-
Schmitz-Esser, W.: Language of general communication and concept compatibility (1996)
0.02
0.021413539 = product of:
0.085654154 = sum of:
0.085654154 = product of:
0.12848122 = sum of:
0.07151002 = weight(_text_:language in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07151002 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.4334667 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
0.056971207 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056971207 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14725003 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Pages
- S.11-22
-
Fugmann, R.: ¬The complementarity of natural and index language in the field of information supply : an overview of their specific capabilities and limitations (2002)
0.02
0.019387618 = product of:
0.07755047 = sum of:
0.07755047 = product of:
0.1163257 = sum of:
0.08758152 = weight(_text_:language in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08758152 = score(doc=1412,freq=12.0), product of:
0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.5308861 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
0.028744178 = weight(_text_:29 in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028744178 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14791684 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Natural text phrasing is an indeterminate process and, thus, inherently lacks representational predictability. This holds true in particular in the Gase of general concepts and of their syntactical connectivity. Hence, natural language query phrasing and searching is an unending adventure of trial and error and, in most Gases, has an unsatisfactory outcome with respect to the recall and precision ratlos of the responses. Human indexing is based an knowledgeable document interpretation and aims - among other things - at introducing predictability into the representation of documents. Due to the indeterminacy of natural language text phrasing and image construction, any adequate indexing is also indeterminate in nature and therefore inherently defies any satisfactory algorithmization. But human indexing suffers from a different Set of deficiencies which are absent in the processing of non-interpreted natural language. An optimally effective information System combines both types of language in such a manner that their specific strengths are preserved and their weaknesses are avoided. lf the goal is a large and enduring information system for more than merely known-item searches, the expenditure for an advanced index language and its knowledgeable and careful employment is unavoidable.
- Source
- Knowledge organization. 29(2002) nos.3/4, S.217-230
-
Green, R.; Fraser, L.: Patterns in verbal polysemy (2004)
0.02
0.017199783 = product of:
0.06879913 = sum of:
0.06879913 = product of:
0.10319869 = sum of:
0.05720801 = weight(_text_:language in 2621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05720801 = score(doc=2621,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.34677336 = fieldWeight in 2621, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2621)
0.045990683 = weight(_text_:29 in 2621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045990683 = score(doc=2621,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14791684 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2621, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2621)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Although less well studied than noun polysemy, verb polysemy affects both natural language and controlled vocabulary searching. This paper reports the preliminary conclusions of an empirical investigation of the semantic relationships between ca. 600 verb sense pairs in English, illustrating six classes of semantic relationships that account for a significant proportion of verbal polysemy.
- Pages
- S.29-34
-
Miller, U.; Teitelbaum, R.: Pre-coordination and post-coordination : past and future (2002)
0.02
0.01504981 = product of:
0.06019924 = sum of:
0.06019924 = product of:
0.090298854 = sum of:
0.05005701 = weight(_text_:language in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05005701 = score(doc=1395,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.30342668 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
0.040241845 = weight(_text_:29 in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040241845 = score(doc=1395,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14791684 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- This article deals with the meaningful processing of information in relation to two systems of Information processing: pre-coordination and post-coordination. The different approaches are discussed, with emphasis an the need for a controlled vocabulary in information retrieval. Assigned indexing, which employs a controlled vocabulary, is described in detail. Types of indexing language can be divided into two broad groups - those using pre-coordinated terms and those depending an post-coordination. They represent two different basic approaches in processing and Information retrieval. The historical development of these two approaches is described, as well as the two tools that apply to these approaches: thesauri and subject headings.
- Source
- Knowledge organization. 29(2002) no.2, S.87-93
-
Boteram, F.: Semantische Relationen in Dokumentationssprachen : vom Thesaurus zum semantischen Netz (2010)
0.01
0.013353615 = product of:
0.05341446 = sum of:
0.05341446 = product of:
0.08012169 = sum of:
0.040241845 = weight(_text_:29 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040241845 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14791684 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
0.039879844 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039879844 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14725003 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 2. 3.2013 12:29:05
- 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
-
Svenonius, E.: LCSH: semantics, syntax and specifity (2000)
0.01
0.0128998365 = product of:
0.051599346 = sum of:
0.051599346 = product of:
0.077399015 = sum of:
0.042906005 = weight(_text_:language in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042906005 = score(doc=5599,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.26008 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
0.03449301 = weight(_text_:29 in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03449301 = score(doc=5599,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14791684 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- This paper looks at changes affecting LCSH over its 100-year history. Adopting a linguistic conceptualization, it frames these changes as relating to the semantics, syntax and pragmatics of the LCSH language. While its category semantics has remained stable over time, the LCSH relational semantics underwent a significant upheaval when a thesaural structure was imposed upon its traditional See and See also structure. Over time the LCSH syntax has become increasingly complex as it has moved from being largely enumerative to in large part synthetic. Until fairly recently the LCSH pragmatics consisted of only one rule, viz, the injunction to assign specific headings. This rule, always controversial, has become even more debated and interpreted with the move to the online environment
- Series
- Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.29, nos.1/2
-
Svenonius, E.: LCSH: semantics, syntax and specifity (2000)
0.01
0.0128998365 = product of:
0.051599346 = sum of:
0.051599346 = product of:
0.077399015 = sum of:
0.042906005 = weight(_text_:language in 5602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042906005 = score(doc=5602,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.26008 = fieldWeight in 5602, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5602)
0.03449301 = weight(_text_:29 in 5602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03449301 = score(doc=5602,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14791684 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5602, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5602)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- This paper looks at changes affecting LCSH over its 100-year history. Adopting a linguistic conceptualization, it frames these changes as relating to the semantics, syntax and pragmatics of the LCSH language. While its category semantics has remained stable over time, the LCSH relational semantics underwent a significant upheaval when a thesaural structure was imposed upon its traditional See and See also structure. Over time the LCSH syntax has become increasingly complex as it has moved from being largely enumerative to in large part synthetic. Until fairly recently the LCSH pragmatics consisted of only one rule, viz, the injunction to assign specific headings. This rule, always controversial, has become even more debated and interpreted with the move to the online environment
- Series
- Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.29, nos.1/2
-
¬The LCSH century : One hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system (2000)
0.01
0.010574587 = product of:
0.042298347 = sum of:
0.042298347 = product of:
0.06344752 = sum of:
0.040452175 = weight(_text_:language in 1224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040452175 = score(doc=1224,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.2452058 = fieldWeight in 1224, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1224)
0.022995342 = weight(_text_:29 in 1224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022995342 = score(doc=1224,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14791684 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 1224, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1224)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Content
- Enthält die Beiträge: BACKGROUND: Alva T STONE: The LCSH Century: A Brief History of the Library of Congress Subject Headings, and Introduction to the Centennial Essays - THEORY AND PRINCIPLES: Elaine SVENONIUS: LCSH: Semantics, Syntax and Specificity; Heidi Lee HOERMAN u. Kevin A. FURNISS: Turning Practice into Principles: A Comparison of the IFLA: Principles Underlying Subject Heading Languages (SHLs) and the Principles Underlying the Library of Congress Subject Headings System; Hope A. OLSON: Difference, Culture and Change:The Untapped Potential of LCSH - ONLINE ENVIRONMENT: Pauline Atherton COCHRANE: Improving LCSH for Use in Online Catalogs Revisited-What Progress Has Been Made? What Issues Still Remain?; Gregory WOOL: Filing and Precoordination: How Subject Headings Are Displayed in Online Catalogs and Why It Matters; Stephen HEARN: Machine-Assisted Validation of LC Subject Headings: Implications for Authority File Structure - SPECIFIC PERSPECTIVES: Thomas MANN: Teaching Library of Congress Subject Headings; Louisa J. KREIDER: LCSH Works! Subject Searching Effectiveness at the Cleveland Public Library and the Growth of Library of Congress Subject Headings Through Cooperation; Harriette HEMMASI u J. Bradford YOUNG: LCSH for Music: Historical and Empirical Perspectives; Joseph MILLER u. Patricia KUHR: LCSH and Periodical Indexing: Adoption vs. Adaptation; David P MILLER: Out from Under: Form/Genre Access in LCSH - WORLD VIEW: Magda HEINER-FREILING: Survey on Subject Heading Languages Used in National Libraries and Bibliographies; Andrew MacEWAN: Crossing Language Barriers in Europe: Linking LCSH to Other Subject Heading Languages; Alvaro QUIJANO-SOLIS u.a.: Automated Authority Files of Spanish-Language Subject Headings - FUTURE PROSPECTS: Lois Mai CHAN u. Theodora HODGES: Entering the Millennium: a new century for LCSH
- Series
- Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.29, nos.1/2
-
¬The LCSH century : One hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system (2000)
0.01
0.010574587 = product of:
0.042298347 = sum of:
0.042298347 = product of:
0.06344752 = sum of:
0.040452175 = weight(_text_:language in 5366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040452175 = score(doc=5366,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.2452058 = fieldWeight in 5366, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5366)
0.022995342 = weight(_text_:29 in 5366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022995342 = score(doc=5366,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14791684 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 5366, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5366)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Content
- Enthält die Beiträge: BACKGROUND: Alva T STONE: The LCSH Century: A Brief History of the Library of Congress Subject Headings, and Introduction to the Centennial Essays - THEORY AND PRINCIPLES: Elaine SVENONIUS: LCSH: Semantics, Syntax and Specificity; Heidi Lee HOERMAN u. Kevin A. FURNISS: Turning Practice into Principles: A Comparison of the IFLA: Principles Underlying Subject Heading Languages (SHLs) and the Principles Underlying the Library of Congress Subject Headings System; Hope A. OLSON: Difference, Culture and Change:The Untapped Potential of LCSH - ONLINE ENVIRONMENT: Pauline Atherton COCHRANE: Improving LCSH for Use in Online Catalogs Revisited-What Progress Has Been Made? What Issues Still Remain?; Gregory WOOL: Filing and Precoordination: How Subject Headings Are Displayed in Online Catalogs and Why It Matters; Stephen HEARN: Machine-Assisted Validation of LC Subject Headings: Implications for Authority File Structure - SPECIFIC PERSPECTIVES: Thomas MANN: Teaching Library of Congress Subject Headings; Louisa J. KREIDER: LCSH Works! Subject Searching Effectiveness at the Cleveland Public Library and the Growth of Library of Congress Subject Headings Through Cooperation; Harriette HEMMASI u J. Bradford YOUNG: LCSH for Music: Historical and Empirical Perspectives; Joseph MILLER u. Patricia KUHR: LCSH and Periodical Indexing: Adoption vs. Adaptation; David P MILLER: Out from Under: Form/Genre Access in LCSH - WORLD VIEW: Magda HEINER-FREILING: Survey on Subject Heading Languages Used in National Libraries and Bibliographies; Andrew MacEWAN: Crossing Language Barriers in Europe: Linking LCSH to Other Subject Heading Languages; Alvaro QUIJANO-SOLIS u.a.: Automated Authority Files of Spanish-Language Subject Headings - FUTURE PROSPECTS: Lois Mai CHAN u. Theodora HODGES: Entering the Millennium: a new century for LCSH
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 29(2000) nos.1/2, S.1-249
-
Mooers, C.N.: ¬The indexing language of an information retrieval system (1985)
0.01
0.009222596 = product of:
0.036890384 = sum of:
0.036890384 = product of:
0.055335574 = sum of:
0.035395652 = weight(_text_:language in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035395652 = score(doc=3644,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.21455508 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
0.019939922 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019939922 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14725003 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Calvin Mooers' work toward the resolution of the problem of ambiguity in indexing went unrecognized for years. At the time he introduced the "descriptor" - a term with a very distinct meaning-indexers were, for the most part, taking index terms directly from the document, without either rationalizing them with context or normalizing them with some kind of classification. It is ironic that Mooers' term came to be attached to the popular but unsophisticated indexing methods which he was trying to root out. Simply expressed, what Mooers did was to take the dictionary definitions of terms and redefine them so clearly that they could not be used in any context except that provided by the new definition. He did, at great pains, construct such meanings for over four hundred words; disambiguation and specificity were sought after and found for these words. He proposed that all indexers adopt this method so that when the index supplied a term, it also supplied the exact meaning for that term as used in the indexed document. The same term used differently in another document would be defined differently and possibly renamed to avoid ambiguity. The disambiguation was achieved by using unabridged dictionaries and other sources of defining terminology. In practice, this tends to produce circularity in definition, that is, word A refers to word B which refers to word C which refers to word A. It was necessary, therefore, to break this chain by creating a new, definitive meaning for each word. Eventually, means such as those used by Austin (q.v.) for PRECIS achieved the same purpose, but by much more complex means than just creating a unique definition of each term. Mooers, however, was probably the first to realize how confusing undefined terminology could be. Early automatic indexers dealt with distinct disciplines and, as long as they did not stray beyond disciplinary boundaries, a quick and dirty keyword approach was satisfactory. The trouble came when attempts were made to make a combined index for two or more distinct disciplines. A number of processes have since been developed, mostly involving tagging of some kind or use of strings. Mooers' solution has rarely been considered seriously and probably would be extremely difficult to apply now because of so much interdisciplinarity. But for a specific, weIl defined field, it is still weIl worth considering. Mooers received training in mathematics and physics from the University of Minnesota and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was the founder of Zator Company, which developed and marketed a coded card information retrieval system, and of Rockford Research, Inc., which engages in research in information science. He is the inventor of the TRAC computer language.
- 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.
-
Bhattacharyya, G.: ¬A general theory of subject headings (1974)
0.01
0.007665114 = product of:
0.030660456 = sum of:
0.030660456 = product of:
0.09198137 = sum of:
0.09198137 = weight(_text_:29 in 1592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09198137 = score(doc=1592,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14791684 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.6218451 = fieldWeight in 1592, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1592)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Library science with a slant to documentation. 11(1974), S.23-29
-
Fugmann, R.: ¬The complementarity of natural and indexing languages (1985)
0.01
0.007151001 = product of:
0.028604005 = sum of:
0.028604005 = product of:
0.08581201 = sum of:
0.08581201 = weight(_text_:language in 3641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08581201 = score(doc=3641,freq=18.0), product of:
0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.52016 = fieldWeight in 3641, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3641)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- The second Cranfield experiment (Cranfield II) in the mid-1960s challenged assumptions held by librarians for nearly a century, namely, that the objective of providing subject access was to bring together all materials an a given topic and that the achieving of this objective required vocabulary control in the form of an index language. The results of Cranfield II were replicated by other retrieval experiments quick to follow its lead and increasing support was given to the opinion that natural language information systems could perform at least as effectively, and certainly more economically, than those employing index languages. When the results of empirical research dramatically counter conventional wisdom, an obvious course is to question the validity of the research and, in the case of retrieval experiments, this eventually happened. Retrieval experiments were criticized for their artificiality, their unrepresentative sampies, and their problematic definitions-particularly the definition of relevance. In the minds of some, at least, the relative merits of natural languages vs. indexing languages continued to be an unresolved issue. As with many eitherlor options, a seemingly safe course to follow is to opt for "both," and indeed there seems to be an increasing amount of counsel advising a combination of natural language and index language search capabilities. One strong voice offering such counsel is that of Robert Fugmann, a chemist by training, a theoretician by predilection, and, currently, a practicing information scientist at Hoechst AG, Frankfurt/Main. This selection from his writings sheds light an the capabilities and limitations of both kinds of indexing. Its special significance lies in the fact that its arguments are based not an empirical but an rational grounds. Fugmann's major argument starts from the observation that in natural language there are essentially two different kinds of concepts: 1) individual concepts, repre sented by names of individual things (e.g., the name of the town Augsburg), and 2) general concepts represented by names of classes of things (e.g., pesticides). Individual concepts can be represented in language simply and succinctly, often by a single string of alphanumeric characters; general concepts, an the other hand, can be expressed in a multiplicity of ways. The word pesticides refers to the concept of pesticides, but also referring to this concept are numerous circumlocutions, such as "Substance X was effective against pests." Because natural language is capable of infinite variety, we cannot predict a priori the manifold ways a general concept, like pesticides, will be represented by any given author. It is this lack of predictability that limits natural language retrieval and causes poor precision and recall. Thus, the essential and defining characteristic of an index language ls that it is a tool for representational predictability.
-
Schmitz-Esser, W.: Formalizing terminology-based knowledge for an ontology independently of a particular language (2008)
0.01
0.007151001 = product of:
0.028604005 = sum of:
0.028604005 = product of:
0.08581201 = sum of:
0.08581201 = weight(_text_:language in 1680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08581201 = score(doc=1680,freq=8.0), product of:
0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.52016 = fieldWeight in 1680, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1680)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Last word ontological thought and practice is exemplified on an axiomatic framework [a model for an Integrative Cross-Language Ontology (ICLO), cf. Poli, R., Schmitz-Esser, W., forthcoming 2007] that is highly general, based on natural language, multilingual, can be implemented as topic maps and may be openly enhanced by software available for particular languages. Basics of ontological modelling, conditions for construction and maintenance, and the most salient points in application are addressed, such as cross-language text mining and knowledge generation. The rationale is to open the eyes for the tremendous potential of terminology-based ontologies for principled Knowledge Organization and the interchange and reuse of formalized knowledge.
-
Melton, J.S.: ¬A use for the techniques of structural linguistics in documentation research (1965)
0.01
0.0067420295 = product of:
0.026968118 = sum of:
0.026968118 = product of:
0.08090435 = sum of:
0.08090435 = weight(_text_:language in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08090435 = score(doc=834,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.4904116 = fieldWeight in 834, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=834)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Index language (the system of symbols for representing subject content after analysis) is considered as a separate component and a variable in an information retrieval system. It is suggested that for purposes of testing, comparing and evaluating index language, the techniques of structural linguistics may provide a descriptive methodology by which all such languages (hierarchical and faceted classification, analytico-synthetic indexing, traditional subject indexing, indexes and classifications based on automatic text analysis, etc.) could be described in term of a linguistic model, and compared on a common basis
-
Ruge, G.: ¬A spreading activation network for automatic generation of thesaurus relationships (1991)
0.01
0.0066466406 = product of:
0.026586562 = sum of:
0.026586562 = product of:
0.07975969 = sum of:
0.07975969 = weight(_text_:22 in 4506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07975969 = score(doc=4506,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14725003 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 8.10.2000 11:52:22
-
Mikacic, M.: Statistical system for subject designation (SSSD) for libraries in Croatia (1996)
0.01
0.005371297 = product of:
0.021485187 = sum of:
0.021485187 = product of:
0.06445556 = sum of:
0.06445556 = weight(_text_:22 in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06445556 = score(doc=2943,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14725003 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 31. 7.2006 14:22:21
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.1, S.77-93
-
Vickery, B.B.: Structure and function in retrieval languages (2006)
0.01
0.005056522 = product of:
0.020226087 = sum of:
0.020226087 = product of:
0.06067826 = sum of:
0.06067826 = weight(_text_:language in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06067826 = score(doc=5584,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.3678087 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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.
-
Engerer, V.: Control and syntagmatization : vocabulary requirements in information retrieval thesauri and natural language lexicons (2017)
0.01
0.005056522 = product of:
0.020226087 = sum of:
0.020226087 = product of:
0.06067826 = sum of:
0.06067826 = weight(_text_:language in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06067826 = score(doc=3678,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16497234 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.3678087 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- This paper explores the relationships between natural language lexicons in lexical semantics and thesauri in information retrieval research. These different areas of knowledge have different restrictions on use of vocabulary; thesauri are used only in information search and retrieval contexts, whereas lexicons are mental systems and generally applicable in all domains of life. A set of vocabulary requirements that defines the more concrete characteristics of vocabulary items in the 2 contexts can be derived from this framework: lexicon items have to be learnable, complex, transparent, etc., whereas thesaurus terms must be effective, current and relevant, searchable, etc. The differences in vocabulary properties correlate with 2 other factors, the well-known dimension of Control (deliberate, social activities of building and maintaining vocabularies), and Syntagmatization, which is less known and describes vocabulary items' varying formal preparedness to exit the thesaurus/lexicon, enter into linear syntactic constructions, and, finally, acquire communicative functionality. It is proposed that there is an inverse relationship between Control and Syntagmatization.
-
Krömmelbein, U.: linguistische und fachwissenschaftliche Gesichtspunkte. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung der Regeln für die Schlagwortvergabe der Deutschen Bibliothek, RSWK, Voll-PRECIS und Kurz-PRECIS : Schlagwort-Syntax (1983)
0.00
0.0047906963 = product of:
0.019162785 = sum of:
0.019162785 = product of:
0.057488356 = sum of:
0.057488356 = weight(_text_:29 in 2566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057488356 = score(doc=2566,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14791684 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 2566, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2566)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 6. 1.1999 9:29:10
-
Francu, V.: ¬A linguistic approach to information languages (2003)
0.00
0.0047906963 = product of:
0.019162785 = sum of:
0.019162785 = product of:
0.057488356 = sum of:
0.057488356 = weight(_text_:29 in 3538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057488356 = score(doc=3538,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14791684 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042049456 = queryNorm
0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 3538, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3538)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 11. 6.2005 19:38:29
