Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Gödert, W."
  • × year_i:[1980 TO 1990}
  1. Gödert, W.: Probleme und Nutzen kooperativer Inhaltserschließung (1987) 0.00
    0.004463867 = product of:
      0.0133916 = sum of:
        0.0133916 = product of:
          0.0267832 = sum of:
            0.0267832 = weight(_text_:of in 5135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0267832 = score(doc=5135,freq=16.0), product of:
                0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043811057 = queryNorm
                0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 5135, product of:
                  4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                    16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5135)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Reflects on the situation a few years ago in the field of subject access in libraries and evaluates the present situation in the light of recent developments. Discusses factors which characterise the situation in West Germany today. Examines the organisation of cooperative subject access during the course of which various relationships are explored, and the dovetailing of the network and local library operations, and the formation of local and on-line catalogues are discussed. Describes the relationship between formal and subject access; discusses cooperation in the allocation of catchwords, and cooperation in classified subject access; and addresses 2 forms of cooperative subject access
  2. Gödert, W.: Sacherschließung im Jahr 2000 : Spielwiese für Theoretiker oder berufsbedingtes Erfordernis? (1988) 0.00
    0.0034169364 = product of:
      0.010250809 = sum of:
        0.010250809 = product of:
          0.020501617 = sum of:
            0.020501617 = weight(_text_:of in 1551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.020501617 = score(doc=1551,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043811057 = queryNorm
                0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 1551, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1551)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Outlines the future increase in importance of subject indexing and subject retrieval in libraries. Examines the value of an efficient subject index in public service operations as well as the advantages offered by new technology for exploring the possibility of storing and retrieving documents
  3. Gödert, W.: Zum Problem der Äquivalenzrelation in Dokumentationssprachen (1987) 0.00
    0.0027899165 = product of:
      0.008369749 = sum of:
        0.008369749 = product of:
          0.016739499 = sum of:
            0.016739499 = weight(_text_:of in 5144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.016739499 = score(doc=5144,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043811057 = queryNorm
                0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 5144, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5144)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    The problem of the equivalence relationship in natural languages and in artificial documentary languages is discussed and it is shown that the use of this concept for synonyms should be avoided. A proposal is made to substitute this concept by similarity or tolerance relationship
  4. Gödert, W.: Subject headings for mathematical literature (1980) 0.00
    0.0027335489 = product of:
      0.008200646 = sum of:
        0.008200646 = product of:
          0.016401293 = sum of:
            0.016401293 = weight(_text_:of in 4660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.016401293 = score(doc=4660,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043811057 = queryNorm
                0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 4660, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4660)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Analyses mathematical terminology to give practical hints for assigning subject headings to a book and proposes a method to use for subject analysis. The method is based on connections between the subject-classification scheme of the American Mathematical Society and indexing with subject headings. Gives examples and compares them with LCSH and PRECIS. A thesaurus of mathematics, using PRECIS methods and connecting with the Amercian Mathematical Society classification is desirable. Authors could also classify their own work and the data could be printed with the books
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 36(1980) no.1, S.11-23
  5. Gödert, W.: Library subject analysis in tension between universality and subject specialty (1982) 0.00
    0.0023673228 = product of:
      0.0071019684 = sum of:
        0.0071019684 = product of:
          0.014203937 = sum of:
            0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.014203937 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043811057 = queryNorm
                0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 744, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=744)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg
  6. Gödert, W.: Klassifikationssysteme und Online-Katalog (1987) 0.00
    0.0023673228 = product of:
      0.0071019684 = sum of:
        0.0071019684 = product of:
          0.014203937 = sum of:
            0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 5138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.014203937 = score(doc=5138,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043811057 = queryNorm
                0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 5138, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5138)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Free text searching with keywords in a complete data store is not necessarily the best automatic retrieval method. There must be a proper classification of documents and concepts and the use of a proper classification system avoids problems of terminological deficiency. The dialogue search form makes the on-line catalogue a new information medium. A bibliographic unit must be created with as many search access points as possible, using verbal and classificatory search elements. Verbal search categories must include free text elements for individual search access requirements and a controlled vocabulary with syntactic connections. Classified data should consist of a universal classification system with clear structural notation for access and surface searching, together with several specialist subject classifications for differentiated documentation and retrieval. The universal classification needs no detailed subdivision: it serves mainly as a guide and entry to the detailed sub-systems