Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03871685 = product of:
  0.0774337 = sum of:
    0.0774337 = sum of:
      0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03505264 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5005, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5005)
      0.04238106 = weight(_text_:22 in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04238106 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5005, 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=5005)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:46:13

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 37(2004) nos.3/4, S.5-21

0.024722286 = product of:
  0.04944457 = sum of:
    0.04944457 = product of:
      0.09888914 = sum of:
        0.09888914 = weight(_text_:22 in 4643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09888914 = score(doc=4643,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4643, 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=4643)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.012392979 = product of:
  0.024785958 = sum of:
    0.024785958 = product of:
      0.049571916 = sum of:
        0.049571916 = weight(_text_:classification in 4344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049571916 = score(doc=4344,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 4344, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4344)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

At the time when the Institute of Information Scientists was launched, well established principles of classification, especially faceted classification, provided an excellent springboard for developments in knowledge organization thereafter. The principles of thesaurus construction and use were worked out during the first two decades of the Institute's existence. Up until the end of the 1980s, most practical systems to exploit any of these vocabularies were held on cards, some of them highly ingenious. The subsequent arrival of the desktop computer, soon followed by the growth of networks providing access to an almost unimaginable quantity and variety of resources, has stimulated evolution of the knowledge organization schemes to exploit the technology available. Anecdotes of events and practical applications of controlled vocabularies illustrate this account of developments over the period.

0.012361143 = product of:
  0.024722286 = sum of:
    0.024722286 = product of:
      0.04944457 = sum of:
        0.04944457 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04944457 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:45:57

0.012361143 = product of:
  0.024722286 = sum of:
    0.024722286 = product of:
      0.04944457 = sum of:
        0.04944457 = weight(_text_:22 in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04944457 = score(doc=749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 749, 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=749)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

8.12.2007 19:25:22

0.010595265 = product of:
  0.02119053 = sum of:
    0.02119053 = product of:
      0.04238106 = sum of:
        0.04238106 = weight(_text_:22 in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04238106 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 102, 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=102)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:45:45

0.010118825 = product of:
  0.02023765 = sum of:
    0.02023765 = product of:
      0.0404753 = sum of:
        0.0404753 = weight(_text_:classification in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0404753 = score(doc=2615,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.24377833 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The current standards for monolingual and multilingual thesauri are long overdue for an update. This applies to the international standards ISO 2788 and ISO 5964, as well as the corresponding national standards in several countries and the American standard ANSI/NISO Z39.19. Work is now under way in the UK and in the USA to revise and extend the standards, with particular emphasis on interoperability needs in our world of vast electronic networks. Work in the UK is starting with the British Standards, in the hope of leading on to one international standard to serve all. Some of the issues still under discussion include the treatment of facet analysis, coverage of additional types of controlled vocabulary such as classification schemes, taxonomies and ontologies, and mapping from one vocabulary to another. 1. Are thesaurus standards still needed? Since the 1960s, even before the renowned Cranfield experiments (Cleverdon et al., 1966; Cleverdon, 1967) arguments have raged over the usefulness or otherwise of controlled vocabularies. The case has never been proved definitively one way or the other. At the same time, a recognition has become widespread that no one search method can answer all retrieval requirements. In today's environment of very large networks of resources, the skilled information professional uses a range of techniques. Among these, controlled vocabularies are valued alongside others. The first international standard for monolingual thesauri was issued in 1974. In those days, the main application was for postcoordinate indexing and retrieval from document collections or bibliographic databases. For many information professionals the only practicable alternative to a thesaurus was a classification scheme. And so the thesaurus developed a strong following. After computer systems with full text search capability became widely available, however, the arguments against controlled vocabularies gained more followers. The cost of building and maintaining a thesaurus or a classification scheme was a strong disincentive. Today's databases are typically immense compared with those three decades ago. Full text searching is taken for granted, not just in discrete databases but across all the resources in an intranet or even the Internet. But intranets have brought particular frustration as users discover that despite all the computer power, they cannot find items which they know to be present an the network. So the trend against controlled vocabularies is now being reversed, as many information professionals are turning to them for help. Standards to guide them are still in demand.

0.00876316 = product of:
  0.01752632 = sum of:
    0.01752632 = product of:
      0.03505264 = sum of:
        0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 4788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03505264 = score(doc=4788,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4788, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4788)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the last few years projects such as DESIRE, MACS, CrissCross and KoMoHe have demonstrated the benefits as well as the challenges of mapping between controlled vocabularies. Each project has taken a slightly different approach to the definition and implementation of appropriate types of mapping. The mapping types supported by SKOS are slightly different again. In an ideal world, all major databases would be interconnected; all widely used thesauri, classification schemes and subject heading schemes would map to each other; and all of us would use the same basic types of mapping to enable universal interoperability. Or would we? This paper will discuss the feasibility and desirability of agreeing and implementing standardized mapping types.

0.00876316 = product of:
  0.01752632 = sum of:
    0.01752632 = product of:
      0.03505264 = sum of:
        0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 5210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03505264 = score(doc=5210,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5210, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the post-war period before computers were readily available, urgent demand for scientific and industrial develop-ment stimulated research and development (R&D) that led to the birth of the information retrieval thesaurus. This article traces the early history, speciation and progressive improvement of the thesaurus to reach the state now conveyed by guidelines in inter-national and national standards. Despite doubts about the effec-tiveness of the thesaurus throughout this period, and notwith-standing the dominance of Google and other search engines in the information retrieval (IR) scene today, the thesaurus still plays a complementary part in the organization of knowledge and in-formation resources. Success today depends on interoperability, and is opening up opportunities in linked data applications. At the same time, the IR demand from workers in the knowledge society drives interest in hybrid forms of knowledge organization system (KOS) that may pool the genes of thesauri with those of ontologies and classification schemes.