Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × type_ss:"n"
  • × language_ss:"e"
  1. ISO 25964 Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies (2008) 0.01
    0.0067914836 = product of:
      0.027165934 = sum of:
        0.027165934 = product of:
          0.05433187 = sum of:
            0.05433187 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05433187 = score(doc=1169,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.25948527 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    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.
  2. Z39.19-1993: Guidelines for the construction, format, and management of monolingual thesauri (1993) 0.01
    0.006276408 = product of:
      0.025105633 = sum of:
        0.025105633 = product of:
          0.050211266 = sum of:
            0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 4092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050211266 = score(doc=4092,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4092, 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=4092)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Knowledge organization 22(1995) no.3/4, S.180-181 (M. Hudon)
  3. OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases (2004) 0.01
    0.006276408 = product of:
      0.025105633 = sum of:
        0.025105633 = product of:
          0.050211266 = sum of:
            0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050211266 = score(doc=4685,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4685, 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=4685)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    14. 8.2011 13:33:22
  4. Agnese Galeffi, A.; Bertolini, M.V.; Bothmann, R.L.; Rodríguez, E.E.; McGarry, D.: Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP) 2016 (2016) 0.01
    0.005228086 = product of:
      0.020912344 = sum of:
        0.020912344 = product of:
          0.041824687 = sum of:
            0.041824687 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.041824687 = score(doc=3284,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.19975184 = fieldWeight in 3284, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3284)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The original Statement of Principles - commonly known as the "Paris Principles" - was approved by the International Conference on Cataloguing Principles in 1961. Its goal of serving as a basis for international standardization in cataloguing has certainly been achieved: most of the cataloguing codes that were developed worldwide since that time have followed the Principles strictly or at least to a high degree. More than fifty years later, having a common set of international cataloguing principles is still necessary as cataloguers and users around the world use online catalogues as search and discovery systems. At the beginning of the 21st century, IFLA produced a new statement of principles (published in 2009) applicable to online library catalogues and beyond. The current version has been reviewed and updated in 2014 and 2015, and approved in 2016. The 2009 Statement of Principles replaced and explicitly broadened the scope of the Paris Principles from just textual resources to all types of resources, and from just the choice and form of entry to all aspects of bibliographic and authority data used in library catalogues. It included not only principles and objectives, but also guiding rules that should be included in cataloguing codes internationally, as well as guidance on search and retrieval capabilities. This 2016 edition takes into consideration new categories of users, the open access environment, the interoperability and the accessibility of data, features of discovery tools and the significant change of user behaviour in general. This statement builds on the great cataloguing traditions of the world, as well as on the conceptual models in the IFLA Functional Requirements family.