695833 = sum of:
    0.052695833 = weight(_text_:resources in 5664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052695833 = score(doc=5664,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28231642 = fieldWeight in 5664, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5664)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Until the 1980s, concepts like authority control, controlled vocabularies, and metadata and schemas were all but unknown in the world of art and material culture information. This paper traces the evolution and current status of tools and resources for authority control of art information, and gives examples of how the lack of authority control can impede end-user access. Collection-specific thesauri and subject indexes, and vocabulary-assisted searching and query expansion are also discussed.

0.017565278 = product of:
  0.052695833 = sum of:
    0.052695833 = weight(_text_:resources in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052695833 = score(doc=2558,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28231642 = fieldWeight in 2558, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2558)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article provides an overview of recent developments relating to the application of thesauri in information organisation and retrieval on the World Wide Web. It describes some recent thesaurus projects undertaken to facilitate resource description and discovery and access to wide-ranging information resources on the Internet. Types of thesauri available on the Web, thesauri integrated in databases and information retrieval systems, and multiple-thesaurus systems for cross-database searching are also discussed. Collective efforts and events in addressing the standardisation and novel applications of thesauri are briefly reviewed.

0.017565278 = product of:
  0.052695833 = sum of:
    0.052695833 = weight(_text_:resources in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052695833 = score(doc=4644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28231642 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper describes a method for converting existing thesauri and related resources from their native format to RDF(S) and OWL. The method identifies four steps in the conversion process. In each step, decisions have to be taken with respect to the syntax or semantics of the resulting representation. Each step is supported through a number of guidelines. The method is illustrated through conversions of two large thesauri: MeSH and WordNet.

0.015055953 = product of:
  0.045167856 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=2695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 2695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2695)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.015055953 = product of:
  0.045167856 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 4642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=4642,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 4642, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4642)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Thesauri can be useful resources for indexing and retrieval on the Semantic Web, but often they are not published in RDF/OWL. To convert thesauri to RDF for use in Semantic Web applications and to ensure the quality and utility of the conversion a structured method is required. Moreover, if different thesauri are to be interoperable without complicated mappings, a standard schema for thesauri is required. This paper presents a method for conversion of thesauri to the SKOS RDF/OWL schema, which is a proposal for such a standard under development by W3Cs Semantic Web Best Practices Working Group. We apply the method to three thesauri: IPSV, GTAA and MeSH. With these case studies we evaluate our method and the applicability of SKOS for representing thesauri.

0.014822762 = product of:
  0.044468287 = sum of:
    0.044468287 = product of:
      0.088936575 = sum of:
        0.088936575 = weight(_text_:management in 4859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.088936575 = score(doc=4859,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.51601756 = fieldWeight in 4859, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4859)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Basic concepts relevant to controlled vocabularies and outlines criteria for evaluating vocabulary management software are defined. A comparison of four representative vocabulary management products is provided in an accompanying table.

0.014194889 = product of:
  0.042584665 = sum of:
    0.042584665 = weight(_text_:resources in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042584665 = score(doc=2615,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.22814612 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.013855817 = product of:
  0.04156745 = sum of:
    0.04156745 = product of:
      0.0831349 = sum of:
        0.0831349 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0831349 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3895, 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=3895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

24. 8.2005 19:20:22

0.012102734 = product of:
  0.036308203 = sum of:
    0.036308203 = product of:
      0.072616406 = sum of:
        0.072616406 = weight(_text_:management in 4864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072616406 = score(doc=4864,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.42132655 = fieldWeight in 4864, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4864)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.011546515 = product of:
  0.034639545 = sum of:
    0.034639545 = product of:
      0.06927909 = sum of:
        0.06927909 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06927909 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, 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=539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:07

0.010589892 = product of:
  0.031769674 = sum of:
    0.031769674 = product of:
      0.06353935 = sum of:
        0.06353935 = weight(_text_:management in 3892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06353935 = score(doc=3892,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.36866072 = fieldWeight in 3892, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Thesaurus data structures and exchange formats (ways of tagging and encoding thesauri for transfer between computer applications) are discussed. Single- and multiple-user thesaurus software is functionally similar, apart from scale. Several lists of requirements for such software have been published, and important aspects are summarized here, including input, editing, output, and the interfaces used by indexers and searchers. The way in which thesaurus software may be extended to cover other types of controlled vocabularies is covered briefly, followed by issues that arise in management and updating of thesauri, including changes to collections of documents indexed by previous versions and the mapping and merging of thesauri to provide a common search interface.