Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.07577047 = product of:
  0.20205459 = sum of:
    0.0953384 = weight(_text_:storage in 1322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0953384 = score(doc=1322,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.51082915 = fieldWeight in 1322, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1322)
    0.058764547 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058764547 = score(doc=1322,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.5671716 = fieldWeight in 1322, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1322)
    0.047951635 = weight(_text_:systems in 1322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047951635 = score(doc=1322,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10526281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.45554203 = fieldWeight in 1322, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1322)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Powering search offers a clear and comprehensive treatment of the role of thesauri in search user interfaces across a range of information search and retrieval systems - from bibliographic and full-text databases to digital libraries, portals, open archives, and content management systems.

Content

Thesauri : introduction and recent developments -- Thesauri in interactive information retrieval -- User-centered approach to the evaluation of thesauri : query formulation and expansion -- Thesauri in web-based search systems -- Thesaurus-based search and browsing functionalities in new thesaurus construction standards -- Design of search user interfaces for thesauri -- Design of user interfaces for multilingual and meta-thesauri -- User-centered evaluation of thesaurus-enhanced search user interfaces -- Guidelines for the design of thesaurus-enhanced search user interfaces -- Current trends and developments.

LCSH

Information storage and retrieval systems
Information retrieval

RSWK

Information Retrieval

Subject

Information Retrieval
Information storage and retrieval systems
Information retrieval

0.062422417 = product of:
  0.16645978 = sum of:
    0.089885905 = weight(_text_:storage in 4238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.089885905 = score(doc=4238,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.48161435 = fieldWeight in 4238, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4238)
    0.047981054 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047981054 = score(doc=4238,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.46309367 = fieldWeight in 4238, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4238)
    0.02859283 = weight(_text_:systems in 4238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02859283 = score(doc=4238,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10526281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 4238, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4238)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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

0.050979286 = product of:
  0.10195857 = sum of:
    0.033707213 = weight(_text_:storage in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033707213 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.18060538 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
    0.023228727 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023228727 = score(doc=1169,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.22419426 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
    0.02836857 = weight(_text_:systems in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02836857 = score(doc=1169,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.10526281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.2695023 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
    0.016654061 = product of:
      0.033308122 = sum of:
        0.033308122 = weight(_text_:etc in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033308122 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18552645 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034252144 = queryNorm
            0.17953302 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

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.

Issue

Pt.1: Thesauri for information retrieval - Pt.2: Interoperability with other vocabularies.

0.03916688 = product of:
  0.10444501 = sum of:
    0.05617869 = weight(_text_:storage in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05617869 = score(doc=592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.30100897 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
    0.01731367 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01731367 = score(doc=592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
    0.03095265 = weight(_text_:systems in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03095265 = score(doc=592,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10526281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify the most important factors and features in the evolution of thesauri and ontologies through a dialectic model. This model relies on a dialectic process or idea which could be discovered via a dialectic method. This method has focused on identifying the logical relationship between a beginning proposition, or an idea called a thesis, a negation of that idea called the antithesis, and the result of the conflict between the two ideas, called a synthesis. During the creation of knowl­edge organization systems (KOSs), the identification of logical relations between different ideas has been made possible through the consideration and use of the most influential methods and tools such as dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, thesaurus, micro-, macro- and metathesauri, ontology, lower, middle and upper level ontologies. The analysis process has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a dialectic method and documentary method as the reasoning process. This supports our arguments and synthesizes a method for the analysis of research results. Confirmed by the research results, the principle of unity has shown to be the most important factor in the development and evolution of the structure of knowl­edge organization systems and their types. There are various types of unity when considering the analysis of logical relations. These include the principle of unity of alphabetical order, unity of science, semantic unity, structural unity and conceptual unity. The results have clearly demonstrated a movement from plurality to unity in the assembling of the complex structure of knowl­edge organization systems to increase information and knowl­edge storage and retrieval performance.

0.029396944 = product of:
  0.117587775 = sum of:
    0.089885905 = weight(_text_:storage in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.089885905 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.48161435 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
    0.027701873 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027701873 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The latest thesaurus guidelines, ISO 2788 and ANSI/NISO Z39.19-1993, were published before many recent changes in the nature of databases, and before the full impact of the Internet on information storage and retrieval. The major changes are addressed in light of implications for reconsideration and possible revision of the guidelines

0.01837309 = product of:
  0.07349236 = sum of:
    0.05617869 = weight(_text_:storage in 3695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05617869 = score(doc=3695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.30100897 = fieldWeight in 3695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3695)
    0.01731367 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01731367 = score(doc=3695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3695)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The concepts of simplicity and complexity play major roles in information storage and retrieval in knowledge organizations. This paper reports an investigation of these concepts in the structure of descriptors. The main purpose of simplicity is to decrease the number of words in the construction of descriptors as this idea affects semantic relations, recall and precision. ISO 25964 has affirmed the purpose of simplicity by requiring splitting compound terms into simpler concepts. This work aims to elaborate the standard methods of evaluation by providing a more detailed evaluation of the descriptors structure and identifying effective factors in simplicity and complexity results in the structure of thesauri descriptors. The research population is taken from the descriptors of the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Thesaurus, the Persian Cultural Thesaurus (ASFA) and the Chemical Thesaurus. This research was conducted using the statistical and content analysis method. In this research we propose a new quantitative approach as well as novel indicators and indices involving Simplicity and Factoring Ratios to evaluate the descriptors structure. The results will be useful in the verification, selection and maintenance purposes in knowledge organizations and the inquiry method can be further developed in the field of ontology evaluation.