Search (98 results, page 1 of 5)

0.036313698 = product of:
  0.072627395 = sum of:
    0.009726946 = weight(_text_:in in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009726946 = score(doc=3644,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.16633868 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
    0.052707586 = weight(_text_:great in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052707586 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.21774168 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
    0.010192863 = product of:
      0.020385725 = sum of:
        0.020385725 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020385725 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

Calvin Mooers' work toward the resolution of the problem of ambiguity in indexing went unrecognized for years. At the time he introduced the "descriptor" - a term with a very distinct meaning-indexers were, for the most part, taking index terms directly from the document, without either rationalizing them with context or normalizing them with some kind of classification. It is ironic that Mooers' term came to be attached to the popular but unsophisticated indexing methods which he was trying to root out. Simply expressed, what Mooers did was to take the dictionary definitions of terms and redefine them so clearly that they could not be used in any context except that provided by the new definition. He did, at great pains, construct such meanings for over four hundred words; disambiguation and specificity were sought after and found for these words. He proposed that all indexers adopt this method so that when the index supplied a term, it also supplied the exact meaning for that term as used in the indexed document. The same term used differently in another document would be defined differently and possibly renamed to avoid ambiguity. The disambiguation was achieved by using unabridged dictionaries and other sources of defining terminology. In practice, this tends to produce circularity in definition, that is, word A refers to word B which refers to word C which refers to word A. It was necessary, therefore, to break this chain by creating a new, definitive meaning for each word. Eventually, means such as those used by Austin (q.v.) for PRECIS achieved the same purpose, but by much more complex means than just creating a unique definition of each term. Mooers, however, was probably the first to realize how confusing undefined terminology could be. Early automatic indexers dealt with distinct disciplines and, as long as they did not stray beyond disciplinary boundaries, a quick and dirty keyword approach was satisfactory. The trouble came when attempts were made to make a combined index for two or more distinct disciplines. A number of processes have since been developed, mostly involving tagging of some kind or use of strings. Mooers' solution has rarely been considered seriously and probably would be extremely difficult to apply now because of so much interdisciplinarity. But for a specific, weIl defined field, it is still weIl worth considering. Mooers received training in mathematics and physics from the University of Minnesota and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was the founder of Zator Company, which developed and marketed a coded card information retrieval system, and of Rockford Research, Inc., which engages in research in information science. He is the inventor of the TRAC computer language.

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.

0.029493038 = product of:
  0.08847911 = sum of:
    0.013182558 = weight(_text_:in in 1921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013182558 = score(doc=1921,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 1921, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1921)
    0.07529655 = weight(_text_:great in 1921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07529655 = score(doc=1921,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 1921, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1921)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Classification schemes, thesauri, taxonomies, and other controlled vocabularies play important roles in the organization and retrieval of information in many different environments. While the design and construction of controlled vocabularies have been prescribed at the technical level in great detail over the past decades, the methodological level has been somewhat neglected. However, classification research has in recent years focused on developing approaches to the analysis of users, domains, and activities that could produce requirements for the design of controlled vocabularies. Researchers have often argued that the design, construction, and use of controlled vocabularies need to be based on analyses and understandings of the contexts in which these controlled vocabularies function. While one would assume that the growing body of research on human information behavior might help guide the development of controlled vocabularies shed light on these contexts, unfortunately, much of the research in this area is descriptive in nature and of little use for systems design. This paper discusses these trends and outlines a holistic approach that demonstrates how the design of controlled vocabularies can be informed by investigations of people's interactions with information. This approach is based on the Cognitive Work Analysis framework and outlines several dimensions of human-information interactions. Application of this approach will result is a comprehensive understanding of the contexts in which the controlled vocabulary will function and which can be used for the development of for the development of controlled vocabularies.

0.024910469 = product of:
  0.0747314 = sum of:
    0.0144941555 = weight(_text_:in in 3646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0144941555 = score(doc=3646,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.24786183 = fieldWeight in 3646, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3646)
    0.060237244 = weight(_text_:great in 3646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060237244 = score(doc=3646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 3646, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3646)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The use of diagrams to express relationships in classification is not new. Many classificationists have used this approach, but usually in a minor display to make a point or for part of a difficult relational situation. Ranganathan, for example, used diagrams for some of his more elusive concepts. The thesaurus in particular and subject headings in general, with direct and indirect crossreferences or equivalents, need many more diagrams than normally are included to make relationships and even semantics clear. A picture very often is worth a thousand words. Rolling has used directed graphs (arrowgraphs) to join terms as a practical method for rendering relationships between indexing terms lucid. He has succeeded very weIl in this endeavor. Four diagrams in this selection are all that one needs to explain how to employ the system; from initial listing to completed arrowgraph. The samples of his work include illustration of off-page connectors between arrowgraphs. The great advantage to using diagrams like this is that they present relations between individual terms in a format that is easy to comprehend. But of even greater value is the fact that one can use his arrowgraphs as schematics for making three-dimensional wire-and-ball models, in which the relationships may be seen even more clearly. In fact, errors or gaps in relations are much easier to find with this methodology. One also can get across the notion of the threedimensionality of classification systems with such models. Pettee's "hand reaching up and over" (q.v.) is not a figment of the imagination. While the actual hand is a wire or stick, the concept visualized is helpful in illuminating the three-dimensional figure that is latent in all systems that have cross-references or "broader," "narrower," or, especially, "related" terms. Classification schedules, being hemmed in by the dimensions of the printed page, also benefit from such physical illustrations. Rolling, an engineer by conviction, was the developer of information systems for the Cobalt Institute, the European Atomic Energy Community, and European Coal and Steel Community. He also developed and promoted computer-aided translation at the Commission of the European Communities in Luxembourg. One of his objectives has always been to increase the efficiency of mono- and multilingual thesauri for use in multinational information systems.

Footnote

Original in: Classification research: Proceedings of the Second International Study Conference held at Hotel Prins Hamlet, Elsinore, Denmark, 14th-18th Sept. 1964. Ed.: Pauline Atherton. Copenhagen: Munksgaard 1965. S.295-310.

0.0150419455 = product of:
  0.045125835 = sum of:
    0.012177527 = weight(_text_:in in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012177527 = score(doc=2943,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
    0.032948308 = product of:
      0.065896615 = sum of:
        0.065896615 = weight(_text_:22 in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.065896615 = score(doc=2943,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Describes the developments of the Statistical System for Subject Designation (SSSD): a syntactical system for subject designation for libraries in Croatia, based on the construction of subject headings in agreement with the theory of the sentence nature of subject headings. The discussion is preceded by a brief summary of theories underlying basic principles and fundamental rules of the alphabetical subject catalogue

Date

31. 7.2006 14:22:21

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.1, S.77-93

0.011380568 = product of:
  0.034141704 = sum of:
    0.01375598 = weight(_text_:in in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01375598 = score(doc=1149,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
    0.020385725 = product of:
      0.04077145 = sum of:
        0.04077145 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04077145 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

Source

Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green

0.010896482 = product of:
  0.032689445 = sum of:
    0.012303721 = weight(_text_:in in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012303721 = score(doc=4792,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
    0.020385725 = product of:
      0.04077145 = sum of:
        0.04077145 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04077145 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Moderne Verfahren des Information Retrieval verlangen nach aussagekräftigen und detailliert relationierten Dokumentationssprachen. Der selektive Transfer einzelner Modellierungsstrategien aus dem Bereich semantischer Technologien für die Gestaltung und Relationierung bestehender Dokumentationssprachen wird diskutiert. In Form einer Taxonomie wird ein hierarchisch strukturiertes Relationeninventar definiert, welches sowohl hinreichend allgemeine als auch zahlreiche spezifische Relationstypen enthält, die eine detaillierte und damit aussagekräftige Relationierung des Vokabulars ermöglichen. Das bringt einen Zugewinn an Übersichtlichkeit und Funktionalität. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Ansätzen und Überlegungen zur Schaffung von Relationeninventaren entwickelt der vorgestellte Vorschlag das Relationeninventar aus der Begriffsmenge eines bestehenden Gegenstandsbereichs heraus.

Series

Fortschritte in der Wissensorganisation; Bd.11

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

0.010347021 = product of:
  0.031041062 = sum of:
    0.010655336 = weight(_text_:in in 2245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010655336 = score(doc=2245,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 2245, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2245)
    0.020385725 = product of:
      0.04077145 = sum of:
        0.04077145 = weight(_text_:22 in 2245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04077145 = score(doc=2245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

To illustrate the theoretical analysis presented by J. Maniez published in Documentaliste 34(1997) nos.4/5 presents some concrete examples drawn for experience of the difficulties increasingly faced in trying to make different indexing languages compatible. Various types of problems may be considered: comparing semantic terms and relationships that compose indexing languages, setting standards for writing and vocabulary, and opposing pre and post coordinated descriptors. Proposes several solutions and discusses the need for further applied research in this area

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.007582167 = product of:
  0.022746501 = sum of:
    0.005273023 = weight(_text_:in in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005273023 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 2246, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2246)
    0.017473478 = product of:
      0.034946956 = sum of:
        0.034946956 = weight(_text_:22 in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034946956 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Discusses the apparently unattainable goal of compatibility of information languages. While controlled languages can improve retrieval performance within a single system, they make cooperation across different systems more difficult. The Internet and downloading accentuate this adverse outcome and the acceleration of data exchange aggravates the problem of compatibility. Defines this familiar concept and demonstrates that coherence is just as necessary as it was for indexing languages, the proliferation of which has created confusion in grouped data banks. Describes 2 types of potential solutions, similar to those applied to automatic translation of natural languages: - harmonizing the information languages themselves, both difficult and expensive, or, the more flexible solution involving automatic harmonization of indexing formulae based on pre established concordance tables. However, structural incompatibilities between post coordinated languages and classifications may lead any harmonization tools up a blind alley, while the paths of a universal concordance model are rare and narrow

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.006795242 = product of:
  0.04077145 = sum of:
    0.04077145 = product of:
      0.0815429 = sum of:
        0.0815429 = weight(_text_:22 in 4506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0815429 = score(doc=4506,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

8.10.2000 11:52:22

0.0063184733 = product of:
  0.018955419 = sum of:
    0.004394186 = weight(_text_:in in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004394186 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
    0.014561232 = product of:
      0.029122464 = sum of:
        0.029122464 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029122464 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify the concepts, component parts and relationships between vocabularies, linked data and knowledge graphs (KGs) from the perspectives of data and knowledge transitions. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses conceptual analysis methods. This study focuses on distinguishing concepts and analyzing composition and intercorrelations to explore data and knowledge transitions. Findings Vocabularies are the cornerstone for accurately building understanding of the meaning of data. Vocabularies provide for a data-sharing model and play an important role in supporting the semantic expression of linked data and defining the schema layer; they are also used for entity recognition, alignment and linkage for KGs. KGs, which consist of a schema layer and a data layer, are presented as cubes that organically combine vocabularies, linked data and big data. Originality/value This paper first describes the composition of vocabularies, linked data and KGs. More importantly, this paper innovatively analyzes and summarizes the interrelatedness of these factors, which comes from frequent interactions between data and knowledge. The three factors empower each other and can ultimately empower the Semantic Web.

Date

22. 1.2021 14:24:32

0.004853744 = product of:
  0.029122464 = sum of:
    0.029122464 = product of:
      0.05824493 = sum of:
        0.05824493 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05824493 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Pages

S.11-22

0.0035153488 = product of:
  0.021092093 = sum of:
    0.021092093 = weight(_text_:in in 2045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021092093 = score(doc=2045,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.36069193 = fieldWeight in 2045, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2045)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Diese Empfehlungen liegen auch in deutscher Übersetzung vor (abgedruckt ebenfalls in International classification), leider ist die Übersetzung nicht in allen Aussagen recht gelungen, so daß das Original vorzuziehen ist

0.0032752333 = product of:
  0.0196514 = sum of:
    0.0196514 = weight(_text_:in in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0196514 = score(doc=1194,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.3360549 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Zitiert in: Evens, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval. In: The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: R. Green u.a. Dordrecht: Kluwer 2002. S.143-160.

Source

Studies in southwestern ethnolinguistics. Eds.: D. Hymes u. W.E. Bittle

0.0028702707 = product of:
  0.017221624 = sum of:
    0.017221624 = weight(_text_:in in 2642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017221624 = score(doc=2642,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.29450375 = fieldWeight in 2642, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2642)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In online retrieval search results do not always match the intent in spite of using correct keywords (descriptors). One of the causes of this problem is found in the hierarchical structures of the thesaurus, which often contains relations between broader and narrower concepts, the opposite of which is not necessarily true. Some examples are described from 2 thesauri, MeSH and JICST. In these cases searchers need to make an effort to increase precision

0.002740257 = product of:
  0.01644154 = sum of:
    0.01644154 = weight(_text_:in in 1139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01644154 = score(doc=1139,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.2811637 = fieldWeight in 1139, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1139)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

With fourteen contributions grouped in two sections, "Theoretical background" and "Systems", this work discusses the most common relationships used in the organization of recorded knowledge to facilitate information retrieval: the relationships between bibliographic entities, intra- and intertextual relationships, relevance relationships, and subject relationships in thesauri and other classificatory structures. The editors' goal is to "spur further interest, debate, research, and development".

Content

Enthält u.a. die Beiträge: GREEN, R.: Relationships in the organization of knowledge: an overview; TILLETT, B.: Bibliographic relationships; CLARKE, S.G.D.: Thesaural relationships; MILSTEAD, J.L.: Standards for relationships between subject indexing terms; HUDON, M.: Relationships in multilingual thesauri; BODENREIDER, O. u. C.A. BEAN: Relationships among knowledge structures: vocabulary integration within a subject domain; BEGHTOL, C.: Relationships in classificatory structure and meaning; BEAN, C.A. u. R. GREEN: Relevance relationships; EL-HOSHY, L.M.: Relationships in Library of Congress Subject Headings; MOLHOLT, P.: The Art and Architecture Thesaurus: controlling relationships through rules and structure; NELSON, S.J. u.a.: Relationships in Medical Subject Headings (MeSH); NEELAMEGHAN, A.: Lateral relationships in multicultural, mulrilingual databases in the spiritual and religous domains: the OM information service; SATIJA, M.P.: Relationships in Ranganathan's Colon classification; MITCHELL, J.S.: Relationships in the Dewey Decimal Classification System

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 28(2001) no.4, S.208-210 (S. Betrand-Gastaldy)

0.0025369849 = product of:
  0.015221909 = sum of:
    0.015221909 = weight(_text_:in in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015221909 = score(doc=1634,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.260307 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Subject indexing: principles and practices in the 90's. Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting Held in Lisbon, Portugal, 17-18 August 1993, and sponsored by the IFLA Section on Classification and Indexing and the Instituto da Biblioteca Nacional e do Livro, Lisbon, Portugal. Ed.: R.P. Holley et al

0.0025114869 = product of:
  0.01506892 = sum of:
    0.01506892 = weight(_text_:in in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01506892 = score(doc=3144,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Effective use of syntagmatic relationships in index languages has suffered from inaccurate or incomplete characterization in both linguistics and information science. A number of 'myths' about syntagmatic relationships are debunked: the exclusivity of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships, linearity as a defining characteristic of syntagmatic relationships, the restriction of syntagmatic relationships to surface linguistic units, the limitation of syntagmatic relationship benefits in document retrieval to precision, and the general irrelevance of syntagmatic relationships for document retrieval. None of the mechanisms currently used with index languages is powerful enough to achieve the levels of precision and recall that the expression of conceptual syntagmatic relationships is in theory capable of. New designs for expressing these relationships in index languages will need to take into account such characteristics as their semantic nature, systematicity, generalizability and constituent nature

0.0025114869 = product of:
  0.01506892 = sum of:
    0.01506892 = weight(_text_:in in 42) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01506892 = score(doc=42,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 42, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=42)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Parent-Child relationships in MeSH trees were surveyed and described, and their patterns in the relational structure were determined for selected broad subject categories and subcategories. Is-a relationships dominated and were more prevalent overall than previously reported; however, an additional 67 different relationships were also seen, most of them nonhierarchical. Relational profiles were found to vary both within and among subject subdomains, but tended to display characteristic domain patterns. The implications for inferential reasoning and other cognitive and computational operations on hierarchical structures are considered

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.6

Source

Structures and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 5th International ISKO-Conference, Lille, 25.-29.8.1998. Ed.: W. Mustafa el Hadi et al

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.0025114869 = product of:
  0.01506892 = sum of:
    0.01506892 = weight(_text_:in in 1142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01506892 = score(doc=1142,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 1142, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1142)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Relationships are specified by simultaneously identifying a semantic relationship and the set of participants involved in it, pairing each participant with its role in the relationship. Properties pertaining to the participant set and the nature of the relationship are explored. Relationships in the organization of knowledge are surveyed, encompassing relationships between units of recorded knowledge based an descriptions of those units; intratextual and intertextual relationships, including relationships based an text structure, citation relationships, and hypertext links; subject relationships in thesauri and other classificatory structures, including relationships for literature-based knowledge discovery; and relevance relationships.

Source

Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green

0.0024857274 = product of:
  0.014914364 = sum of:
    0.014914364 = weight(_text_:in in 1369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014914364 = score(doc=1369,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 1369, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1369)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Series

Fortschritte in der Wissensorganisation; Bd.2