Search (36 results, page 1 of 2)

0.039115943 = product of:
  0.15646377 = sum of:
    0.15646377 = weight(_text_:engines in 84) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15646377 = score(doc=84,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.68751884 = fieldWeight in 84, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=84)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to determine some of the structural features of the classification schemes used in the directories (guides, channels) of search engines to organise information sources on the Internet. Ten search engines were examined at the main class level and the full hierarchies of a sample of three specific subjects were analysed in four of these engines, namely Excite, Infoseek, Lycos and Yahoo! It was found that there are major differences between the main classes of the search engines and those found in standard library schemes like Dewey, UDC and LCC. There are large gaps in subject coverage at main class level in the search engines and the general tendency is to use a topic-based approach in the formation of classes, rather than a discipline-based approach. The subdivision of the main classes is according to hierarchical tree structures, but a number of anomalies in this regard were identified. Another deviation from library classification theory is that various principles of division are employed to form classes at the same hierarchical level. In an analysis of citation orders many examples were found that conform to the principles followed in library classifications, but a number of inconsistencies in this regard were also noted

0.03832564 = product of:
  0.15330257 = sum of:
    0.15330257 = weight(_text_:engines in 5698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15330257 = score(doc=5698,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.67362815 = fieldWeight in 5698, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5698)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes the shortcomings of search engines for the WWW comparing their current capabilities to those of the first generation CD-ROM products. Some allow phrase searching and most are improving their Boolean searching. Few allow truncation, wild cards or nested logic. They are stateless, losing previous search criteria. Unlike the indexing and classification systems for today's CD-ROMs, those for Web pages are random, unstructured and of variable quality. Considers that at best Web search engines can only offer free text searching. Discusses whether automatic data classification systems such as Infoseek Ultra can overcome the haphazard nature of the Web with neural network technology, and whether Boolean search techniques may be redundant when replaced by technology such as the Euroferret search engine. However, artificial intelligence is rarely successful on huge, varied databases. Relevance ranking and automatic query expansion still use the same simple inverted indexes. Most Web search engines do nothing more than word counting. Further complications arise with foreign languages

0.025550429 = product of:
  0.102201715 = sum of:
    0.102201715 = weight(_text_:engines in 6108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.102201715 = score(doc=6108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.44908544 = fieldWeight in 6108, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6108)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Internet information retrieval is largely the preserve of search engines and the even more popular subject trees. Subject trees have adapted principles of conventional bibliographic classification for structuring hierarchic browsing interfaces, thus providing easily used pathways to their selected resources. This combination of browsing and selectivity is especially valuable to untrained users. For the forseeable future, it appears that subject trees will remain the Internet's only practicable use of classificatory methods for information retrieval

0.022356624 = product of:
  0.089426495 = sum of:
    0.089426495 = weight(_text_:engines in 7270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.089426495 = score(doc=7270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.39294976 = fieldWeight in 7270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7270)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The explosion of the use of the Internet by the genral public, particularly via the WWW, has given rise to the proliferation of semiprofessional attempts to give some subject based access to Internet resources via hierarchical guides (hotlists) on Web search engines such as Yahoo and Magellan. Examines the structure and principles of various hierachical lists, and compares them, when possible, to broad LCC and DDC schemes, and to LCSH. Explores the approaches taken by non librarians in their efforts to organize and provide access to materials on the Internet. Focuses on the dichotomy between the hierarchical 'browse' and the analytical 'search' approaches to finding materials, as exemplified by these various attempts to organize the Internet

0.01916282 = product of:
  0.07665128 = sum of:
    0.07665128 = weight(_text_:engines in 726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07665128 = score(doc=726,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.33681408 = fieldWeight in 726, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=726)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper documents the continuing relevance of facet analysis as a technique for searching and organising WWW based materials. The 2 approaches underlying WWW searching and indexing - word and concept based indexing - are outlined. It is argued that facet analysis as an a posteriori approach to classification using words from the subject field as the concept terms in the classification derived represents an excellent approach to searching and organising the results of WWW searches using either search engines or search directories. Finally it is argued that the underlying philosophy of facet analysis is better suited to the disparate nature of WWW resources and searchers than the assumptions of contemporaray IR research.

0.018066881 = product of:
  0.072267525 = sum of:
    0.072267525 = weight(_text_:engines in 2643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072267525 = score(doc=2643,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.31755137 = fieldWeight in 2643, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2643)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

1. Introduction Web search engines and digital libraries usually expect the users to use search terms that most accurately represent their information needs. Finding the most appropriate search terms to represent an information need is an age old problem in information retrieval. Keyword or phrase search may produce good search results as long as the search terms or phrase(s) match those used by the authors and have been chosen for indexing by the concerned information retrieval system. Since this does not always happen, a large number of false drops are produced by information retrieval systems. The retrieval results become worse in very large systems that deal with millions of records, such as the Web search engines and digital libraries. Vocabulary control tools are used to improve the performance of text retrieval systems. Thesauri, the most common type of vocabulary control tool used in information retrieval, appeared in the late fifties, designed for use with the emerging post-coordinate indexing systems of that time. They are used to exert terminology control in indexing, and to aid in searching by allowing the searcher to select appropriate search terms. A large volume of literature exists describing the design features, and experiments with the use, of thesauri in various types of information retrieval systems (see for example, Furnas et.al., 1987; Bates, 1986, 1998; Milstead, 1997, and Shiri et al., 2002).

0.018066881 = product of:
  0.072267525 = sum of:
    0.072267525 = weight(_text_:engines in 26) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072267525 = score(doc=26,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.31755137 = fieldWeight in 26, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=26)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

LCSH

Web search engines / Research

Subject

Web search engines / Research

0.015969018 = product of:
  0.06387607 = sum of:
    0.06387607 = weight(_text_:engines in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06387607 = score(doc=2476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Basic skills of classification and subject indexing have been little taught in British library schools since automation was introduced into libraries. However, development of the Internet as a major medium of publication has stretched the capability of search engines to cope with retrieval. Consequently, there has been interest in applying existing systems of knowledge organization to electronic resources. Unfortunately, the classification systems have been adopted without a full understanding of modern classification principles. Analytico-synthetic schemes have been used crudely, as in the case of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC). The fully faceted Bliss Bibliographical Classification, 2nd edition (BC2) with its potential as a tool for electronic resource retrieval is virtually unknown outside academic libraries

0.015969018 = product of:
  0.06387607 = sum of:
    0.06387607 = weight(_text_:engines in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06387607 = score(doc=549,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Belgians Otlet and LaFontaine created the Universal Decimal Classification in order to collect and organize the world's knowledge. This happened in an age when information was almost exclusively made available by libraries. Since the internet, the quantity of information outside libraries is enormous and keeps growing every day. The internet is accessible to anybody, it is fundamentally unorganized and its content changes constantly. Collecting and organizing the world's knowledge seem to have become an impossible ambition. Perhaps it is even unnecessary, since search engines make information retrievable now. And why would we organize information if we can find it? So what will be the role of UDC and libraries in this internet environment? Libraries can still play a role as a major information provider, if they adapt fully to the expectations of a modern end user. The design and the functionalities of online catalogues should allow maximal accessibility, usability and active participation of the end user in the internet environment. Metadata, like UDC, should maximize the visibility of information, enrich it and invite the end user to assign metadata himself.

0.012775214 = product of:
  0.051100858 = sum of:
    0.051100858 = weight(_text_:engines in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051100858 = score(doc=3966,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.22454272 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Organizing and providing access to the resources an the Internet has been a problem area in spite of the availability of sophisticated search engines and other Software tools. There have been several attempts to organize the resources an the WWW. Some of them have tried to use traditional library classification schemes such as the Library of Congress Classification, the Dewey Decimal Classification and others. However there is a need to assign proper subject headings to them and present them in a logical or hierarchical sequence to cater to the need for browsing. This paper attempts to describe an experimental system designed to organize and provide access to web documents using a faceted pre-coordinate indexing system based an the Deep Structure Indexing System (DSIS) derived from POPSI (Postulate based Permuted Subject Indexing) of Bhattacharyya, and the facet analysis and chain indexing System of Ranganathan. A prototype software system has been designed to create a database of records specifying Web documents according to the Dublin Core and input a faceted subject heading according to DSIS. Synonymous terms are added to the standard terms in the heading using appropriate symbols. Once the data are entered along with a description and URL of the Web document, the record is stored in the system. More than one faceted subject heading can be assigned to a record depending an the content of the original document. The system stores the surrogates and keeps the faceted subject headings separately after establishing a link. Search is carried out an index entries derived from the faceted subject heading using chain indexing technique. If a single term is input, the system searches for its presence in the faceted subject headings and displays the subject headings in a sorted sequence reflecting an organizing sequence. If the number of retrieved headings is too large (running into more than a page) then the user has the option of entering another search term to be searched in combination. The system searches subject headings already retrieved and look for those containing the second term. The retrieved faceted subject headings can be displayed and browsed. When the relevant subject heading is selected the system displays the records with their URLs. Using the URL the original document an the web can be accessed. The prototype system developed under Windows NT environment using ASP and web server is under rigorous testing. The database and indexes management routines need further development.

0.012137249 = product of:
  0.048548996 = sum of:
    0.048548996 = product of:
      0.09709799 = sum of:
        0.09709799 = weight(_text_:22 in 7684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09709799 = score(doc=7684,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7684, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7684)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of academic librarianship. 10(1984), S.17-22

0.011178312 = product of:
  0.044713248 = sum of:
    0.044713248 = weight(_text_:engines in 97) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044713248 = score(doc=97,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.19647488 = fieldWeight in 97, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=97)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Organizing and providing access to the resources an the Internet has been a problem area in spite of the availability of sophisticated search engines and other Software tools. There have been several attempts to organize the resources an the World Wide Web. Some of them have tried to use traditional library classification schemes such as the Library of Congress Classification, the Dewey Decimal Classification and others. However there is a need to assign proper subject headings to them and present them in a logical or hierarchical sequence to cater to the need for browsing. This paper attempts to describe an experimental system designed to organize and provide access to web documents using a faceted pre-coordinate indexing system based an the Deep Structure Indexing System (DSIS) derived from POPSI (Postulate based Permuted Subject Indexing) of Bhattacharyya, and the facet analysis and chain indexing system of Ranganathan. A prototype Software System has been designed to create a database of records specifying Web documents according to the Dublin Core and to input a faceted subject heading according to DSIS. Synonymous terms are added to the Standard terms in the heading using appropriate symbols. Once the data are entered along with a description and the URL of the web document, the record is stored in the System. More than one faceted subject heading can be assigned to a record depending an the content of the original document. The System stores the Surrogates and keeps the faceted subject headings separately after establishing a link. The search is carried out an index entries derived from the faceted subject heading using the chain indexing technique. If a single term is Input, the System searches for its presence in the faceted subject headings and displays the subject headings in a sorted sequence reflecting an organizing sequence. If the number of retrieved Keadings is too large (running into more than a page) the user has the option of entering another search term to be searched in combination. The System searches subject headings already retrieved and looks for those containing the second term. The retrieved faceted subject headings can be displayed and browsed. When the relevant subject heading is selected the system displays the records with their URLs. Using the URL, the original document an the web can be accessed. The prototype system developed in a Windows NT environment using ASP and a web server is under rigorous testing. The database and Index management routines need further development.

0.009102937 = product of:
  0.036411747 = sum of:
    0.036411747 = product of:
      0.072823495 = sum of:
        0.072823495 = weight(_text_:22 in 6040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072823495 = score(doc=6040,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6040, 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=6040)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:42:47

0.007585781 = product of:
  0.030343125 = sum of:
    0.030343125 = product of:
      0.06068625 = sum of:
        0.06068625 = weight(_text_:22 in 3576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06068625 = score(doc=3576,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3576, 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=3576)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

8. 1.2007 12:22:40

0.007585781 = product of:
  0.030343125 = sum of:
    0.030343125 = product of:
      0.06068625 = sum of:
        0.06068625 = weight(_text_:22 in 611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06068625 = score(doc=611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 611, 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=611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 8.2009 12:54:24

0.006436749 = product of:
  0.025746996 = sum of:
    0.025746996 = product of:
      0.05149399 = sum of:
        0.05149399 = weight(_text_:22 in 4379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05149399 = score(doc=4379,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 4379, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4379)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Am 29. und 30. Oktober 2009 fand in der Königlichen Bibliothek in Den Haag das zweite internationale UDC-Seminar zum Thema "Classification at a Crossroad" statt. Organisiert wurde diese Konferenz - wie auch die erste Konferenz dieser Art im Jahr 2007 - vom UDC-Konsortium (UDCC). Im Mittelpunkt der diesjährigen Veranstaltung stand die Erschließung des World Wide Web unter besserer Nutzung von Klassifikationen (im Besonderen natürlich der UDC), einschließlich benutzerfreundlicher Repräsentationen von Informationen und Wissen. Standards, neue Technologien und Dienste, semantische Suche und der multilinguale Zugriff spielten ebenfalls eine Rolle. 135 Teilnehmer aus 35 Ländern waren dazu nach Den Haag gekommen. Das Programm umfasste mit 22 Vorträgen aus 14 verschiedenen Ländern eine breite Palette, wobei Großbritannien mit fünf Beiträgen am stärksten vertreten war. Die Tagesschwerpunkte wurden an beiden Konferenztagen durch die Eröffnungsvorträge gesetzt, die dann in insgesamt sechs thematischen Sitzungen weiter vertieft wurden.

Date

22. 1.2010 15:06:54

0.0060686246 = product of:
  0.024274498 = sum of:
    0.024274498 = product of:
      0.048548996 = sum of:
        0.048548996 = weight(_text_:22 in 2871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048548996 = score(doc=2871,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2871, 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=2871)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

30. 7.2004 12:22:52

0.0060686246 = product of:
  0.024274498 = sum of:
    0.024274498 = product of:
      0.048548996 = sum of:
        0.048548996 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048548996 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, 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=4869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:39:23

0.0060686246 = product of:
  0.024274498 = sum of:
    0.024274498 = product of:
      0.048548996 = sum of:
        0.048548996 = weight(_text_:22 in 2474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048548996 = score(doc=2474,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2474, 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=2474)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/2003/01/22/xfml.html

0.0053100465 = product of:
  0.021240186 = sum of:
    0.021240186 = product of:
      0.042480372 = sum of:
        0.042480372 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042480372 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2509, 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=2509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

8.11.1995 11:52:22