-
Shiri, A.A.; Revie, C.: Thesauri on the Web : current developments and trends (2000)
0.05
0.052681718 = product of:
0.105363436 = sum of:
0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08324346 = score(doc=2558,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 2558, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2558)
0.022119977 = product of:
0.044239953 = sum of:
0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044239953 = score(doc=2558,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 2558, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2558)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This article provides an overview of recent developments relating to the application of thesauri in information organisation and retrieval on the World Wide Web. It describes some recent thesaurus projects undertaken to facilitate resource description and discovery and access to wide-ranging information resources on the Internet. Types of thesauri available on the Web, thesauri integrated in databases and information retrieval systems, and multiple-thesaurus systems for cross-database searching are also discussed. Collective efforts and events in addressing the standardisation and novel applications of thesauri are briefly reviewed.
-
Velasco, M.: Algoritmo de filtrado multitermino para la obtencion de relaciones jerarquicas en la construction automatica de un tesauro de descriptores (1999)
0.05
0.05117034 = product of:
0.10234068 = sum of:
0.0686101 = weight(_text_:26 in 348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0686101 = score(doc=348,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.3901819 = fieldWeight in 348, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=348)
0.03373058 = product of:
0.06746116 = sum of:
0.06746116 = weight(_text_:22 in 348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06746116 = score(doc=348,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 348, 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=348)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 26. 3.2002 10:59:56
- Source
- Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.1, S.34-49
-
Gagnon-Arguin, L.: ¬L'¬analyse documentaire 1 : les thesaurus en France (1995)
0.04
0.04119483 = product of:
0.16477932 = sum of:
0.16477932 = weight(_text_:description in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.16477932 = score(doc=4460,freq=6.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.71178657 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- First in a series of articles on archival description. Describes the experience of French archives in the creation of thesauri with special emphasis on the following: the context within which French expertise in the description and analysis of archival documents was developed; the 3 principle thesauri currently used in French archives for the description of public administration documents, Vocabulaire de Varenne, Thesaurus W, and Priam 3; and some considerations for archivists in Quebec
-
Dupuis, P.; Lapointe, J.: Developpement d'un outil documentaire à Hydro-Quebec : le Thesaurus HQ (1997)
0.04
0.040936273 = product of:
0.081872545 = sum of:
0.05488808 = weight(_text_:26 in 3173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05488808 = score(doc=3173,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.31214553 = fieldWeight in 3173, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3173)
0.026984464 = product of:
0.05396893 = sum of:
0.05396893 = weight(_text_:22 in 3173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05396893 = score(doc=3173,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3173, 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=3173)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Argus. 26(1997) no.3, S.16-22
-
Lambert, N.: Of thesauri and computers : reflections on the need for thesauri (1995)
0.04
0.040936273 = product of:
0.081872545 = sum of:
0.05488808 = weight(_text_:26 in 3734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05488808 = score(doc=3734,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.31214553 = fieldWeight in 3734, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3734)
0.026984464 = product of:
0.05396893 = sum of:
0.05396893 = weight(_text_:22 in 3734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05396893 = score(doc=3734,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3734, 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=3734)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 2. 4.1996 20:53:26
- Source
- Searcher. 3(1995) no.8, S.18-22
-
Crouch, C.J.: ¬An approach to the automatic construction of global thesauri (1990)
0.04
0.03581924 = product of:
0.07163848 = sum of:
0.048027072 = weight(_text_:26 in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048027072 = score(doc=4042,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 4042, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4042)
0.023611406 = product of:
0.04722281 = sum of:
0.04722281 = weight(_text_:22 in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04722281 = score(doc=4042,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4042, 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=4042)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 22. 4.1996 3:39:53
- Source
- Information processing and management. 26(1990), no.5, S.629-640
-
Schmitz-Esser, W.: Thesaurus and beyond : an advanced formula for linguistic engineering and information retrieval (1999)
0.03
0.030702204 = product of:
0.061404407 = sum of:
0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04116606 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 4116, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4116)
0.020238347 = product of:
0.040476695 = sum of:
0.040476695 = weight(_text_:22 in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040476695 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4116, 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=4116)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Knowledge organization. 26(1999) no.1, S.10-22
-
Müller, T.: Wissensrepräsentation mit semantischen Netzen im Bereich Luftfahrt (2006)
0.03
0.02558517 = product of:
0.05117034 = sum of:
0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03430505 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 1670, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1670)
0.01686529 = product of:
0.03373058 = sum of:
0.03373058 = weight(_text_:22 in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03373058 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1670, 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=1670)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 26. 9.2006 21:00:22
-
Fischer, D.H.: Converting a thesaurus to OWL : Notes on the paper "The National Cancer Institute's Thesaurus and Ontology" (2004)
0.03
0.025488 = product of:
0.101952 = sum of:
0.101952 = weight(_text_:description in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.101952 = score(doc=2362,freq=12.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.44039544 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- The paper analysed here is a kind of position paper. In order to get a better under-standing of the reported work I used the retrieval interface of the thesaurus, the so-called NCI DTS Browser accessible via the Web3, and I perused the cited OWL file4 with numerous "Find" and "Find next" string searches. In addition the file was im-ported into Protégé 2000, Release 2.0, with OWL Plugin 1.0 and Racer Plugin 1.7.14. At the end of the paper's introduction the authors say: "In the following sections, this paper will describe the terminology development process at NCI, and the issues associated with converting a description logic based nomenclature to a semantically rich OWL ontology." While I will not deal with the first part, i.e. the terminology development process at NCI, I do not see the thesaurus as a description logic based nomenclature, or its cur-rent state and conversion already result in a "rich" OWL ontology. What does "rich" mean here? According to my view there is a great quantity of concepts and links but a very poor description logic structure which enables inferences. And what does the fol-lowing really mean, which is said a few lines previously: "Although editors have defined a number of named ontologic relations to support the description-logic based structure of the Thesaurus, additional relation-ships are considered for inclusion as required to support dependent applications."
According to my findings several relations available in the thesaurus query interface as "roles", are not used, i.e. there are not yet any assertions with them. And those which are used do not contribute to complete concept definitions of concepts which represent thesaurus main entries. In other words: The authors claim to already have a "description logic based nomenclature", where there is not yet one which deserves that title by being much more than a thesaurus with strict subsumption and additional inheritable semantic links. In the last section of the paper the authors say: "The most time consuming process in this conversion was making a careful analysis of the Thesaurus to understand the best way to translate it into OWL." "For other conversions, these same types of distinctions and decisions must be made. The expressive power of a proprietary encoding can vary widely from that in OWL or RDF. Understanding the original semantics and engineering a solution that most closely duplicates it is critical for creating a useful and accu-rate ontology." My question is: What decisions were made and are they exemplary, can they be rec-ommended as "the best way"? I raise strong doubts with respect to that, and I miss more profound discussions of the issues at stake. The following notes are dedicated to a critical description and assessment of the results of that conversion activity. They are written in a tutorial style more or less addressing students, but myself being a learner especially in the field of medical knowledge representation I do not speak "ex cathedra".
-
Köper, B.: Vergleich von ausgewählten Thesaurus-Begriffsfeldern hinsichtlich ihrer linguistischen Relation (1990)
0.02
0.024013536 = product of:
0.096054144 = sum of:
0.096054144 = weight(_text_:26 in 39) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.096054144 = score(doc=39,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.5462547 = fieldWeight in 39, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=39)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 9.12.1995 17:26:17
-
Busch, J.A.: Building and accessing vocabulary resources for networked resource discovery and navigation (1998)
0.02
0.02286569 = product of:
0.09146276 = sum of:
0.09146276 = sum of:
0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044239953 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
0.04722281 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04722281 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2346, 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=2346)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 9.1997 19:16:05
- Source
- Visualizing subject access for 21st century information resources: Papers presented at the 1997 Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, 2-4 Mar 1997, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ed.: P.A. Cochrane et al
-
ISO 25964 Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies (2008)
0.02
0.022577878 = product of:
0.045155756 = sum of:
0.035675768 = weight(_text_:description in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035675768 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.1541063 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
0.009479989 = product of:
0.018959979 = sum of:
0.018959979 = weight(_text_:access in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018959979 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.11234473 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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.
-
Milstead, J.L.: Thesauri in a full-text world (1998)
0.02
0.02211583 = product of:
0.08846332 = sum of:
0.08846332 = sum of:
0.054732744 = weight(_text_:access in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054732744 = score(doc=2337,freq=6.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.3243113 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
0.03373058 = weight(_text_:22 in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03373058 = score(doc=2337,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2337, 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=2337)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Despite early claims to the contemporary, thesauri continue to find use as access tools for information in the full-text environment. Their mode of use is changing, but this change actually represents an expansion rather than a contrdiction of their utility. Thesauri and similar vocabulary tools can complement full-text access by aiding users in focusing their searches, by supplementing the linguistic analysis of the text search engine, and even by serving as one of the tools used by the linguistic engine for its analysis. While human indexing contunues to be used for many databases, the trend is to increase the use of machine aids for this purpose. All machine-aided indexing (MAI) systems rely on thesauri as the basis for term selection. In the 21st century, the balance of effort between human and machine will change at both input and output, but thesauri will continue to play an important role for the foreseeable future
- Date
- 22. 9.1997 19:16:05
- Source
- Visualizing subject access for 21st century information resources: Papers presented at the 1997 Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, 2-4 Mar 1997, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ed.: P.A. Cochrane et al
-
Quick Guide to Publishing a Thesaurus on the Semantic Web (2008)
0.02
0.020810865 = product of:
0.08324346 = sum of:
0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 4656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08324346 = score(doc=4656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 4656, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4656)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- This document describes in brief how to express the content and structure of a thesaurus, and metadata about a thesaurus, in RDF. Using RDF allows data to be linked to and/or merged with other RDF data by semantic web applications. The Semantic Web, which is based on the Resource Description Framework (RDF), provides a common framework that allows data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries.
-
Rahmstorf, G.: Methoden und Formate für mehrsprachige Begriffssysteme (1996)
0.02
0.02058303 = product of:
0.08233212 = sum of:
0.08233212 = weight(_text_:26 in 7110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08233212 = score(doc=7110,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.4682183 = fieldWeight in 7110, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7110)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 9. 3.1996 13:26:38
-
Soergel, D.: Data structure and software support for for integrated thesauri (1996)
0.02
0.02058303 = product of:
0.08233212 = sum of:
0.08233212 = weight(_text_:26 in 6052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08233212 = score(doc=6052,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.4682183 = fieldWeight in 6052, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6052)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 7. 1.1997 17:39:26
-
Smith, D.A.: Use of a thesaurus in two-stage information retrieval of electronic records (1996)
0.02
0.02058303 = product of:
0.08233212 = sum of:
0.08233212 = weight(_text_:26 in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08233212 = score(doc=1965,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.4682183 = fieldWeight in 1965, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1965)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 16. 8.1998 19:15:26
-
Aitchison, J.; Dextre Clarke, S.G.: ¬The Thesaurus : a historical viewpoint, with a look to the future (2004)
0.02
0.019599162 = product of:
0.07839665 = sum of:
0.07839665 = sum of:
0.037919957 = weight(_text_:access in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037919957 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 5005, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5005)
0.040476695 = weight(_text_:22 in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040476695 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5005, 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=5005)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- After a period of experiment and evolution in the 1950s and 1960s, a fairly standard format for thesauri was established with the publication of the influential Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) in 1967. This and other early thesauri relied primarily an the presentation of terms in alphabetical order. The value of a classified presentation was subsequently realised, and in particular the technique of facet analysis has profoundly influenced thesaurus evolution. Thesaurofacet and the Art & Architecture Thesaurus have acted as models for two distinct breeds of thesaurus using faceted displays of terms. As of the 1990s, the expansion of end-user access to vast networked resources is imposing further requirements an the style and structure of controlled vocabularies. The international standards for thesauri, first conceived in a print-based era, are badly in need of updating. Work is in hand in the UK and the USA to revise and develop standards in support of electronic thesauri.
- Date
- 22. 9.2007 15:46:13
-
Z39.19-2005: Guidelines for the construction, format, and management of monolingual controlled vocabularies (2005)
0.02
0.017837884 = product of:
0.071351536 = sum of:
0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.071351536 = score(doc=708,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 708, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=708)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- This Standard presents guidelines and conventions for the contents, display, construction, testing, maintenance, and management of monolingual controlled vocabularies. This Standard focuses on controlled vocabularies that are used for the representation of content objects in knowledge organization systems including lists, synonym rings, taxonomies, and thesauri. This Standard should be regarded as a set of recommendations based on preferred techniques and procedures. Optional procedures are, however, sometimes described, e.g., for the display of terms in a controlled vocabulary. The primary purpose of vocabulary control is to achieve consistency in the description of content objects and to facilitate retrieval. Vocabulary control is accomplished by three principal methods: defining the scope, or meaning, of terms; using the equivalence relationship to link synonymous and nearly synonymous terms; and distinguishing among homographs.
-
Fischer, D.H.: From thesauri towards ontologies? (1998)
0.02
0.017837884 = product of:
0.071351536 = sum of:
0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 2176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.071351536 = score(doc=2176,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 2176, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2176)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- The ISO 2788 guidelines for monolingual thesauri contain a differentiation of "the hierarchical relationship" into "generic", "partitive", and "instance", which, for purposes of document retrieval, was deemed adequate. However, ontologies, designed as language inventories for a wider scope of knowledge representation, are based on all these and some more logical differentiations. Rereading the ISO 2788 standard and inspecting the published Cyc Upper Ontology, it is argued that the adoption of the document-retrieval definition of subsumption generally prevents the conception or use of a thesaurus as a substructure of an ontology of the new kind as constructed for AI applications. When a thesaurus is used for fact description and inference on fact descriptions, the instance-of relationship too should be reconsidered: It may also link concepts and metaconcepts, and then its distinction from subsumption is needed. The treatment of the instance-of relationship in thesauri, the Cyc Upper Ontology, and WordNet is described from this perspective
