Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04626411 = product of:
  0.06939616 = sum of:
    0.03354964 = weight(_text_:search in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03354964 = score(doc=549,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
    0.03584652 = product of:
      0.07169304 = sum of:
        0.07169304 = weight(_text_:engines in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07169304 = score(doc=549,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

0.022141634 = product of:
  0.0664249 = sum of:
    0.0664249 = weight(_text_:search in 3082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0664249 = score(doc=3082,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.38015217 = fieldWeight in 3082, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3082)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this paper, we present Dynamic Category Sets, a novel approach that addresses the vocabulary problem for faceted data. In their paper on the vocabulary problem, Furnas et al. note that "the keywords that are assigned by indexers are often at odds with those tried by searchers." Faceted search systems exhibit an interesting aspect of this problem: users do not necessarily understand an information space in terms of the same facets as the indexers who designed it. Our approach addresses this problem by employing a data-driven approach to discover sets of values across multiple facets that best match the query. When there are multiple candidates, we offer a clarification dialog that allows the user to disambiguate them.

0.018978544 = product of:
  0.056935627 = sum of:
    0.056935627 = weight(_text_:search in 5899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056935627 = score(doc=5899,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 5899, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5899)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The ETH library has been using the UDC for the past twenty-five years and yet most of the users had almost never taken a single notice about it. The query in today's NEBIS-OPAC (former ETHICS) is based on verbal search with three-lingual descriptors and corresponding related search-terms including e.g. synonyma as well as user-friendly expressions from scientific journals - scientific jargon - to facilitate the dialog with OPAC. A single UDC number, standing behind these descriptors, connects them to the related document-titles, regardless of language. Thus the user actually works with the UDC, without realizing it. This paper describes the experience with this OPAC and the work behind it.

0.018978544 = product of:
  0.056935627 = sum of:
    0.056935627 = weight(_text_:search in 4394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056935627 = score(doc=4394,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 4394, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4394)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The term "facet" has been used in various places, while in most cases it is just a buzz word to replace what is indeed "aspect" or "category". The references below either define and explain the original concept of facet or provide guidelines for building 'real' faceted search/browse. I was interested in faceted classification because it seems to be a natural and efficient way for organizing and browsing Web collections. However, to automatically generate facets and their isolates is extremely difficult since it involves concept extraction and concept grouping, both of which are difficult problems by themselves. And it is almost impossible to achieve mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive 'true' facets without human judgment. Nowadays, faceted search/browse widely exists, implicitly or explicitly, on a majority of retail websites due to the multi-aspects nature of the data. However, it is still rarely seen on any digital library sites. (I could be wrong since I haven't kept myself updated with this field for a while.)

0.015656501 = product of:
  0.0469695 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 4838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=4838,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 4838, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4838)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In a global context characterized by the massive use of information technology and communications any organization needs to optimize the search and document management processes. In this paper an analysis of modern document management techniques and computational strategies with specialized language resources is presented and a model that can be used in automatic text categorization in the context of organizations is proposed.As a particular case we describe a classification system according to the taxonomy JEL (Journal of Economic Literature) and that makes use of multilingual glossaries for hierarchical classifications of scientific and technical documents related to the business functional areas.

0.013419857 = product of:
  0.04025957 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 2131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=2131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 2131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2131)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This is a preprint to be published in the Extensions & Corrections to the UDC. The paper explains the basic functions of browsing and searching that need to be supported in relation to analytico-synthetic classifications such as Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), irrespective of any specific, real-life implementation. UDC is an example of a semi-faceted system that can be used, for instance, for both post-coordinate searching and hierarchical/facet browsing. The advantages of using a classification for IR, however, depend on the strength of the GUI, which should provide a user-friendly interface to classification browsing and searching. The power of this interface is in supporting visualisation that will 'convert' what is potentially a user-unfriendly indexing language based on symbols, to a subject presentation that is easy to understand, search and navigate. A summary of the basic functions of searching and browsing a classification that may be provided on a user-friendly interface is given and examples of classification browsing interfaces are provided.

0.013419857 = product of:
  0.04025957 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=1202,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

But what happens to this awareness in a digital library? Can discursive formations be represented in cyberspace, perhaps through diagrams in a visualization interface? And would such a schema be helpful to a digital library user? To approach this question, it is worth taking a moment to reconsider what Radford is looking at. First, he looks at titles to see how the books cluster. To illustrate, I scanned one hundred books on the shelves of a college library under subclass HT 101-395, defined by the LCC subclass caption as Urban groups. The City. Urban sociology. Of the first 100 titles in this sequence, fifty included the word "urban" or variants (e.g. "urbanization"). Another thirty-five used the word "city" or variants. These keywords appear to mark their titles as the heart of this discursive formation. The scattering of titles not using "urban" or "city" used related terms such as "town," "community," or in one case "skyscrapers." So we immediately see some empirical correlation between keywords and classification. But we also see a problem with the commonly used search technique of title-keyword. A student interested in urban studies will want to know about this entire subclass, and may wish to browse every title available therein. A title-keyword search on "urban" will retrieve only half of the titles, while a search on "city" will retrieve just over a third. There will be no overlap, since no titles in this sample contain both words. The only place where both words appear in a common string is in the LCC subclass caption, but captions are not typically indexed in library Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs). In a traditional library, this problem is mitigated when the student goes to the shelf looking for any one of the books and suddenly discovers a much wider selection than the keyword search had led him to expect. But in a digital library, the issue of non-retrieval can be more problematic, as studies have indicated. Micco and Popp reported that, in a study funded partly by the U.S. Department of Education, 65 of 73 unskilled users searching for material on U.S./Soviet foreign relations found some material but never realized they had missed a large percentage of what was in the database.

0.013419857 = product of:
  0.04025957 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=538,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 538, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=538)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Die Registerbegriffe der Regensburger Verbundklassifikation (RVK) werden bisher in der Regel nur für die Suche nach passenden Systemstellen verwendet. Die vor einigen Jahren erfolgte Verknüpfung der RVK mit der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND) und die Aufbereitung der RVK als Normdatei lassen es jedoch denkbar erscheinen, die Registerbegriffe auch im Rahmen der Katalogrecherche zu nutzen - insbesondere für weiterführende und explorierende Recherchen im Anschluss an eine "known-item search". Der Aufsatz stellt die Ergebnisse einer Studie zu einer möglichen Einbindung von RVK-Registerbegriffen in die Katalogrecherche am Beispiel des K10plus vor. Dabei wurde für Notationsstichproben aus fünf Fachsystematiken sowohl der quantitative als auch der qualitative Mehrwert einer Recherche mit entsprechenden Registerbegriffen ermittelt. Es ergaben sich drei Kategorien von Notationen und ihren Registereinträgen: eindeutig geeignete, eindeutig nicht geeignete und ein großer Teil von Fällen, die nur nach umfassenden Vorarbeiten sinnvoll eingebunden werden könnten. Die herausgearbeiteten Fall-Cluster geben einen Überblick über die Chancen und Grenzen einer möglichen Einbindung der RVK-Registerbegriffe in die Katalogrecherche.

0.011352143 = product of:
  0.03405643 = sum of:
    0.03405643 = product of:
      0.06811286 = sum of:
        0.06811286 = weight(_text_:22 in 611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06811286 = score(doc=611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 8.2009 12:54:24

0.009081715 = product of:
  0.027245143 = sum of:
    0.027245143 = product of:
      0.054490287 = sum of:
        0.054490287 = weight(_text_:22 in 2474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054490287 = score(doc=2474,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

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

0.0089465715 = product of:
  0.026839713 = sum of:
    0.026839713 = weight(_text_:search in 2) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026839713 = score(doc=2,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.15360467 = fieldWeight in 2, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In the present work we discuss opportunities, problems, tools and techniques encountered when interconnecting discipline-specific subject classifications, primarily organized as search devices in bibliographic databases, with general classifications originally devised for book shelving in public libraries. We first state the fundamental distinction between topical (or subject) classifications and object classifications. Then we trace the structural limitations that have constrained subject classifications since their library origins, and the devices that were used to overcome the gap with genuine knowledge representation. After recalling some general notions on structure, dynamics and interferences of subject classifications and of the objects they refer to, we sketch a synthetic overview on discipline-specific classifications in Mathematics, Computing and Physics, on one hand, and on general classifications on the other. In this setting we present The Scientific Classifications Page, which collects groups of Web pages produced by a pool of software tools for developing hypertextual presentations of single or paired subject classifications from sequential source files, as well as facilities for gathering information from KWIC lists of classification descriptions. Further we propose a concept-oriented methodology for interconnecting subject classifications, with the concrete support of a relational analysis of the whole Mathematics Subject Classification through its evolution since 1959. Finally, we recall a very basic method for interconnection provided by coreference in bibliographic records among index elements from different systems, and point out the advantages of establishing the conditions of a more widespread application of such a method. A part of these contents was presented under the title Mathematics Subject Classification and related Classifications in the Digital World at the Eighth International Conference Crimea 2001, "Libraries and Associations in the Transient World: New Technologies and New Forms of Cooperation", Sudak, Ukraine, June 9-17, 2001, in a special session on electronic libraries, electronic publishing and electronic information in science chaired by Bernd Wegner, Editor-in-Chief of Zentralblatt MATH.

0.0068112854 = product of:
  0.020433856 = sum of:
    0.020433856 = product of:
      0.040867712 = sum of:
        0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040867712 = score(doc=4189,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4189, 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=4189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:35:09

0.0055916067 = product of:
  0.01677482 = sum of:
    0.01677482 = weight(_text_:search in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01677482 = score(doc=2467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.09600292 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This is a classified, annotated bibliography about how to design faceted classification systems and make them usable on the World Wide Web. It is the first of three works I will be doing. The second, based on the material here and elsewhere, will discuss how to actually make the faceted system and put it online. The third will be a report of how I did just that, what worked, what didn't, and what I learned. Almost every article or book listed here begins with an explanation of what a faceted classification system is, so I won't (but see Steckel in Background below if you don't already know). They all agree that faceted systems are very appropriate for the web. Even pre-web articles (such as Duncan's in Background, below) assert that hypertext and facets will go together well. Combined, it is possible to take a set of documents and classify them or apply subject headings to describe what they are about, then build a navigational structure so that any user, no matter how he or she approaches the material, no matter what his or her goals, can move and search in a way that makes sense to them, but still get to the same useful results as someone else following a different path to the same goal. There is no one way that everyone will always use when looking for information. The more flexible the organization of the information, the more accommodating it is. Facets are more flexible for hypertext browsing than any enumerative or hierarchical system.