Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

0.053411067 = product of:
  0.13352767 = sum of:
    0.0848197 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0848197 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.3573933 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
    0.048707973 = weight(_text_:22 in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048707973 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2654, 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=2654)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Faceted Knowledge Representation provides a formalism for implementing knowledge systems. The basic notions of faceted knowledge representation are "unit", "relation", "facet" and "interpretation". Units are atomic elements and can be abstract elements or refer to external objects in an application. Relations are sequences or matrices of 0 and 1's (binary matrices). Facets are relational structures that combine units and relations. Each facet represents an aspect or viewpoint of a knowledge system. Interpretations are mappings that can be used to translate between different representations. This paper introduces the basic notions of faceted knowledge representation. The formalism is applied here to an abstract modeling of a faceted thesaurus as used in information retrieval.

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31

0.05129413 = product of:
  0.25647065 = sum of:
    0.25647065 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25647065 = score(doc=1125,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        1.0806558 = fieldWeight in 1125, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1125)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Der Thesaurus Technik und Management ist die umfangreichste strukturierte Sammlung des aktuellen Fachwortschatzes zur Technik und dem produktionsorientierten Management. Für 48.000 deutsche und 32.000 englische Fachwörter werden die synonymen, hierarchischen und verwandten Beziehungen aufgezeigt und in 34.000 Begriffsfamilien zusammengefaßt. Alle Begriffssätze sind alphabetisch aufgelistet. Die zum Begriffssatz gehörenden Vorzugsbenennungen, Synonyme, Unter-, Ober- und verwandte Relationen und Rückverweise sind gekennzeichnet

Object

TEMA-Thesaurus

RSWK

Technik / Thesaurus
Technik / Thesaurus / CD-ROM

Subject

Technik / Thesaurus
Technik / Thesaurus / CD-ROM

0.045780916 = product of:
  0.11445229 = sum of:
    0.072702594 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072702594 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.30633712 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
    0.04174969 = weight(_text_:22 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04174969 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The term "facet" was introduced into the field of library classification systems by Ranganathan in the 1930's [Ranganathan, 1962]. A facet is a viewpoint or aspect. In contrast to traditional classification systems, faceted systems are modular in that a domain is analyzed in terms of baseline facets which are then synthesized. In this paper, the term "facet" is used in a broader meaning. Facets can describe different aspects on the same level of abstraction or the same aspect on different levels of abstraction. The notion of facets is related to database views, multicontexts and conceptual scaling in formal concept analysis [Ganter and Wille, 1999], polymorphism in object-oriented design, aspect-oriented programming, views and contexts in description logic and semantic networks. This paper presents a definition of facets in terms of faceted knowledge representation that incorporates the traditional narrower notion of facets and potentially facilitates translation between different knowledge representation formalisms. A goal of this approach is a modular, machine-aided knowledge base design mechanism. A possible application is faceted thesaurus construction for information retrieval and data mining. Reasoning complexity depends on the size of the modules (facets). A more general analysis of complexity will be left for future research.

Date

22. 1.2016 17:30:31

0.03392788 = product of:
  0.1696394 = sum of:
    0.1696394 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1696394 = score(doc=4494,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.7147866 = fieldWeight in 4494, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4494)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Although commonly used in both commercial and experimental information retrieval systems, thesauri have not demonstrated consistent benefits for retrieval performance, and it is difficult to construct a thesaurus automatically for large text databases. In this paper, an approach, called PhraseFinder, is proposed to construct collection-dependent association thesauri automatically using large full-text document collections. The association thesaurus can be accessed through natural language queries in INQUERY, an information retrieval system based on the probabilistic inference network. Experiments are conducted in INQUERY to evaluate different types of association thesauri, and thesauri constructed for a variety of collections

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.03392788 = product of:
  0.1696394 = sum of:
    0.1696394 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1696394 = score(doc=865,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.7147866 = fieldWeight in 865, 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=865)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.029081037 = product of:
  0.14540519 = sum of:
    0.14540519 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 7995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14540519 = score(doc=7995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.61267424 = fieldWeight in 7995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7995)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Textgrundlage: Funk & Wagnalls new encyclopedia. Vol.1-29; American heritage concise dictionary; Roget's II: The new thesaurus

0.024234196 = product of:
  0.12117098 = sum of:
    0.12117098 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 5482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12117098 = score(doc=5482,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.5105618 = fieldWeight in 5482, 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=5482)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Enthält: The Hammond World Atlas; The People's Chronology; Columbia Dictionary of Quotations; The American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed.; The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, end ed.; Roget's Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases; Wolrd Almanac and Book of Facts, 1994

0.024234196 = product of:
  0.12117098 = sum of:
    0.12117098 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 5346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12117098 = score(doc=5346,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.5105618 = fieldWeight in 5346, 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=5346)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.022266502 = product of:
  0.111332506 = sum of:
    0.111332506 = weight(_text_:22 in 5449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.111332506 = score(doc=5449,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5449, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5449)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.1997 19:26:34

0.022266502 = product of:
  0.111332506 = sum of:
    0.111332506 = weight(_text_:22 in 5837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.111332506 = score(doc=5837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5837)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

30.11.1996 13:22:37

0.022266502 = product of:
  0.111332506 = sum of:
    0.111332506 = weight(_text_:22 in 4085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.111332506 = score(doc=4085,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4085, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4085)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

7.11.1999 18:22:39

0.01948319 = product of:
  0.09741595 = sum of:
    0.09741595 = weight(_text_:22 in 4084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09741595 = score(doc=4084,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4084, 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=4084)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

7.11.1999 18:22:54

0.01948319 = product of:
  0.09741595 = sum of:
    0.09741595 = weight(_text_:22 in 6021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09741595 = score(doc=6021,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6021, 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=6021)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Ariadne. 1999, no.22

0.01696394 = product of:
  0.0848197 = sum of:
    0.0848197 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 1568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0848197 = score(doc=1568,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.3573933 = fieldWeight in 1568, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1568)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Emerging standards in knowledge representation and organization are preparing the way for distributed vocabulary support in Internet search services. NetLab researchers are exploring several innovative solutions for searching and browsing in the subject-based Internet gateway, Electronic Engineering Library, Sweden (EELS). The implementation of the EELS service is described, specifically, the generation of the robot-gathered database 'All' engineering and the automated application of the Ei thesaurus and classification scheme. NetLab and OCLC researchers are collaborating to investigate advanced solutions to automated classification in the DESIRE II context. A plan for furthering the development of distributed vocabulary support in Internet search services is offered.

0.016789947 = product of:
  0.08394973 = sum of:
    0.08394973 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 1240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08394973 = score(doc=1240,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.35372764 = fieldWeight in 1240, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1240)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The Alexandria Digital Library (ADL) Project has developed a content standard for gazetteer objects and a hierarchical type scheme for geographic features. Both of these developments are based on ADL experience with an earlier gazetteer component for the Library, based on two gazetteers maintained by the U.S. federal government. We define the minimum components of a gazetteer entry as (1) a geographic name, (2) a geographic location represented by coordinates, and (3) a type designation. With these attributes, a gazetteer can function as a tool for indirect spatial location identification through names and types. The ADL Gazetteer Content Standard supports contribution and sharing of gazetteer entries with rich descriptions beyond the minimum requirements. This paper describes the content standard, the feature type thesaurus, and the implementation and research issues. A gazetteer is list of geographic names, together with their geographic locations and other descriptive information. A geographic name is a proper name for a geographic place and feature, such as Santa Barbara County, Mount Washington, St. Francis Hospital, and Southern California. There are many types of printed gazetteers. For example, the New York Times Atlas has a gazetteer section that can be used to look up a geographic name and find the page(s) and grid reference(s) where the corresponding feature is shown. Some gazetteers provide information about places and features; for example, a history of the locale, population data, physical data such as elevation, or the pronunciation of the name. Some lists of geographic names are available as hierarchical term sets (thesauri) designed for information retreival; these are used to describe bibliographic or museum materials. Examples include the authority files of the U.S. Library of Congress and the GeoRef Thesaurus produced by the American Geological Institute. The Getty Museum has recently made their Thesaurus of Geographic Names available online. This is a major project to develop a controlled vocabulary of current and historical names to describe (i.e., catalog) art and architecture literature. U.S. federal government mapping agencies maintain gazetteers containing the official names of places and/or the names that appear on map series. Examples include the U.S. Geological Survey's Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency's Geographic Names Processing System (GNPS). Both of these are maintained in cooperation with the U.S. Board of Geographic Names (BGN). Many other examples could be cited -- for local areas, for other countries, and for special purposes. There is remarkable diversity in approaches to the description of geographic places and no standardization beyond authoritative sources for the geographic names themselves.

0.016699877 = product of:
  0.08349938 = sum of:
    0.08349938 = weight(_text_:22 in 8959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08349938 = score(doc=8959,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 8959, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8959)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

16. 7.2002 20:22:55

0.016699877 = product of:
  0.08349938 = sum of:
    0.08349938 = weight(_text_:22 in 5664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08349938 = score(doc=5664,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5664, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5664)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

10.11.1996 16:36:22

0.014540519 = product of:
  0.072702594 = sum of:
    0.072702594 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072702594 = score(doc=919,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.30633712 = fieldWeight in 919, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=919)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Document retrieval is a highly interactive process dealing with large amounts of information. Visual representations can provide both a means for managing the complexity of large information structures and an interface style well suited to interactive manipulation. The system we have designed utilizes visually displayed graphic structures and a direct manipulation interface style to supply an integrated environment for retrieval. A common visually displayed network structure is used for query, document content, and term relations. A query can be modified through direct manipulation of its visual form by incorporating terms from any other information structure the system displays. An associative thesaurus of terms and an inter-document network provide information about a document collection that can complement other retrieval aids. Visualization of these large data structures makes use of fisheye views and overview diagrams to help overcome some of the inherent difficulties of orientation and navigation in large information structures.

0.014540519 = product of:
  0.072702594 = sum of:
    0.072702594 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072702594 = score(doc=1238,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.30633712 = fieldWeight in 1238, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1238)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The emerging network environment brings access to an increasing population of heterogeneous repositories. Inevitably, these, have quite diverse metadata vocabularies (categorization codes, classification numbers, index and thesaurus terms). So, necessarily, the number of metadata vocabularies that are accessible but unfamiliar for any individual searcher is increasing steeply. When an unfamiliar metadata vocabulary is encountered, how is a searcher to know which codes or terms will lead to what is wanted? This paper reports work at the University of California, Berkeley, on the design and development of English language indexes to metadata vocabularies. Further details and the current status of the work can be found at the project website http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/metadata/

0.013916564 = product of:
  0.06958282 = sum of:
    0.06958282 = weight(_text_:22 in 6474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06958282 = score(doc=6474,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6474, 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=6474)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

16. 2.1997 16:22:51