Search (41 results, page 1 of 3)

0.05291324 = product of:
  0.15873972 = sum of:
    0.09537092 = weight(_text_:wide in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09537092 = score(doc=2558,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.4846142 = fieldWeight in 2558, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2558)
    0.063368805 = weight(_text_:web in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.063368805 = score(doc=2558,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 2558, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2558)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This article provides an overview of recent developments relating to the application of thesauri in information organisation and retrieval on the World Wide Web. It describes some recent thesaurus projects undertaken to facilitate resource description and discovery and access to wide-ranging information resources on the Internet. Types of thesauri available on the Web, thesauri integrated in databases and information retrieval systems, and multiple-thesaurus systems for cross-database searching are also discussed. Collective efforts and events in addressing the standardisation and novel applications of thesauri are briefly reviewed.

0.044033673 = product of:
  0.088067345 = sum of:
    0.028901752 = weight(_text_:wide in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028901752 = score(doc=3243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.14686027 = fieldWeight in 3243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3243)
    0.031359423 = weight(_text_:web in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031359423 = score(doc=3243,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3243, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3243)
    0.02780617 = weight(_text_:computer in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02780617 = score(doc=3243,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.17130512 = fieldWeight in 3243, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3243)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Content

Enthält u.a. folgende Aussage von J. Aitchison u. S. Dextre Clarke: "We face a paradox. Ostensibly, the need and the opportunity to apply thesauri to information retrieval are greater than ever before. On the other hand, users resist most efforts to persuade them to apply one. The drive for interoperability of systems means we must design our vocabularies for easy integration into downstream applications such as content management systems, indexing/metatagging interfaces, search engines, and portals. Summarizing the search for vocabularies that work more intuitively, we see that there are trends working in opposite directions. In the hugely popular taxonomies an the one hand, relationships between terms are more loosely defined than in thesauri. In the ontologies that will support computer-to-computer communications in AI applications such as the Semantic Web, we see the need for much more precisely defined term relationships."
Enthält die Beiträge: Spiteri, L.F.: Word association testing and thesaurus construction: a pilot study. Aitchison, J., S.G. Dextre-Clarke: The Thesaurus: a historical viewpoint, with a look to the future. Thomas, A.R.: Teach yourself thesaurus: exercises, reading, resources. Shearer, J.R.: A practical exercise in building a thesaurus. Nielsen, M.L.: Thesaurus construction: key issues and selected readings. Riesland, M.A.: Tools of the trade: vocabulary management software. Will, L.: Thesaurus consultancy. Owens, L.A., P.A. Cochrane: Thesaurus evaluation. Greenberg, J.: User comprehension and application of information retrieval thesauri. Johnson, E.H.: Distributed thesaurus Web services. Thomas, A.R., S.K. Roe: An interview with Dr. Amy J. Warner. Landry, P.: Multilingual subject access: the linking approach of MACS.

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 32(2005) no.2, S.95-97 (A. Gilchrist):"It might be thought unfortunate that the word thesaurus is assonant with prehistoric beasts but as this book clearly demonstrates, the thesaurus is undergoing a notable revival, and we can remind ourselves that the word comes from the Greek thesaurus, meaning a treasury. This is a useful and timely source book, bringing together ten chapters, following an Editorial introduction and culminating in an interview with a member of the team responsible for revising the NISO Standard Guidelines for the construction, format and management of monolingual thesauri; formal proof of the thesaural renaissance. Though predominantly an American publication, it is good to see four English authors as well as one from Canada and one from Denmark; and with a good balance of academics and practitioners. This has helped to widen the net in the citing of useful references. While the techniques of thesaurus construction are still basically sound, the Editors, in their introduction, point out that the thesaurus, in its sense of an information retrieval tool is almost exactly 50 years old, and that the information environment of today is radically different. They claim three purposes for the compilation: "to acquaint or remind the Library and Information Science community of the history of the development of the thesaurus and standards for thesaurus construction. to provide bibliographies and tutorials from which any reader can become more grounded in her or his understanding of thesaurus construction, use and evaluation. to address topics related to thesauri but that are unique to the current digital environment, or network of networks." This last purpose, understandably, tends to be the slightly more tentative part of the book, but as Rosenfeld and Morville said in their book Information architecture for the World Wide Web "thesauri [will] become a key tool for dealing with the growing size and importance of web sites and intranets". The evidence supporting their belief has been growing steadily in the seven years since the first edition was published.

0.04264177 = product of:
  0.1279253 = sum of:
    0.057803504 = weight(_text_:wide in 4863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057803504 = score(doc=4863,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 4863, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4863)
    0.07012181 = weight(_text_:web in 4863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07012181 = score(doc=4863,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 4863, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4863)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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.

0.039404403 = product of:
  0.11821321 = sum of:
    0.036585998 = weight(_text_:web in 6773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036585998 = score(doc=6773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 6773, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6773)
    0.081627205 = product of:
      0.16325441 = sum of:
        0.16325441 = weight(_text_:programs in 6773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16325441 = score(doc=6773,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25748047 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.6340458 = fieldWeight in 6773, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.034674477 = product of:
  0.10402343 = sum of:
    0.067437425 = weight(_text_:wide in 4455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067437425 = score(doc=4455,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 4455, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4455)
    0.036585998 = weight(_text_:web in 4455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036585998 = score(doc=4455,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4455, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4455)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The amount of work to be done in rendering the digital information space more efficient and effective has attracted a wide range of disciplines which, in turn, has given rise to a degree of confusion in the terminology applied to information problems. This note seeks to shed some light on the three terms thesauri, taxonomies and ontologies as they are currently being used by, among others, information scientists, AI practitioners, and those working on the foundations of the semantic Web. The paper is not a review of the techniques themselves.

0.033748515 = product of:
  0.10124554 = sum of:
    0.05449767 = weight(_text_:wide in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05449767 = score(doc=2766,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.2769224 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
    0.04674787 = weight(_text_:web in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04674787 = score(doc=2766,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.32250395 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Thesauri have been important information and knowledge organisation tools for more than three decades. The recent emergence and phenomenal growth of the World Wide Web has created new opportunities to introduce thesauri as information search and retrieval aids to end user communities. While the number of web-based and hypertextual thesauri continues to grow, few investigations have yet been carried out to evaluate how end-users, for whom all these efforts are ostensibly made, interact with and make use of thesauri for query building and expansion. The present paper reports a pilot study carried out to determine the extent to which a thesaurus-enhanced search interface to a web-based database aided end-users in their selection of search terms. The study also investigated the ways in which users interacted with the thesaurus structure, terms, and interface. Thesaurusbased searching and browsing behaviours adopted by users while interacting with the thesaurus-enhanced search interface were also examined. 1. Introduction The last decade has witnessed the emergence of a broad range of applications for knowledge structures in general and thesauri in particular. A number of researchers have predicted that thesauri will increasingly be used in retrieval rather than for indexing (Milstead, 1998; Aitchison et al., 1997) and that their application in information retrieval systems will become more diverse due to the growth of fulltext databases accessed over the Internet (Williamson, 2000). Some researchers have emphasised the need for tailoring the structure and content of thesauri as tools for end-user searching (Bates, 1986; Strong and Drott, 1986; Anderson and Rowley, 1991; Lopez-Huertas, 1997) while others have suggested thesaurus-enhanced user interfaces to support query formulation and expansion (Pollitt et.al., 1994; Jones et.al., 1995; Beaulieu, 1997). The recent phenomenal growth of the World Wide Web has created new opportunities to introduce thesauri as information search and retrieval aids to end user communities. While the number of web-based and hypertextual thesauri continues to grow, few investigations have been carried out to evaluate the ways in which end-users interact with and make use of online thesauri for query building and expansion. The work reported here expands an a pilot study (Shiri and Revie, 2001) carried out to investigate user - thesaurus interaction in the domains of biology and veterinary medicine.

0.027487947 = product of:
  0.08246384 = sum of:
    0.036585998 = weight(_text_:web in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036585998 = score(doc=4644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
    0.04587784 = weight(_text_:computer in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04587784 = score(doc=4644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28263903 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Series

Lecture notes in computer science; no.3298

Source

Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC'04). Eds. D. Plexousakis and F. van Harmelen

0.0112395715 = product of:
  0.067437425 = sum of:
    0.067437425 = weight(_text_:wide in 5707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067437425 = score(doc=5707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 5707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5707)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper describes the procedures for a concept-based mapping of two agricultural thesauri, the multilingual AGROVOC, created and maintained by the Food and Agricultural Organization, and the bilingual Chinese Agricultural Thesaurus, created and maintained by the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science. Conducted under the auspices of FAO's Agricultural Ontology Service, the mapping project aims to extend AGROVOC with an additional set of perspectives on the agricultural domains, enrich its domain and language coverage, and make use of AGROVOC as a common data model for data exchange among a wide range of multilingual repositories within agriculture.

0.010980619 = product of:
  0.032941855 = sum of:
    0.020906283 = weight(_text_:web in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020906283 = score(doc=3487,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
    0.012035574 = product of:
      0.024071148 = sum of:
        0.024071148 = weight(_text_:22 in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024071148 = score(doc=3487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Footnote

Rez. in: Information: Wissenschaft & Praxis 56(2005) H.5/6, S.337 (W. Ratzek): "Bettina Brühl legt mit "Thesauri und Klassifikationen" ein Fleißarbeit vor. Das Buch mit seiner Auswahl von über 150 Klassifikationen und Thesauri aus Naturwissenschaft, Technik, Wirtschaft und Patenwesen macht es zu einem brauchbaren Nachschlagewerk, zumal auch ein umfassender Index nach Sachgebieten, nach Datenbanken und nach Klassifikationen und Thesauri angeboten wird. Nach einer 13-seitigen Einführung (Kapitel 1 und 2) folgt mit dem 3. Kapitel die "Darstellung von Klassifikationen und Thesauri", im wesentlichen aus den Beschreibungen der Hersteller zusammengestellt. Hier werden Dokumentationssprachen der Fachgebiete - Naturwissenschaften (3.1) und deren Spezialisierungen wie zum Beispiel "Biowissenschaften und Biotechnologie", "Chemie" oder "Umwelt und Ökonomie", aber auch "Mathematik und Informatik" (?) auf 189 Seiten vorgestellt, - Technik mit zum Beispiel "Fachordnung Technik", "Subject Categories (INIS/ ETDE) mit 17 Seiten verhältnismäßig knapp abgehandelt, - Wirtschaft mit "Branchen-Codes", "Product-Codes", "Länder-Codes"",Fachklas-sifikationen" und "Thesauri" ausführlich auf 57 Seiten präsentiert, - Patente und Normen mit zum Beispiel "Europäische Patentklassifikation" oder "International Patent Classification" auf 33 Seiten umrissen. Jedes Teilgebiet wird mit einer kurzen Beschreibung eingeleitet. Danach folgen die jeweiligen Beschreibungen mit den Merkmalen: "Anschrift des Erstellers", "Themen-gebiet(e)", "Sprache", "Verfügbarkeit", "An-wendung" und "Ouelle(n)". "Das Buch wendet sich an alle Information Professionals, die Dokumentationssprachen aufbauen und nutzen" heißt es in der Verlagsinformation. Zwar ist es nicht notwendig, die informationswissenschaftlichen Aspekte der Klassifikationen und Thesauri abzuhandeln, aber ein Hinweis auf die Bedeutung der Information und Dokumentation und/oder der Informationswissenschaft wäre schon angebracht, um in der Welt der Informations- und Wissenswirtschaft zu demonstrieren, welchen Beitrag unsere Profession leistet. Andernfalls bleibt das Blickfeld eingeschränkt und der Anschluss an neuere Entwicklungen ausgeblendet. Dieser Anknüpfungspunkt wäre beispielsweise durch einen Exkurs über Topic Map/Semantic Web gegeben. Der Verlag liefert mit der Herausgabe die ses Kompendiums einen nützlichen ersten Baustein zu einem umfassenden Verzeichnis von Thesauri und Klassifikationen."

Series

Materialien zur Information und Dokumentation; Bd.22

0.010561468 = product of:
  0.063368805 = sum of:
    0.063368805 = weight(_text_:web in 4656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.063368805 = score(doc=4656,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 4656, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4656)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This document describes in brief how to express the content and structure of a thesaurus, and metadata about a thesaurus, in RDF. Using RDF allows data to be linked to and/or merged with other RDF data by semantic web applications. The Semantic Web, which is based on the Resource Description Framework (RDF), provides a common framework that allows data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries.

0.010453141 = product of:
  0.062718846 = sum of:
    0.062718846 = weight(_text_:web in 2831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062718846 = score(doc=2831,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 2831, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2831)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Präsentation des Web-basierten Konzepts zur verteilten Vokabularverwaltung anlässlich der Tagung "museumsand theinternet-Tagung 18.05.2006 Berlin"

0.009052687 = product of:
  0.054316122 = sum of:
    0.054316122 = weight(_text_:web in 4642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054316122 = score(doc=4642,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 4642, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4642)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Thesauri can be useful resources for indexing and retrieval on the Semantic Web, but often they are not published in RDF/OWL. To convert thesauri to RDF for use in Semantic Web applications and to ensure the quality and utility of the conversion a structured method is required. Moreover, if different thesauri are to be interoperable without complicated mappings, a standard schema for thesauri is required. This paper presents a method for conversion of thesauri to the SKOS RDF/OWL schema, which is a proposal for such a standard under development by W3Cs Semantic Web Best Practices Working Group. We apply the method to three thesauri: IPSV, GTAA and MeSH. With these case studies we evaluate our method and the applicability of SKOS for representing thesauri.

0.009052687 = product of:
  0.054316122 = sum of:
    0.054316122 = weight(_text_:web in 4729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054316122 = score(doc=4729,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 4729, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4729)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The task of an information architect is to create web sites where users can actually find the information they are looking for. As the ocean of information rises and leaves what we seek ever more deeply buried in what we don't seek, this discipline becomes ever more relevant. Information architecture involves many different aspects of web site creation and organization, but its principal tools are information organization techniques developed in other disciplines. Most of these techniques come from library science, such as thesauri, taxonomies, and faceted classification. Topic maps are a relative newcomer to this area and bring with them the promise of better-organized web sites, compared to what is possible with existing techniques. However, it is not generally understood how topic maps relate to the traditional techniques, and what advantages and disadvantages they have, compared to these techniques. The aim of this paper is to help build a better understanding of these issues.

0.008738637 = product of:
  0.05243182 = sum of:
    0.05243182 = weight(_text_:computer in 317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05243182 = score(doc=317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.32301605 = fieldWeight in 317, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=317)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Series

Lecture notes in computer science ; 5173

0.008710952 = product of:
  0.052265707 = sum of:
    0.052265707 = weight(_text_:web in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052265707 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Präsentation des Web-basierten Konzepts zur verteilten Vokabularverwaltung am 13.06.06 in Nürnberg, Germ. Nationalmuseum

0.008710952 = product of:
  0.052265707 = sum of:
    0.052265707 = weight(_text_:web in 3443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052265707 = score(doc=3443,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 3443, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3443)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Präsentation des Web-basierten Konzepts zur verteilten Vokabularverwaltung innerhalb der AG Regelwerke AG Datenaustausch / Fachgruppe Dokumentation DMB

0.007646307 = product of:
  0.04587784 = sum of:
    0.04587784 = weight(_text_:computer in 2257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04587784 = score(doc=2257,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28263903 = fieldWeight in 2257, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2257)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

For years, Mexico has had a distance learning system backed by television-signal-transmitted videos. The change to digital and computer transmission demands organizing the information system and its subject contents through a thesaurus. To prepare the thesaurus, an evaluation of existing thesauri and standards for data exchange was carried out, aimed at retrieving subject contents and scheduling broadcasting. Methodology for evaluating thesauri was proposed, compared with a virtual educational platform and a basic structure for setting up the information system was recommended.

0.007646307 = product of:
  0.04587784 = sum of:
    0.04587784 = weight(_text_:computer in 3892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04587784 = score(doc=3892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28263903 = fieldWeight in 3892, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3892)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Thesaurus data structures and exchange formats (ways of tagging and encoding thesauri for transfer between computer applications) are discussed. Single- and multiple-user thesaurus software is functionally similar, apart from scale. Several lists of requirements for such software have been published, and important aspects are summarized here, including input, editing, output, and the interfaces used by indexers and searchers. The way in which thesaurus software may be extended to cover other types of controlled vocabularies is covered briefly, followed by issues that arise in management and updating of thesauri, including changes to collections of documents indexed by previous versions and the mapping and merging of thesauri to provide a common search interface.

0.0065539777 = product of:
  0.039323866 = sum of:
    0.039323866 = weight(_text_:computer in 3813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039323866 = score(doc=3813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24226204 = fieldWeight in 3813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3813)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper describes an ongoing project in which the subject headings contained in twelve controlled vocabularies covering multiple disciplines from the humanities to the sciences and including law and education among others are being collapsed into a single vocabulary and reference structure. The design of the database, algorithms created to programmatically link like-concepts, and daily maintenance are detailed. The problems and pitfalls of dealing with multiple vocabularies are noted, as well as the difficulties in relying purely an computer generated algorithms. The application of this megathesaurus to bibliographic records and methodology of retrieval is explained.

0.0061791493 = product of:
  0.037074894 = sum of:
    0.037074894 = weight(_text_:computer in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037074894 = score(doc=2615,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.22840683 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.