Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Theorie verbaler Dokumentationssprachen"
  1. Jia, J.: From data to knowledge : the relationships between vocabularies, linked data and knowledge graphs (2021) 0.01 
    0.008471692 = product of:
  0.05930184 = sum of:
    0.05930184 = sum of:
      0.03175552 = weight(_text_:design in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03175552 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = queryNorm
          0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
      0.027546322 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027546322 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify the concepts, component parts and relationships between vocabularies, linked data and knowledge graphs (KGs) from the perspectives of data and knowledge transitions. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses conceptual analysis methods. This study focuses on distinguishing concepts and analyzing composition and intercorrelations to explore data and knowledge transitions. Findings Vocabularies are the cornerstone for accurately building understanding of the meaning of data. Vocabularies provide for a data-sharing model and play an important role in supporting the semantic expression of linked data and defining the schema layer; they are also used for entity recognition, alignment and linkage for KGs. KGs, which consist of a schema layer and a data layer, are presented as cubes that organically combine vocabularies, linked data and big data. Originality/value This paper first describes the composition of vocabularies, linked data and KGs. More importantly, this paper innovatively analyzes and summarizes the interrelatedness of these factors, which comes from frequent interactions between data and knowledge. The three factors empower each other and can ultimately empower the Semantic Web.
    Date
    22. 1.2021 14:24:32
  2. Svenonius, E.: Design of controlled vocabularies (1990) 0.01 
    0.0063511035 = product of:
  0.044457722 = sum of:
    0.044457722 = product of:
      0.088915445 = sum of:
        0.088915445 = weight(_text_:design in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.088915445 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.58157516 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
  3. Mai, J.-E.: Actors, domains, and constraints in the design and construction of controlled vocabularies (2008) 0.01 
    0.0055560577 = product of:
  0.038892403 = sum of:
    0.038892403 = product of:
      0.07778481 = sum of:
        0.07778481 = weight(_text_:design in 1921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07778481 = score(doc=1921,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.50877225 = fieldWeight in 1921, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1921)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Classification schemes, thesauri, taxonomies, and other controlled vocabularies play important roles in the organization and retrieval of information in many different environments. While the design and construction of controlled vocabularies have been prescribed at the technical level in great detail over the past decades, the methodological level has been somewhat neglected. However, classification research has in recent years focused on developing approaches to the analysis of users, domains, and activities that could produce requirements for the design of controlled vocabularies. Researchers have often argued that the design, construction, and use of controlled vocabularies need to be based on analyses and understandings of the contexts in which these controlled vocabularies function. While one would assume that the growing body of research on human information behavior might help guide the development of controlled vocabularies shed light on these contexts, unfortunately, much of the research in this area is descriptive in nature and of little use for systems design. This paper discusses these trends and outlines a holistic approach that demonstrates how the design of controlled vocabularies can be informed by investigations of people's interactions with information. This approach is based on the Cognitive Work Analysis framework and outlines several dimensions of human-information interactions. Application of this approach will result is a comprehensive understanding of the contexts in which the controlled vocabulary will function and which can be used for the development of for the development of controlled vocabularies.
  4. Ruge, G.: ¬A spreading activation network for automatic generation of thesaurus relationships (1991) 0.01 
    0.0055092643 = product of:
  0.03856485 = sum of:
    0.03856485 = product of:
      0.0771297 = sum of:
        0.0771297 = weight(_text_:22 in 4506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0771297 = score(doc=4506,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4506, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4506)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    8.10.2000 11:52:22
  5. Gopinath, M.A.; Prasad, K.N.: Compatibility of the principles for design of thesaurus and classification scheme (1976) 0.01 
    0.005443803 = product of:
  0.03810662 = sum of:
    0.03810662 = product of:
      0.07621324 = sum of:
        0.07621324 = weight(_text_:design in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07621324 = score(doc=2943,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.49849302 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
  6. Svenonius, E.: Unanswered questions in the design of controlled vocabularies (1986) 0.01 
    0.0051324675 = product of:
  0.03592727 = sum of:
    0.03592727 = product of:
      0.07185454 = sum of:
        0.07185454 = weight(_text_:design in 584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07185454 = score(doc=584,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.46998373 = fieldWeight in 584, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=584)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    The issue of free-text versus controlled vocabulary is examined in this article. The history of the issue, which is seen as beginning with the debate over title term indexing in the last century, is reviewed and the attention is turned to questions which have not been satisfactorily addressed by previous research. The point is made that these questions need to be answered if we are to design retrieval tools, such as thesauri, upon a national basis
  7. Mikacic, M.: Statistical system for subject designation (SSSD) for libraries in Croatia (1996) 0.00 
    0.004452158 = product of:
  0.031165106 = sum of:
    0.031165106 = product of:
      0.062330212 = sum of:
        0.062330212 = weight(_text_:22 in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062330212 = score(doc=2943,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    31. 7.2006 14:22:21
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.1, S.77-93
  8. Schmitz-Esser, W.: Language of general communication and concept compatibility (1996) 0.00 
    0.003935189 = product of:
  0.027546322 = sum of:
    0.027546322 = product of:
      0.055092644 = sum of:
        0.055092644 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055092644 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, 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=6089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Pages
    S.11-22
  9. Svenonius, E.: Unanswered questions in the design of controlled vocabularies (1997) 0.00 
    0.0038493504 = product of:
  0.026945451 = sum of:
    0.026945451 = product of:
      0.053890903 = sum of:
        0.053890903 = weight(_text_:design in 583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053890903 = score(doc=583,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.3524878 = fieldWeight in 583, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=583)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    The issue of free-text versus controlled vocabulary is examined in this article. The history of the issue, which is seen as beginning with the debate over title term indexing in the last century, is reviewed and the attention is turned to questions which have not been satisfactorily addressed by previous research. The point is made that these questions need to be answered if we are to design retrieval tools, such as thesauri, upon a national basis
  10. Mazzocchi, F.; Tiberi, M.; De Santis, B.; Plini, P.: Relational semantics in thesauri : an overview and some remarks at theoretical and practical levels (2007) 0.00 
    0.003207792 = product of:
  0.022454543 = sum of:
    0.022454543 = product of:
      0.044909086 = sum of:
        0.044909086 = weight(_text_:design in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044909086 = score(doc=1462,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.29373983 = fieldWeight in 1462, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    A thesaurus is a controlled vocabulary designed to allow for effective information retrieval. It con- sists of different kinds of semantic relationships, with the aim of guiding users to the choice of the most suitable index and search terms for expressing a certain concept. The relational semantics of a thesaurus deal with methods to connect terms with related meanings and arc intended to enhance information recall capabilities. In this paper, focused on hierarchical relations, different aspects of the relational semantics of thesauri, and among them the possibility of developing richer structures, are analyzed. Thesauri are viewed as semantic tools providing, for operational purposes, the representation of the meaning of the terms. The paper stresses how theories of semantics, holding different perspectives about the nature of meaning and how it is represented, affect the design of the relational semantics of thesauri. The need for tools capable of representing the complexity of knowledge and of the semantics of terms as it occurs in the literature of their respective subject fields is advocated. It is underlined how this would contribute to improving the retrieval of information. To achieve this goal, even though in a preliminary manner, we explore the possibility of setting against the framework of thesaurus design the notions of language games and hermeneutic horizon.
  11. Degez, D.: Compatibilité des langages d'indexation mariage, cohabitation ou fusion? : Quelques examples concrèts (1998) 0.00 
    0.0027546322 = product of:
  0.019282425 = sum of:
    0.019282425 = product of:
      0.03856485 = sum of:
        0.03856485 = weight(_text_:22 in 2245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03856485 = score(doc=2245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2245, 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=2245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
  12. Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Thesaural relationships (2001) 0.00 
    0.0027546322 = product of:
  0.019282425 = sum of:
    0.019282425 = product of:
      0.03856485 = sum of:
        0.03856485 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03856485 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:45:57
  13. Boteram, F.: Semantische Relationen in Dokumentationssprachen : vom Thesaurus zum semantischen Netz (2010) 0.00 
    0.0027546322 = product of:
  0.019282425 = sum of:
    0.019282425 = product of:
      0.03856485 = sum of:
        0.03856485 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03856485 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  14. Vickery, B.B.: Structure and function in retrieval languages (2006) 0.00 
    0.0027219015 = product of:
  0.01905331 = sum of:
    0.01905331 = product of:
      0.03810662 = sum of:
        0.03810662 = weight(_text_:design in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03810662 = score(doc=5584,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.24924651 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to summarize the varied structural characteristics which may be present in retrieval languages. Design/methodology/approach - The languages serve varied purposes in information systems, and a number of these are identified. The relations between structure and function are discussed and suggestions made as to the most suitable structures needed for various purposes. Findings - A quantitative approach has been developed: a simple measure is the number of separate terms in a retrieval language, but this has to be related to the scope of its subject field. Some ratio of terms to items in the field seems a more suitable measure of the average specificity of the terms. Other aspects can be quantified - for example, the average number of links in hierarchical chains, or the average number of cross-references in a thesaurus. Originality/value - All the approaches to the analysis of retrieval language reported in this paper are of continuing value. Some practical studies of computer information systems undertaken by Aslib Research Department have suggested a further approach.
  15. Gilchrist, A.: Structure and function in retrieval (2006) 0.00 
    0.0027219015 = product of:
  0.01905331 = sum of:
    0.01905331 = product of:
      0.03810662 = sum of:
        0.03810662 = weight(_text_:design in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03810662 = score(doc=5585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.24924651 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper forms part of the series "60 years of the best in information research", marking the 60th anniversary of the Journal of Documentation. It aims to review the influence of Brian Vickery's 1971 paper, "Structure and function in retrieval languages". The paper is not an update of Vickery's work, but a comment on a greatly changed environment, in which his analysis still has much validity. Design/methodology/approach - A commentary on selected literature illustrates the continuing relevance of Vickery's ideas. Findings - Generic survey and specific reference are still the main functions of retrieval languages, with minor functional additions such as relevance ranking. New structures are becoming increasingly significant, through developments such as XML. Future development in artificial intelligence hold out new prospects still. Originality/value - The paper shows the continuing relevance of "traditional" ideas of information science from the 1960s and 1970s.
  16. Marcoux, Y.; Rizkallah, E.: Knowledge organization in the light of intertextual semantics : a natural-language analysis of controlled vocabularies (2008) 0.00 
    0.0027219015 = product of:
  0.01905331 = sum of:
    0.01905331 = product of:
      0.03810662 = sum of:
        0.03810662 = weight(_text_:design in 2241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03810662 = score(doc=2241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.24924651 = fieldWeight in 2241, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2241)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Content
    Intertextual semantics is a semiotics-based approach to the design of communication artefacts primarily aimed at modeling XML structured documents. SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System) is a specification currently under development at the W3C that allows expressing various types of controlled vocabularies in XML. In this article, we show through an example how intertextual semantics could be applied to controlled vocabularies expressed in SKOS, and argue that it could facilitate the communication of meaning among the various persons who interact with a controlled vocabulary.
  17. Maniez, J.: Fusion de banques de donnees documentaires at compatibilite des languages d'indexation (1997) 0.00 
    0.0023611132 = product of:
  0.016527792 = sum of:
    0.016527792 = product of:
      0.033055585 = sum of:
        0.033055585 = weight(_text_:22 in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033055585 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2246, 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=2246)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
  18. Mazzocchi, F.: Relations in KOS : is it possible to couple a common nature with different roles? (2017) 0.00 
    0.0018146011 = product of:
  0.012702207 = sum of:
    0.012702207 = product of:
      0.025404414 = sum of:
        0.025404414 = weight(_text_:design in 78) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025404414 = score(doc=78,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.16616434 = fieldWeight in 78, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=78)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this paper, which increases and deepens what was expressed in a previous work (Mazzocchi et al., 2007), is to scrutinize the underlying assumptions of the types of relations included in thesauri, particularly the genus-species relation. Logicist approaches to information organization, which are still dominant, will be compared with hermeneutically oriented approaches. In the light of these approaches, the nature and features of the relations, and what the notion of a priori could possibly mean with regard to them, are examined, together with the implications for designing and implementing knowledge organizations systems (KOS). Design/methodology/approach The inquiry is based on how the relations are described in literature, engaging in particular a discussion with Hjørland (2015) and Svenonius (2004). The philosophical roots of today's leading views are briefly illustrated, in order to put them under perspective and deconstruct the uncritical reception of their authority. To corroborate the discussion a semantic analysis of specific terms and relations is provided too. Findings All relations should be seen as "perspectival" (not as a priori). On the other hand, different types of relations, depending on the conceptual features of the terms involved, can hold a different degree of "stability." On this basis, they could be used to address different information concerns (e.g. interoperability vs expressiveness). Research limitations/implications Some arguments that the paper puts forth at the conceptual level need to be tested in application contexts. Originality/value This paper considers that the standpoint of logic and of hermeneutic (usually seen as conflicting) are both significant for information organization, and could be pragmatically integrated. In accordance with this view, an extension of thesaurus relations' set is advised, meaning that perspective hierarchical relations (i.e. relations that are not logically based but function contingently) should be also included in such a set.
  19. Mooers, C.N.: ¬The indexing language of an information retrieval system (1985) 0.00 
    0.0013773161 = product of:
  0.009641212 = sum of:
    0.009641212 = product of:
      0.019282425 = sum of:
        0.019282425 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019282425 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Footnote
    Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.

Authors

Years

Languages

Themes