Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

0.07630152 = product of:
  0.1907538 = sum of:
    0.12117098 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12117098 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.5105618 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
    0.06958282 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06958282 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, 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=539)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

26.12.2011 13:22:07

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.067464456 = product of:
  0.16866113 = sum of:
    0.11995316 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11995316 = score(doc=4792,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.50543046 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
    0.048707973 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048707973 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0481889 = product of:
  0.120472245 = sum of:
    0.085680835 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085680835 = score(doc=1670,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.36102176 = fieldWeight in 1670, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1670)
    0.03479141 = weight(_text_:22 in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03479141 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1670, 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=1670)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Das Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit ist es, ein Modell für ein Informationssystems zu erstellen und die Voraussetzungen und Aspekte zu betrachten, die notwendig sind, um Einsichten in die begrifflichen Zusammenhänge des Gegenstandsbereiches Luftfahrt zu erlangen. Der Ansatz, der hier erläutert wird, plädiert für die Konstruktion einer begrifflichen Wissensstruktur in Form eines semantischen Netzes. Ausgangspunkt dieser Überlegungen ist die Auffassung, daß zwar das kontrollierte Vokabular eines Thesaurus mit seiner Verweisstruktur vielfältiges Wissen enthält, das aber aufgrund der drei klassischen Standardrelationen nur unzureichend repräsentiert und damit auch nur beschränkt zugänglich ist. Es wird erläutert, welche Vorteile eine Erweiterung der drei Thesaurusrelationen erbringen kann und in welcher Funktion die Relationen bei der Formulierung der Suchanfrage unterstützend sein können. Gezeigt wird, wie die Begriffstrukturen eines semantischen Netzes deutlicher hervortreten, wenn bei der Erstellung einer Wissensstruktur eines Gegenstandsbereiches Kategorien zugrunde gelegt werden und welche Gestaltungsprinzipien den Suchprozeß unterstützen können. Dazu werden die Voraussetzungen erörtert, die garantieren, daß komplexe Suchanfragen (erfolgreich) geleistet werden können und zu präzisen Treffermengen führen.

Date

26. 9.2006 21:00:22

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.047981266 = product of:
  0.23990633 = sum of:
    0.23990633 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 6051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23990633 = score(doc=6051,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        1.0108609 = fieldWeight in 6051, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6051)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0384706 = product of:
  0.192353 = sum of:
    0.192353 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 5448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.192353 = score(doc=5448,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.81049186 = fieldWeight in 5448, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5448)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In this paper the possibility to develop a richer relational structure for thesauri is explored and described. The development of a new environmental thesaurus - EARTh (Environmental Applications Reference Thesaurus) - is serving as a case study for exploring the refinement of thesaurus relational structure by specialising standard relationships into different subtypes. Together with benefits and opportunities, implications and possible challenges that an expanded set of thesaurus relations may cause are evaluated.

Object

EARTh-Thesaurus

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.037932523 = product of:
  0.1896626 = sum of:
    0.1896626 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 4656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1896626 = score(doc=4656,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.7991557 = fieldWeight in 4656, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4656)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

Source

http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-thesaurus-pubguide-20050517/

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.03392788 = product of:
  0.1696394 = sum of:
    0.1696394 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 7636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1696394 = score(doc=7636,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.7147866 = fieldWeight in 7636, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7636)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.03392788 = product of:
  0.1696394 = sum of:
    0.1696394 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1696394 = score(doc=2311,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.7147866 = fieldWeight in 2311, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2311)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.029680712 = product of:
  0.14840356 = sum of:
    0.14840356 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14840356 = score(doc=2036,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.62530804 = fieldWeight in 2036, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2036)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Thesauri and other types of controlled vocabularies are increasingly re-engineered into ontologies described using the Web Ontology Language (OWL), particularly in the life sciences. This has led to the perception by some that thesauri are ontologies once they are described by using the syntax of OWL while others have emphasized the need to re-engineer a vocabulary to use it as ontology. This confusion is rooted in different perceptions of what ontologies are and how they differ from other types of vocabularies. In this article, we rigorously examine the structural differences and similarities between thesauri and meaning-defining ontologies described in OWL. Specifically, we conduct (a) a conceptual comparison of thesauri and ontologies, and (b) a comparison of a specific thesaurus and a specific ontology in the same subject field. Our results show that thesauri and ontologies need to be treated as 2 orthogonal kinds of models with superficially similar structures. An ontology is not a good thesaurus, nor is a thesaurus a good ontology. A thesaurus requires significant structural and other content changes to become an ontology, and vice versa.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.029680712 = product of:
  0.14840356 = sum of:
    0.14840356 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 5854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14840356 = score(doc=5854,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.62530804 = fieldWeight in 5854, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5854)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The quantitative evaluation of thesauri has been carried out much further since 1976. This type of evaluation is based on counting of special factors in thesaurus structure, some of which are counting preferred terms, non preferred terms, cross reference terms and so on. Therefore, various statistical tests have been proposed and applied for evaluation of thesauri. In this article, we try to explain some ratios in the field of unity quantitative evaluation in a thesaurus term network. Theoretical base of the ratios' indicators and indices construction, and epistemological thought in this type of quantitative evaluation, are discussed in this article. The theoretical base of quantitative evaluation is the epistemological thought of Immanuel Kant's Critique of pure reason. The cognition states of transcendental understanding are divided into three steps, the first is perception, the second combination and the third, relation making. Terms relation domains and conceptual relation domains can be analyzed with ratios. The use of quantitative evaluations in current research in the field of thesaurus construction prepares a basis for a restoration period. In modern thesaurus construction, traditional term relations are analyzed in detail in the form of new conceptual relations. Hence, the new domains of hierarchical and associative relations are constructed in the form of relations between concepts. The newly formed conceptual domains can be a suitable basis for quantitative evaluation analysis in conceptual relations.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.029382406 = product of:
  0.14691202 = sum of:
    0.14691202 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14691202 = score(doc=572,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.6190234 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

We consider use of ontological background knowledge in intelligent information systems and analyze directions of their reduction in compliance with specifics of particular user task. Such reduction is aimed at simplification of knowledge processing without loss of significant information. We propose methods of generation of task thesauri based on domain ontology that contain such subset of ontological concepts and relations that can be used in task solving. Combinatorial optimization is used for minimization of task thesaurus. In this approach, semantic similarity estimates are used for determination of concept significance for user task. Some practical examples of optimized thesauri application for semantic retrieval and competence analysis demonstrate efficiency of proposed approach.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.027417867 = product of:
  0.13708933 = sum of:
    0.13708933 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13708933 = score(doc=4695,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.5776348 = fieldWeight in 4695, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4695)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.02709466 = product of:
  0.1354733 = sum of:
    0.1354733 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 3695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1354733 = score(doc=3695,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.5708255 = fieldWeight in 3695, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3695)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The concepts of simplicity and complexity play major roles in information storage and retrieval in knowledge organizations. This paper reports an investigation of these concepts in the structure of descriptors. The main purpose of simplicity is to decrease the number of words in the construction of descriptors as this idea affects semantic relations, recall and precision. ISO 25964 has affirmed the purpose of simplicity by requiring splitting compound terms into simpler concepts. This work aims to elaborate the standard methods of evaluation by providing a more detailed evaluation of the descriptors structure and identifying effective factors in simplicity and complexity results in the structure of thesauri descriptors. The research population is taken from the descriptors of the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Thesaurus, the Persian Cultural Thesaurus (ASFA) and the Chemical Thesaurus. This research was conducted using the statistical and content analysis method. In this research we propose a new quantitative approach as well as novel indicators and indices involving Simplicity and Factoring Ratios to evaluate the descriptors structure. The results will be useful in the verification, selection and maintenance purposes in knowledge organizations and the inquiry method can be further developed in the field of ontology evaluation.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.026822343 = product of:
  0.13411172 = sum of:
    0.13411172 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13411172 = score(doc=2362,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.56508845 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The paper analysed here is a kind of position paper. In order to get a better under-standing of the reported work I used the retrieval interface of the thesaurus, the so-called NCI DTS Browser accessible via the Web3, and I perused the cited OWL file4 with numerous "Find" and "Find next" string searches. In addition the file was im-ported into Protégé 2000, Release 2.0, with OWL Plugin 1.0 and Racer Plugin 1.7.14. At the end of the paper's introduction the authors say: "In the following sections, this paper will describe the terminology development process at NCI, and the issues associated with converting a description logic based nomenclature to a semantically rich OWL ontology." While I will not deal with the first part, i.e. the terminology development process at NCI, I do not see the thesaurus as a description logic based nomenclature, or its cur-rent state and conversion already result in a "rich" OWL ontology. What does "rich" mean here? According to my view there is a great quantity of concepts and links but a very poor description logic structure which enables inferences. And what does the fol-lowing really mean, which is said a few lines previously: "Although editors have defined a number of named ontologic relations to support the description-logic based structure of the Thesaurus, additional relation-ships are considered for inclusion as required to support dependent applications."
According to my findings several relations available in the thesaurus query interface as "roles", are not used, i.e. there are not yet any assertions with them. And those which are used do not contribute to complete concept definitions of concepts which represent thesaurus main entries. In other words: The authors claim to already have a "description logic based nomenclature", where there is not yet one which deserves that title by being much more than a thesaurus with strict subsumption and additional inheritable semantic links. In the last section of the paper the authors say: "The most time consuming process in this conversion was making a careful analysis of the Thesaurus to understand the best way to translate it into OWL." "For other conversions, these same types of distinctions and decisions must be made. The expressive power of a proprietary encoding can vary widely from that in OWL or RDF. Understanding the original semantics and engineering a solution that most closely duplicates it is critical for creating a useful and accu-rate ontology." My question is: What decisions were made and are they exemplary, can they be rec-ommended as "the best way"? I raise strong doubts with respect to that, and I miss more profound discussions of the issues at stake. The following notes are dedicated to a critical description and assessment of the results of that conversion activity. They are written in a tutorial style more or less addressing students, but myself being a learner especially in the field of medical knowledge representation I do not speak "ex cathedra".

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.025647065 = product of:
  0.12823533 = sum of:
    0.12823533 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12823533 = score(doc=4800,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.5403279 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The usefulness of online geological maps is hindered by linguistic barriers. Multilingual geoscience thesauri alleviate linguistic barriers of geological maps. However, the benefits of multilingual geoscience thesauri for online geological maps are less studied. In this regard, we developed a multilingual thesaurus of geological time scale (GTS) to alleviate linguistic barriers of GTS records among online geological maps. We extended the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) model to represent the ordinal hierarchical structure of GTS terms. We collected GTS terms in seven languages and encoded them into a thesaurus by using the extended SKOS model. We implemented methods of characteristic-oriented term retrieval in JavaScript programs for accessing Web Map Services (WMS), recognizing GTS terms, and making translations. With the developed thesaurus and programs, we set up a pilot system to test recognitions and translations of GTS terms in online geological maps. Results of this pilot system proved the accuracy of the developed thesaurus and the functionality of the developed programs. Therefore, with proper deployments, SKOS-based multilingual geoscience thesauri can be functional for alleviating linguistic barriers among online geological maps and, thus, improving their interoperability.

Content

Article Outline 1. Introduction 2. SKOS-based multilingual thesaurus of geological time scale 2.1. Addressing the insufficiency of SKOS in the context of the Semantic Web 2.2. Addressing semantics and syntax/lexicon in multilingual GTS terms 2.3. Extending SKOS model to capture GTS structure 2.4. Summary of building the SKOS-based MLTGTS 3. Recognizing and translating GTS terms retrieved from WMS 4. Pilot system, results, and evaluation 5. Discussion 6. Conclusions Vgl. unter: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_cid=271720&_user=3865853&_pii=S0098300411000744&_check=y&_origin=&_coverDate=31-Oct-2011&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlt-zSkzS&_valck=1&md5=e2c1daf53df72d034d22278212578f42&ie=/sdarticle.pdf.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.02518492 = product of:
  0.1259246 = sum of:
    0.1259246 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1259246 = score(doc=2176,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.5305915 = fieldWeight in 2176, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2176)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The ISO 2788 guidelines for monolingual thesauri contain a differentiation of "the hierarchical relationship" into "generic", "partitive", and "instance", which, for purposes of document retrieval, was deemed adequate. However, ontologies, designed as language inventories for a wider scope of knowledge representation, are based on all these and some more logical differentiations. Rereading the ISO 2788 standard and inspecting the published Cyc Upper Ontology, it is argued that the adoption of the document-retrieval definition of subsumption generally prevents the conception or use of a thesaurus as a substructure of an ontology of the new kind as constructed for AI applications. When a thesaurus is used for fact description and inference on fact descriptions, the instance-of relationship too should be reconsidered: It may also link concepts and metaconcepts, and then its distinction from subsumption is needed. The treatment of the instance-of relationship in thesauri, the Cyc Upper Ontology, and WordNet is described from this perspective

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.023990633 = product of:
  0.11995316 = sum of:
    0.11995316 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11995316 = score(doc=2461,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.50543046 = fieldWeight in 2461, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2461)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.02181078 = product of:
  0.109053895 = sum of:
    0.109053895 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.109053895 = score(doc=1169,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.45950568 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

T.1: Today's thesauri are mostly electronic tools, having moved on from the paper-based era when thesaurus standards were first developed. They are built and maintained with the support of software and need to integrate with other software, such as search engines and content management systems. Whereas in the past thesauri were designed for information professionals trained in indexing and searching, today there is a demand for vocabularies that untrained users will find to be intuitive. ISO 25964 makes the transition needed for the world of electronic information management. However, part 1 retains the assumption that human intellect is usually involved in the selection of indexing terms and in the selection of search terms. If both the indexer and the searcher are guided to choose the same term for the same concept, then relevant documents will be retrieved. This is the main principle underlying thesaurus design, even though a thesaurus built for human users may also be applied in situations where computers make the choices. Efficient exchange of data is a vital component of thesaurus management and exploitation. Hence the inclusion in this standard of recommendations for exchange formats and protocols. Adoption of these will facilitate interoperability between thesaurus management systems and the other computer applications, such as indexing and retrieval systems, that will utilize the data. Thesauri are typically used in post-coordinate retrieval systems, but may also be applied to hierarchical directories, pre-coordinate indexes and classification systems. Increasingly, thesaurus applications need to mesh with others, such as automatic categorization schemes, free-text search systems, etc. Part 2 of ISO 25964 describes additional types of structured vocabulary and gives recommendations to enable interoperation of the vocabularies at all stages of the information storage and retrieval process.
T.2: The ability to identify and locate relevant information among vast collections and other resources is a major and pressing challenge today. Several different types of vocabulary are in use for this purpose. Some of the most widely used vocabularies were designed a hundred years ago and have been evolving steadily. A different generation of vocabularies is now emerging, designed to exploit the electronic media more effectively. A good understanding of the previous generation is still essential for effective access to collections indexed with them. An important object of ISO 25964 as a whole is to support data exchange and other forms of interoperability in circumstances in which more than one structured vocabulary is applied within one retrieval system or network. Sometimes one vocabulary has to be mapped to another, and it is important to understand both the potential and the limitations of such mappings. In other systems, a thesaurus is mapped to a classification scheme, or an ontology to a thesaurus. Comprehensive interoperability needs to cover the whole range of vocabulary types, whether young or old. Concepts in different vocabularies are related only in that they have the same or similar meaning. However, the meaning can be found in a number of different aspects within each particular type of structured vocabulary: - within terms or captions selected in different languages; - in the notation assigned indicating a place within a larger hierarchy; - in the definition, scope notes, history notes and other notes that explain the significance of that concept; and - in explicit relationships to other concepts or entities within the same vocabulary. In order to create mappings from one structured vocabulary to another it is first necessary to understand, within the context of each different type of structured vocabulary, the significance and relative importance of each of the different elements in defining the meaning of that particular concept. ISO 25964-1 describes the key characteristics of thesauri along with additional advice on best practice. ISO 25964-2 focuses on other types of vocabulary and does not attempt to cover all aspects of good practice. It concentrates on those aspects which need to be understood if one of the vocabularies is to work effectively alongside one or more of the others. Recognizing that a new standard cannot be applied to some existing vocabularies, this part of ISO 25964 provides informative description alongside the recommendations, the aim of which is to enable users and system developers to interpret and implement the existing vocabularies effectively. The remainder of ISO 25964-2 deals with the principles and practicalities of establishing mappings between vocabularies.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.020987432 = product of:
  0.10493716 = sum of:
    0.10493716 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10493716 = score(doc=3276,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.44215953 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Inhalt: 1. From classifications to ontologies Knowledge - A new concept of knowledge - Knowledge and information - Knowledge organisation - Knowledge organisation and representation - Cognitive sciences - Talent management - Learning systematisation - Historical evolution - From classification to knowledge organisation - Why ontologies exist - Ontologies - The structure of ontologies 2. Taxonomies and thesauri From ordering to taxonomy - The origins of taxonomy - Hierarchical and horizontal order - Correlation with classifications - Taxonomy in computer science - Computing taxonomy - Definitions - Virtual taxonomy, cybernetic taxonomy - Taxonomy in Information Science - Similarities between taxonomies and thesauri - ifferences between taxonomies and thesauri 3. Thesauri Terminology in classification systems - Terminological languages - Thesauri - Thesauri definitions - Conditions that a thesaurus must fulfil - Historical evolution - Classes of thesauri 4. Thesauri in (cladist) systematics Systematics - Systematics as a noun - Definitions and historic evolution over time - Differences between taxonomy and systematics - Systematics in thesaurus construction theory - Classic, numerical and cladist systematics - Classic systematics in information science - Numerical systematics in information science - Thesauri in cladist systematics - Systematics in information technology - Some examples 5. Thesauri in systems theory Historical evolution - Approach to systems - Systems theory applied to the construction of thesauri - Components - Classes of system - Peculiarities of these systems - Working methods - Systems theory applied to ontologies and taxonomies

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.020987432 = product of:
  0.10493716 = sum of:
    0.10493716 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10493716 = score(doc=592,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.44215953 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify the most important factors and features in the evolution of thesauri and ontologies through a dialectic model. This model relies on a dialectic process or idea which could be discovered via a dialectic method. This method has focused on identifying the logical relationship between a beginning proposition, or an idea called a thesis, a negation of that idea called the antithesis, and the result of the conflict between the two ideas, called a synthesis. During the creation of knowl­edge organization systems (KOSs), the identification of logical relations between different ideas has been made possible through the consideration and use of the most influential methods and tools such as dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, thesaurus, micro-, macro- and metathesauri, ontology, lower, middle and upper level ontologies. The analysis process has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a dialectic method and documentary method as the reasoning process. This supports our arguments and synthesizes a method for the analysis of research results. Confirmed by the research results, the principle of unity has shown to be the most important factor in the development and evolution of the structure of knowl­edge organization systems and their types. There are various types of unity when considering the analysis of logical relations. These include the principle of unity of alphabetical order, unity of science, semantic unity, structural unity and conceptual unity. The results have clearly demonstrated a movement from plurality to unity in the assembling of the complex structure of knowl­edge organization systems to increase information and knowl­edge storage and retrieval performance.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus