Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Theorie verbaler Dokumentationssprachen"
  1. Khoo, C.; Chan, S.; Niu, Y.: ¬The many facets of the cause-effect relation (2002) 0.01
    0.01220762 = product of:
      0.04883048 = sum of:
        0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04883048 = score(doc=1192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This chapter presents a broad survey of the cause-effect relation, with particular emphasis an how the relation is expressed in text. Philosophers have been grappling with the concept of causation for centuries. Researchers in social psychology have found that the human mind has a very complex mechanism for identifying and attributing the cause for an event. Inferring cause-effect relations between events and statements has also been found to be an important part of reading and text comprehension, especially for narrative text. Though many of the cause-effect relations in text are implied and have to be inferred by the reader, there is also a wide variety of linguistic expressions for explicitly indicating cause and effect. In addition, it has been found that certain words have "causal valence"-they bias the reader to attribute cause in certain ways. Cause-effect relations can also be divided into several different types.
  2. Engerer, V.: Control and syntagmatization : vocabulary requirements in information retrieval thesauri and natural language lexicons (2017) 0.01
    0.01220762 = product of:
      0.04883048 = sum of:
        0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04883048 = score(doc=3678,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This paper explores the relationships between natural language lexicons in lexical semantics and thesauri in information retrieval research. These different areas of knowledge have different restrictions on use of vocabulary; thesauri are used only in information search and retrieval contexts, whereas lexicons are mental systems and generally applicable in all domains of life. A set of vocabulary requirements that defines the more concrete characteristics of vocabulary items in the 2 contexts can be derived from this framework: lexicon items have to be learnable, complex, transparent, etc., whereas thesaurus terms must be effective, current and relevant, searchable, etc. The differences in vocabulary properties correlate with 2 other factors, the well-known dimension of Control (deliberate, social activities of building and maintaining vocabularies), and Syntagmatization, which is less known and describes vocabulary items' varying formal preparedness to exit the thesaurus/lexicon, enter into linear syntactic constructions, and, finally, acquire communicative functionality. It is proposed that there is an inverse relationship between Control and Syntagmatization.
  3. Ruge, G.: ¬A spreading activation network for automatic generation of thesaurus relationships (1991) 0.01
    0.010983714 = product of:
      0.043934856 = sum of:
        0.043934856 = product of:
          0.08786971 = sum of:
            0.08786971 = weight(_text_:22 in 4506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08786971 = score(doc=4506,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4506, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4506)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    8.10.2000 11:52:22
  4. Foskett, D.J.: Classification and integrative levels (1985) 0.01
    0.010070773 = product of:
      0.04028309 = sum of:
        0.04028309 = weight(_text_:social in 3639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04028309 = score(doc=3639,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.21807072 = fieldWeight in 3639, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3639)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Very interesting experimental work was done by Douglas Foskett and other British classificationists during the fifteen-year period following the end of World War II. The research was effective in demonstrating that it was possible to make very sophisticated classification systems for virtually any subject-systems suitable for experts and for the general user needing a detailed subject classification. The success of these special systems led to consideration of the possibility of putting them together to form a new general classification system. To do such a thing would require a general, overall framework of some kind, since systems limited to a special subject are easier to construct because one does not have to worry about including all of the pertinent facets needed for a general system. Individual subject classifications do not automatically coalesce into a general pattern. For example, what is central to one special classification might be fringe in another or in several others. Fringe terminologies may not coincide in terms of logical relationships. Homographs and homonyms may not rear their ugly heads until attempts at merger are made. Foskett points out that even identifying a thing in terms of a noun or verb involves different assumptions in approach. For these and other reasons, it made sense to look for existing work in fields where the necessary framework already existed. Foskett found the rudiments of such a system in a number of writings, culminating in a logical system called "integrative levels" suggested by James K. Feibleman (q.v.). This system consists of a set of advancing conceptual levels relating to the apparent organization of nature. These levels are irreversible in that if one once reached a certain level there was no going back. Foskett points out that with higher levels and greater complexity in structure the analysis needed to establish valid levels becomes much more difficult, especially as Feibleman stipulates that a higher level must not be reducible to a lower one. (That is, one cannot put Humpty Dumpty together again.) Foskett is optimistic to the extent of suggesting that references from level to level be made upwards, with inductive reasoning, a system used by Derek Austin (q.v.) for making reference structures in PRECIS. Though the method of integrative levels so far has not been used successfully with the byproducts of human social behavior and thought, so much has been learned about these areas during the past twenty years that Foskett may yet be correct in his optimism. Foskett's name has Jong been associated with classification in the social sciences. As with many of the British classificationists included in this book, he has been a member of the Classification Research Group for about forty years. Like the others, he continues to contribute to the field.
  5. Mikacic, M.: Statistical system for subject designation (SSSD) for libraries in Croatia (1996) 0.01
    0.008876181 = product of:
      0.035504725 = sum of:
        0.035504725 = product of:
          0.07100945 = sum of:
            0.07100945 = weight(_text_:22 in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07100945 = score(doc=2943,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    31. 7.2006 14:22:21
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.1, S.77-93
  6. Schmitz-Esser, W.: Language of general communication and concept compatibility (1996) 0.01
    0.007845511 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = product of:
          0.062764086 = sum of:
            0.062764086 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.062764086 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, 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=6089)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Pages
    S.11-22
  7. Vickery, B.B.: Structure and function in retrieval languages (2006) 0.01
    0.007842129 = product of:
      0.031368516 = sum of:
        0.031368516 = product of:
          0.06273703 = sum of:
            0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06273703 = score(doc=5584,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to summarize the varied structural characteristics which may be present in retrieval languages. Design/methodology/approach - The languages serve varied purposes in information systems, and a number of these are identified. The relations between structure and function are discussed and suggestions made as to the most suitable structures needed for various purposes. Findings - A quantitative approach has been developed: a simple measure is the number of separate terms in a retrieval language, but this has to be related to the scope of its subject field. Some ratio of terms to items in the field seems a more suitable measure of the average specificity of the terms. Other aspects can be quantified - for example, the average number of links in hierarchical chains, or the average number of cross-references in a thesaurus. Originality/value - All the approaches to the analysis of retrieval language reported in this paper are of continuing value. Some practical studies of computer information systems undertaken by Aslib Research Department have suggested a further approach.
  8. Mazzocchi, F.; Tiberi, M.; De Santis, B.; Plini, P.: Relational semantics in thesauri : an overview and some remarks at theoretical and practical levels (2007) 0.01
    0.0065351077 = product of:
      0.026140431 = sum of:
        0.026140431 = product of:
          0.052280862 = sum of:
            0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.052280862 = score(doc=1462,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 1462, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1462)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    A thesaurus is a controlled vocabulary designed to allow for effective information retrieval. It con- sists of different kinds of semantic relationships, with the aim of guiding users to the choice of the most suitable index and search terms for expressing a certain concept. The relational semantics of a thesaurus deal with methods to connect terms with related meanings and arc intended to enhance information recall capabilities. In this paper, focused on hierarchical relations, different aspects of the relational semantics of thesauri, and among them the possibility of developing richer structures, are analyzed. Thesauri are viewed as semantic tools providing, for operational purposes, the representation of the meaning of the terms. The paper stresses how theories of semantics, holding different perspectives about the nature of meaning and how it is represented, affect the design of the relational semantics of thesauri. The need for tools capable of representing the complexity of knowledge and of the semantics of terms as it occurs in the literature of their respective subject fields is advocated. It is underlined how this would contribute to improving the retrieval of information. To achieve this goal, even though in a preliminary manner, we explore the possibility of setting against the framework of thesaurus design the notions of language games and hermeneutic horizon.
  9. Degez, D.: Compatibilité des langages d'indexation mariage, cohabitation ou fusion? : Quelques examples concrèts (1998) 0.01
    0.005491857 = product of:
      0.021967428 = sum of:
        0.021967428 = product of:
          0.043934856 = sum of:
            0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 2245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043934856 = score(doc=2245,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2245, 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=2245)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
  10. Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Thesaural relationships (2001) 0.01
    0.005491857 = product of:
      0.021967428 = sum of:
        0.021967428 = product of:
          0.043934856 = sum of:
            0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043934856 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:45:57
  11. Boteram, F.: Semantische Relationen in Dokumentationssprachen : vom Thesaurus zum semantischen Netz (2010) 0.01
    0.005491857 = product of:
      0.021967428 = sum of:
        0.021967428 = product of:
          0.043934856 = sum of:
            0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043934856 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  12. Maniez, J.: Fusion de banques de donnees documentaires at compatibilite des languages d'indexation (1997) 0.00
    0.004707306 = product of:
      0.018829225 = sum of:
        0.018829225 = product of:
          0.03765845 = sum of:
            0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03765845 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2246, 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=2246)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
  13. Jia, J.: From data to knowledge : the relationships between vocabularies, linked data and knowledge graphs (2021) 0.00
    0.0039227554 = product of:
      0.015691021 = sum of:
        0.015691021 = product of:
          0.031382043 = sum of:
            0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.031382043 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    22. 1.2021 14:24:32
  14. Mooers, C.N.: ¬The indexing language of an information retrieval system (1985) 0.00
    0.0027459285 = product of:
      0.010983714 = sum of:
        0.010983714 = product of:
          0.021967428 = sum of:
            0.021967428 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.021967428 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Footnote
    Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.