Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

0.04750511 = product of:
  0.071257666 = sum of:
    0.050856233 = weight(_text_:electronic in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050856233 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.259166 = fieldWeight in 5005, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5005)
    0.020401431 = product of:
      0.040802862 = sum of:
        0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040802862 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.021840101 = product of:
  0.0655203 = sum of:
    0.0655203 = product of:
      0.1310406 = sum of:
        0.1310406 = weight(_text_:publishing in 6773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1310406 = score(doc=6773,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.5343672 = fieldWeight in 6773, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Members offer comments and suggest resources on programs for creating, maintaining, and publishing thesauri. Formerly a tool for writers and indexers, the thesaurus has taken on a new role as an essential component of the corporate information infrastructure. Many people are using word processor or database programs to create and maintain thesauri, while others are using specialized tools that perform consistency checks and offer special reporting capabilities. Some also use thesaurus modules integrated into another application, such as web publishing, content management, or e-commerce. This article includes material comes from our own experience, email responses from members, and comments from participants in our seminars and roundtables. There's also an introduction to thesauri in a corporate information management system

0.019777425 = product of:
  0.059332274 = sum of:
    0.059332274 = weight(_text_:electronic in 4431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059332274 = score(doc=4431,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.30236036 = fieldWeight in 4431, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4431)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.016952079 = product of:
  0.050856233 = sum of:
    0.050856233 = weight(_text_:electronic in 1622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050856233 = score(doc=1622,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.259166 = fieldWeight in 1622, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1622)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Thesauri are used to provide controlled vocabularies for resource classification. Their use can greatly assist document discovery because thesauri man date a consistent shared terminology for describing documents. A particular thesauras classifies documents according to an information community's needs. As a result, there are many different thesaural schemas. This has led to a proliferation of schema-specific thesaural systems. In our research, we exploit schematic regularities to design a generic thesaural ontology and specfiy it as a markup language. The language provides a common representational framework in which to encode the idiosyncrasies of specific thesauri. This approach has several advantages: it offers consistent syntax and semantics in which to express thesauri; it allows general purpose thesaural applications to leverage many thesauri; and it supports a single thesaural user interface by which information communities can consistently organise, score and retrieve electronic documents.

0.016952079 = product of:
  0.050856233 = sum of:
    0.050856233 = weight(_text_:electronic in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050856233 = score(doc=2695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.259166 = fieldWeight in 2695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2695)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In the UK, the aim to make public sector information much more available to the citizen has led to establishment of an "e-Govemment Interoperability Framework" based an a set of core standards. Among the standards is a controlled vocabulary, known as the Govemment Category List (GCL), used to select keywords for the metadata of all electronic resources originating from central or local govemment. The GCL is a small and simple taxonomy, designed to facilitate high-level browsing rather than deep searching. Specialized thesauri for particular subject areas may optionally complement the GCL. To ease the indexing burden, GCL terms will often be selected by direct mapping from the specialized vocabularies.

0.016952079 = product of:
  0.050856233 = sum of:
    0.050856233 = weight(_text_:electronic in 4863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050856233 = score(doc=4863,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.259166 = fieldWeight in 4863, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4863)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The World Wide Web and the use of HTML-based information displays has greatly increased access to online information sources, but at the same time limits the ways in which they can be used. By the same token, Web-based indexing and search engines give us access to the full text of online documents, but make it difficult to access them in any kind of organized, systematic way. For years before the advent of the Internet, lexicographers built weIl-structured subject thesauri to organize large collections of documents. These have since been converted into electronic form and even put online, but in ways that are largely uncoordinated and not useful for searching. This paper describes some of the ways in which XML-based Web services could be used to coordinate subject thesauri and other online vocabulary sources to create a "Thesauro-Web" that could be used by both searchers and indexers to improve subject access an the Internet.

0.016952079 = product of:
  0.050856233 = sum of:
    0.050856233 = weight(_text_:electronic in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050856233 = score(doc=2263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.259166 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

The objective of this research was to investigate the extent to which thesauri have the potential to support the search behaviour of nanoscience and technology researchers while interacting with an electronic book digital library. Transaction log data was obtained from a nanoscience and technology digital library to investigate the nature, type and characteristics of users' queries and search terms. The specific objectives was to assess the extent to which users' search terms matched with those found in two well-established thesauri attached o the INSPEC and Compendex databases.

0.015443282 = product of:
  0.046329845 = sum of:
    0.046329845 = product of:
      0.09265969 = sum of:
        0.09265969 = weight(_text_:publishing in 4656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09265969 = score(doc=4656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.37785465 = fieldWeight in 4656, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4656)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.014680931 = product of:
  0.044042792 = sum of:
    0.044042792 = weight(_text_:electronic in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044042792 = score(doc=1169,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.22444436 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

T.1: Today's thesauri are mostly electronic tools, having moved on from the paper-based era when thesaurus standards were first developed. They are built and maintained with the support of software and need to integrate with other software, such as search engines and content management systems. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals trained in indexing and searching, today there is a demand for vocabularies that untrained users will find to be intuitive. ISO 25964 makes the transition needed for the world of electronic information management. However, part 1 retains the assumption that human intellect is usually involved in the selection of indexing terms and in the selection of search terms. If both the indexer and the searcher are guided to choose the same term for the same concept, then relevant documents will be retrieved. This is the main principle underlying thesaurus design, even though a thesaurus built for human users may also be applied in situations where computers make the choices. Efficient exchange of data is a vital component of thesaurus management and exploitation. Hence the inclusion in this standard of recommendations for exchange formats and protocols. Adoption of these will facilitate interoperability between thesaurus management systems and the other computer applications, such as indexing and retrieval systems, that will utilize the data. Thesauri are typically used in post-coordinate retrieval systems, but may also be applied to hierarchical directories, pre-coordinate indexes and classification systems. Increasingly, thesaurus applications need to mesh with others, such as automatic categorization schemes, free-text search systems, etc. Part 2 of ISO 25964 describes additional types of structured vocabulary and gives recommendations to enable interoperation of the vocabularies at all stages of the information storage and retrieval process.
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.

0.013600955 = product of:
  0.040802862 = sum of:
    0.040802862 = product of:
      0.081605725 = sum of:
        0.081605725 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081605725 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

24. 8.2005 19:20:22

0.01198693 = product of:
  0.03596079 = sum of:
    0.03596079 = weight(_text_:electronic in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03596079 = score(doc=3243,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.18325806 = fieldWeight in 3243, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3243)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

LCSH

Electronic information resource searching

Subject

Electronic information resource searching

0.011334131 = product of:
  0.03400239 = sum of:
    0.03400239 = product of:
      0.06800478 = sum of:
        0.06800478 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06800478 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, 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=539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:07

0.011301385 = product of:
  0.033904154 = sum of:
    0.033904154 = weight(_text_:electronic in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033904154 = score(doc=2615,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.17277734 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The current standards for monolingual and multilingual thesauri are long overdue for an update. This applies to the international standards ISO 2788 and ISO 5964, as well as the corresponding national standards in several countries and the American standard ANSI/NISO Z39.19. Work is now under way in the UK and in the USA to revise and extend the standards, with particular emphasis on interoperability needs in our world of vast electronic networks. Work in the UK is starting with the British Standards, in the hope of leading on to one international standard to serve all. Some of the issues still under discussion include the treatment of facet analysis, coverage of additional types of controlled vocabulary such as classification schemes, taxonomies and ontologies, and mapping from one vocabulary to another. 1. Are thesaurus standards still needed? Since the 1960s, even before the renowned Cranfield experiments (Cleverdon et al., 1966; Cleverdon, 1967) arguments have raged over the usefulness or otherwise of controlled vocabularies. The case has never been proved definitively one way or the other. At the same time, a recognition has become widespread that no one search method can answer all retrieval requirements. In today's environment of very large networks of resources, the skilled information professional uses a range of techniques. Among these, controlled vocabularies are valued alongside others. The first international standard for monolingual thesauri was issued in 1974. In those days, the main application was for postcoordinate indexing and retrieval from document collections or bibliographic databases. For many information professionals the only practicable alternative to a thesaurus was a classification scheme. And so the thesaurus developed a strong following. After computer systems with full text search capability became widely available, however, the arguments against controlled vocabularies gained more followers. The cost of building and maintaining a thesaurus or a classification scheme was a strong disincentive. Today's databases are typically immense compared with those three decades ago. Full text searching is taken for granted, not just in discrete databases but across all the resources in an intranet or even the Internet. But intranets have brought particular frustration as users discover that despite all the computer power, they cannot find items which they know to be present an the network. So the trend against controlled vocabularies is now being reversed, as many information professionals are turning to them for help. Standards to guide them are still in demand.

0.00793389 = product of:
  0.023801671 = sum of:
    0.023801671 = product of:
      0.047603343 = sum of:
        0.047603343 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047603343 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = 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(1/3)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:45:57

0.00793389 = product of:
  0.023801671 = sum of:
    0.023801671 = product of:
      0.047603343 = sum of:
        0.047603343 = weight(_text_:22 in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047603343 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5006, 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=5006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

18. 5.2006 20:06:22

0.00793389 = product of:
  0.023801671 = sum of:
    0.023801671 = product of:
      0.047603343 = sum of:
        0.047603343 = weight(_text_:22 in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047603343 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 156, 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=156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

8. 3.2007 19:55:22

0.00793389 = product of:
  0.023801671 = sum of:
    0.023801671 = product of:
      0.047603343 = sum of:
        0.047603343 = weight(_text_:22 in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047603343 = score(doc=749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 749, 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=749)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

8.12.2007 19:25:22

0.0068004774 = product of:
  0.020401431 = sum of:
    0.020401431 = product of:
      0.040802862 = sum of:
        0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040802862 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 260, 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=260)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Indexer. 25(2006) no.1, S.19-22

0.0056670653 = product of:
  0.017001195 = sum of:
    0.017001195 = product of:
      0.03400239 = sum of:
        0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03400239 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

26. 9.2006 21:00:22

0.0056506926 = product of:
  0.016952077 = sum of:
    0.016952077 = weight(_text_:electronic in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016952077 = score(doc=2924,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.08638867 = fieldWeight in 2924, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2924)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Weitere Rez. in: New Library World 108(2007) nos.3/4, S.190-191 (K.V. Trickey): "Vanda has provided a very useful work that will enable any reader who is prepared to follow her instruction to produce a thesaurus that will be a quality language-based subject access tool that will make the task of information retrieval easier and more effective. Once again I express my gratitude to Vanda for producing another excellent book." - Electronic Library 24(2006) no.6, S.866-867 (A.G. Smith): "Essential thesaurus construction is an ideal instructional text, with clear bullet point summaries at the ends of sections, and relevant and up to date references, putting thesauri in context with the general theory of information retrieval. But it will also be a valuable reference for any information professional developing or using a controlled vocabulary." - KO 33(2006) no.4, S.215-216 (M.P. Satija)