Search (89 results, page 1 of 5)

0.0787761 = product of:
  0.1575522 = sum of:
    0.05384086 = weight(_text_:services in 3173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05384086 = score(doc=3173,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16591617 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.3245064 = fieldWeight in 3173, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3173)
    0.079219826 = weight(_text_:network in 3173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079219826 = score(doc=3173,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.3936264 = fieldWeight in 3173, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3173)
    0.024491508 = product of:
      0.048983015 = sum of:
        0.048983015 = weight(_text_:22 in 3173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048983015 = score(doc=3173,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3173, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3173)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

Describes the backgroud to the construction of a thesaurus at Hydro-Quebec, Quebec, Canada. Several information units, linked to form a network, share the same bibliographic database. The need for coherence and efficiency was the principle motive for the construction of the multidisciplinary thesaurus. Describes the construction process, discusses the specifity of the tool, its circulation, and considers its use on a partnership basis with other information services

Source

Argus. 26(1997) no.3, S.16-22

0.061535414 = product of:
  0.09230312 = sum of:
    0.020190323 = weight(_text_:services in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020190323 = score(doc=3243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16591617 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.1216899 = fieldWeight in 3243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3243)
    0.028291756 = weight(_text_:computer in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028291756 = score(doc=3243,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16515417 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.17130512 = fieldWeight in 3243, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3243)
    0.029707434 = weight(_text_:network in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029707434 = score(doc=3243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.14760989 = fieldWeight in 3243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3243)
    0.014113603 = product of:
      0.028227206 = sum of:
        0.028227206 = weight(_text_:resources in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028227206 = score(doc=3243,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(4/6)

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."

0.0480752 = product of:
  0.0961504 = sum of:
    0.03772234 = weight(_text_:computer in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03772234 = score(doc=2615,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16515417 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.22840683 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
    0.039609913 = weight(_text_:network in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039609913 = score(doc=2615,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.1968132 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
    0.018818138 = product of:
      0.037636276 = sum of:
        0.037636276 = weight(_text_:resources in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037636276 = score(doc=2615,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

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.

0.03263849 = product of:
  0.09791546 = sum of:
    0.06730108 = weight(_text_:services in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06730108 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16591617 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.405633 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
    0.030614385 = product of:
      0.06122877 = sum of:
        0.06122877 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06122877 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = 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(2/6)

Content

Präsentation während der Veranstaltung "Networked Knowledge Organization Systems and Services: The 6th European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems (NKOS) Workshop, Workshop at the 11th ECDL Conference, Budapest, Hungary, September 21st 2007".

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:07

0.029846275 = product of:
  0.05969255 = sum of:
    0.020005293 = weight(_text_:computer in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020005293 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16515417 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.12113102 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
    0.029707434 = weight(_text_:network in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029707434 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.14760989 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
    0.009979825 = product of:
      0.01995965 = sum of:
        0.01995965 = weight(_text_:resources in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01995965 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

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.

0.027618185 = product of:
  0.082854554 = sum of:
    0.033342157 = weight(_text_:computer in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033342157 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16515417 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
    0.049512394 = weight(_text_:network in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049512394 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.2460165 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The originality of this book, which deals with such a new subject matter, lies in the application of methods and concepts never used before - such as Ontologies and Taxonomies, as well as Thesauri - to the ordering of knowledge based on primary information. Chapters in the book also examine the study of Ontologies, Taxonomies and Thesauri from the perspective of Systematics and General Systems Theory. "Ontologies, Taxonomy and Thesauri in Information Organisation and Retrieval" will be extremely useful to those operating within the network of related fields, which includes Documentation and Information Science.

Content

Inhalt: 1. From classifications to ontologies Knowledge - A new concept of knowledge - Knowledge and information - Knowledge organisation - Knowledge organisation and representation - Cognitive sciences - Talent management - Learning systematisation - Historical evolution - From classification to knowledge organisation - Why ontologies exist - Ontologies - The structure of ontologies 2. Taxonomies and thesauri From ordering to taxonomy - The origins of taxonomy - Hierarchical and horizontal order - Correlation with classifications - Taxonomy in computer science - Computing taxonomy - Definitions - Virtual taxonomy, cybernetic taxonomy - Taxonomy in Information Science - Similarities between taxonomies and thesauri - ifferences between taxonomies and thesauri 3. Thesauri Terminology in classification systems - Terminological languages - Thesauri - Thesauri definitions - Conditions that a thesaurus must fulfil - Historical evolution - Classes of thesauri 4. Thesauri in (cladist) systematics Systematics - Systematics as a noun - Definitions and historic evolution over time - Differences between taxonomy and systematics - Systematics in thesaurus construction theory - Classic, numerical and cladist systematics - Classic systematics in information science - Numerical systematics in information science - Thesauri in cladist systematics - Systematics in information technology - Some examples 5. Thesauri in systems theory Historical evolution - Approach to systems - Systems theory applied to the construction of thesauri - Components - Classes of system - Peculiarities of these systems - Working methods - Systems theory applied to ontologies and taxonomies

0.02594632 = product of:
  0.07783896 = sum of:
    0.05334745 = weight(_text_:computer in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05334745 = score(doc=4721,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16515417 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.32301605 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
    0.024491508 = product of:
      0.048983015 = sum of:
        0.048983015 = weight(_text_:22 in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048983015 = score(doc=4721,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

17. 1.2019 19:04:22

0.023321759 = product of:
  0.06996527 = sum of:
    0.046679016 = weight(_text_:computer in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046679016 = score(doc=4644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16515417 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.28263903 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
    0.023286257 = product of:
      0.046572514 = sum of:
        0.046572514 = weight(_text_:resources in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046572514 = score(doc=4644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191888 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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.

Series

Lecture notes in computer science; no.3298

0.018672295 = product of:
  0.11203376 = sum of:
    0.11203376 = weight(_text_:network in 6581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11203376 = score(doc=6581,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.5566718 = fieldWeight in 6581, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6581)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Automatic thesaurus construction is accomplished by extracting term relations mechanically. A popular method uses statistical analysis to discover the term relations. For low frequency terms the statistical information of the terms cannot be reliably used for deciding the relationship of terms. This problem is referred to as the data sparseness problem. Many studies have shown that low frequency terms are of most use in thesaurus construction. Characterizes the statistical behaviour of terms by using an inference network. Develops a formal approach using a Baysian network for the data sparseness problem

0.018120605 = product of:
  0.108723626 = sum of:
    0.108723626 = sum of:
      0.06586348 = weight(_text_:resources in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06586348 = score(doc=2346,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = queryNorm
          0.39925572 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
      0.04286014 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04286014 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2346, 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=2346)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Source

Visualizing subject access for 21st century information resources: Papers presented at the 1997 Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, 2-4 Mar 1997, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ed.: P.A. Cochrane et al

0.017946955 = product of:
  0.10768172 = sum of:
    0.10768172 = weight(_text_:services in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10768172 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16591617 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.6490128 = fieldWeight in 5576, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5576)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Information services and use. 9(1989), S.171-175

0.017151598 = product of:
  0.10290959 = sum of:
    0.10290959 = weight(_text_:network in 2203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10290959 = score(doc=2203,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.51133573 = fieldWeight in 2203, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2203)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Presents a framework for knowledge discovery and concept exploration. In order to enhance the concept exploration capability of knowledge based systems and to alleviate the limitation of the manual browsing approach, develops 2 spreading activation based algorithms for concept exploration in large, heterogeneous networks of concepts (eg multiple thesauri). One algorithm, which is based on the symbolic AI paradigma, performs a conventional branch-and-bound search on a semantic net representation to identify other highly relevant concepts (a serial, optimal search process). The 2nd algorithm, which is absed on the neural network approach, executes the Hopfield net parallel relaxation and convergence process to identify 'convergent' concepts for some initial queries (a parallel, heuristic search process). Tests these 2 algorithms on a large text-based knowledge network of about 13.000 nodes (terms) and 80.000 directed links in the area of computing technologies

0.016338257 = product of:
  0.09802954 = sum of:
    0.09802954 = weight(_text_:network in 1872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09802954 = score(doc=1872,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.48708782 = fieldWeight in 1872, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1872)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The Unified Medical Language System knowledge source provide detailed information about biomedical naming systems and databases. The Metathesaurus contains biomedical terminology from an increasing number of biomedical thesauri, and the Semantic Netowrk provides a structure that encompasses and unifies the thesauri that are included in the Metathesaurus. Addresses some fundamental principles underlying the design and development of the Metathesaurus and Semantic Network. Describes the formal properties of the semantic network. Considers the principle of semantic locality and how this is reflected in the UMLS knowledge sources. Discusses the issues involved in attempting to reuse knowledge and the potential for reuse of the UMLS knowledge sources

0.014905443 = product of:
  0.08943266 = sum of:
    0.08943266 = sum of:
      0.046572514 = weight(_text_:resources in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046572514 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = 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)
      0.04286014 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04286014 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.0127760945 = product of:
  0.076656565 = sum of:
    0.076656565 = sum of:
      0.0399193 = weight(_text_:resources in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0399193 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16496566 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = 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)
      0.036737263 = weight(_text_:22 in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036737263 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1582543 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191888 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.011670183 = product of:
  0.0700211 = sum of:
    0.0700211 = weight(_text_:network in 5854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0700211 = score(doc=5854,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.34791988 = fieldWeight in 5854, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5854)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The quantitative evaluation of thesauri has been carried out much further since 1976. This type of evaluation is based on counting of special factors in thesaurus structure, some of which are counting preferred terms, non preferred terms, cross reference terms and so on. Therefore, various statistical tests have been proposed and applied for evaluation of thesauri. In this article, we try to explain some ratios in the field of unity quantitative evaluation in a thesaurus term network. Theoretical base of the ratios' indicators and indices construction, and epistemological thought in this type of quantitative evaluation, are discussed in this article. The theoretical base of quantitative evaluation is the epistemological thought of Immanuel Kant's Critique of pure reason. The cognition states of transcendental understanding are divided into three steps, the first is perception, the second combination and the third, relation making. Terms relation domains and conceptual relation domains can be analyzed with ratios. The use of quantitative evaluations in current research in the field of thesaurus construction prepares a basis for a restoration period. In modern thesaurus construction, traditional term relations are analyzed in detail in the form of new conceptual relations. Hence, the new domains of hierarchical and associative relations are constructed in the form of relations between concepts. The newly formed conceptual domains can be a suitable basis for quantitative evaluation analysis in conceptual relations.

0.011552892 = product of:
  0.06931735 = sum of:
    0.06931735 = weight(_text_:network in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06931735 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.3444231 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.011552892 = product of:
  0.06931735 = sum of:
    0.06931735 = weight(_text_:network in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06931735 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.3444231 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) was designed as a comprehensive vocabulary in its domain. Its faceted, hierarchically arranged structure allows for powerful indexing and retrieval capabilities, while its planned network of related term relationships makes it especially amenable to natural language processing. To gauge the AAT's effectiveness as a search tool against natural language queries, an experiment was carried out on DIALOG. There are 3 art data bases on DIALOG and there are also a number of other data bases that contain art related material. The experiment used queries culled from reference librarians at art and architecture libraries.

0.011552892 = product of:
  0.06931735 = sum of:
    0.06931735 = weight(_text_:network in 4030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06931735 = score(doc=4030,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.3444231 = fieldWeight in 4030, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4030)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Describes a design for ideal online subject and author thesauri. The subject thesaurus is a graphic thesaurus with a semantic network, so the spread activation assumption can be applied. The hierarchical relationship is broken into 3 specific relations, so automated inheritance can be performed. The associated relationship is separated with several specific relationships, so spatial recognition can function well. This thesaurus will provide variety and complexity to deal with uncertainty and will be a user constructed, user enhanced hyperthesaurus that serves as an analogue of the human mind. The author thesaurus is designed to show all authors which are alphabetically adjacent to a given author as well as other authors whose subject area is close to that of the given author

0.011552892 = product of:
  0.06931735 = sum of:
    0.06931735 = weight(_text_:network in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06931735 = score(doc=4494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2012564 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191888 = queryNorm
        0.3444231 = fieldWeight in 4494, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4494)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Although commonly used in both commercial and experimental information retrieval systems, thesauri have not demonstrated consistent benefits for retrieval performance, and it is difficult to construct a thesaurus automatically for large text databases. In this paper, an approach, called PhraseFinder, is proposed to construct collection-dependent association thesauri automatically using large full-text document collections. The association thesaurus can be accessed through natural language queries in INQUERY, an information retrieval system based on the probabilistic inference network. Experiments are conducted in INQUERY to evaluate different types of association thesauri, and thesauri constructed for a variety of collections