Search (79 results, page 4 of 4)

0.00876316 = product of:
  0.01752632 = sum of:
    0.01752632 = product of:
      0.03505264 = sum of:
        0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 1622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03505264 = score(doc=1622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 1622, 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=1622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Thesauri are used to provide controlled vocabularies for resource classification. Their use can greatly assist document discovery because thesauri man date a consistent shared terminology for describing documents. A particular thesauras classifies documents according to an information community's needs. As a result, there are many different thesaural schemas. This has led to a proliferation of schema-specific thesaural systems. In our research, we exploit schematic regularities to design a generic thesaural ontology and specfiy it as a markup language. The language provides a common representational framework in which to encode the idiosyncrasies of specific thesauri. This approach has several advantages: it offers consistent syntax and semantics in which to express thesauri; it allows general purpose thesaural applications to leverage many thesauri; and it supports a single thesaural user interface by which information communities can consistently organise, score and retrieve electronic documents.

0.00876316 = product of:
  0.01752632 = sum of:
    0.01752632 = product of:
      0.03505264 = sum of:
        0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 3813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03505264 = score(doc=3813,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 3813, 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=3813)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Subject retrieval in a networked environment: Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting held in Dublin, OH, 14-16 August 2001 and sponsored by the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section, the IFLA Information Technology Section and OCLC. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.00876316 = product of:
  0.01752632 = sum of:
    0.01752632 = product of:
      0.03505264 = sum of:
        0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 4708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03505264 = score(doc=4708,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4708, 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=4708)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The need for thesauri to help users in their search for information in online information systems has been discussed for several decades. Many wide-ranging contributions have been made to solve this problem. Nevertheless, investigation is needed to design a thesaurus structure based on what is relevant for users and generators of information within a specific subject domain. Explores the possibility of creating a thesaurus from the cognitive viewpoint. This approach is based on a system that organizes its representation of knowledge or its classification as closely as possible to the authors' and users' images of the subject domain with the objective of increasing the interaction between users and texts, and thus the communication in a given information retrieval system. Discourse analysis is used as a main method to identify the categories and its relevance for building such a structure is discussed

0.00876316 = product of:
  0.01752632 = sum of:
    0.01752632 = product of:
      0.03505264 = sum of:
        0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 4863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03505264 = score(doc=4863,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4863, 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=4863)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 37(2004) nos.3/4, S.121-153

0.00876316 = product of:
  0.01752632 = sum of:
    0.01752632 = product of:
      0.03505264 = sum of:
        0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 5008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03505264 = score(doc=5008,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5008, 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=5008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.00876316 = product of:
  0.01752632 = sum of:
    0.01752632 = product of:
      0.03505264 = sum of:
        0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 5009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03505264 = score(doc=5009,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5009, 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=5009)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 37(2004) nos.3/4, S.177-191

0.00876316 = product of:
  0.01752632 = sum of:
    0.01752632 = product of:
      0.03505264 = sum of:
        0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03505264 = score(doc=924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 924, 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=924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A thesaurus and an ontology provide a set of structured terms, phrases, and metadata, often in a hierarchical arrangement, that may be used to index, search, and mine documents. We describe the decisions that should be made when including a term, deciding whether a term should be subdivided into its subclasses, or determining which of more than one set of possible subclasses should be used. Based on retrospective measurements or estimates of future performance when using thesaurus terms in document ordering, decisions are made so as to maximize performance. These decisions may be used in the automatic construction of a thesaurus. The evaluation of an existing thesaurus is described, consistent with the decision criteria developed here. These kinds of user-focused decision-theoretic techniques may be applied to other hierarchical applications, such as faceted classification systems used in information architecture or the use of hierarchical terms in "breadcrumb navigation".

0.00876316 = product of:
  0.01752632 = sum of:
    0.01752632 = product of:
      0.03505264 = sum of:
        0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 4729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03505264 = score(doc=4729,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4729, 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=4729)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

0.00876316 = product of:
  0.01752632 = sum of:
    0.01752632 = product of:
      0.03505264 = sum of:
        0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03505264 = score(doc=1376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 1376, 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=1376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Thesauri are the most important tools for information and knowledge organization, and they undergo regular improvements according to the rapid development of new requirements and affordances of emerging information techniques. This paper attempts to integrate ontology into the conceptual organization scheme of thesauri and proposes a new solution to extend the functionality of thesauri based on ontological features, which is termed here as an onto-thesaurus. In this study, a prototype system named the Chinese Information Science and Information Service onto-thesaurus system (CIS&IS), was developed to analyze ontothesaurus with the category of information science and information service in the Chinese Topic Classification Dictionary with a two-stage approach. The first stage aims to define and construct the onto-thesaurus. The second stage aims to realize the evolution function of onto-thesaurus. The main purpose of this system was to achieve the function of self-learning and auto-evolution and to enable a much more effective conceptual retrieval by the newly proposed onto-thesaurus.

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.

0.008261986 = product of:
  0.016523972 = sum of:
    0.016523972 = product of:
      0.033047944 = sum of:
        0.033047944 = weight(_text_:classification in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033047944 = score(doc=549,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.19904417 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

LCSH is known as such since 1975. It always has created headings to serve the LC collections instead of a theoretical basis. It started to replace cross reference codes by thesaural codes in 1986, in a mechanical fashion. It was in no way transformed into a thesaurus. Its encyclopedic coverage, its pre-coordinate concepts make it substantially distinct, considering that thesauri usually map a restricted field of knowledge and use uniterms. The questions raised are whether the new symbols comply with thesaurus standards and if they are true to one or to several models. Explanations and definitions from other lists of subject headings and thesauri, literature in the field of classification and subject indexing will provide some answers. For instance, see refers from a subject heading not used to another or others used. Exceptionally it will lead from a specific term to a more general one. Some equate a see reference with the equivalence relationship. Such relationships are pointed by USE in LCSH. See also references are made from the broader subject to narrower parts of it and also between associated subjects. They suggest lateral or vertical connexions as well as reciprocal relationships. They serve a coordination purpose for some, lay down a methodical search itinerary for others. Since their inception in the 1950's thesauri have been devised for indexing and retrieving information in the fields of science and technology. Eventually they attended to a number of social sciences and humanities. Research derived from thesauri was voluminous. Numerous guidelines are designed. They did not discriminate between the "hard" sciences and the social sciences. RT relationships are widely but diversely used in numerous controlled vocabularies. LCSH's aim is to achieve a list almost free of RT and SA references. It thus restricts relationships to BT/NT, USE and UF. This raises the question as to whether all fields of knowledge can "fit" in the Procrustean bed of RT/NT, i.e., genus/species relationships. Standard codes were devised. It was soon realized that BT/NT, well suited to the genus/species couple could not signal a whole-part relationship. In LCSH, BT and NT function as reciprocals, the whole-part relationship is taken into account by ISO. It is amply elaborated upon by authors. The part-whole connexion is sometimes studied apart. The decision to replace cross reference codes was an improvement. Relations can now be distinguished through the distinct needs of numerous fields of knowledge are not attended to. Topic inclusion, and topic-subtopic, could provide the missing link where genus/species or whole/part are inadequate. Distinct codes, BT/NT and whole/part, should be provided. Sorting relationships with mechanical means can only lead to confusion.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 16(1993) no.2, S.71-91

0.008261986 = product of:
  0.016523972 = sum of:
    0.016523972 = product of:
      0.033047944 = sum of:
        0.033047944 = weight(_text_:classification in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033047944 = score(doc=2915,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.19904417 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

LCSH

Classification

Subject

Classification

0.0073026326 = product of:
  0.014605265 = sum of:
    0.014605265 = product of:
      0.02921053 = sum of:
        0.02921053 = weight(_text_:classification in 2927) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02921053 = score(doc=2927,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2927, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2927)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Presents a state of the art review of the literature of expert systems in library and information science, involving exhaustive searches of all major LIS CD-ROM databases (LISA, ERIC, LiLi, INSPEC etc.) and bibliographies appended in review articles. The search retrieved 679 references, comprising 362 periodical articles, 180 conference proceedings, 63 books articles, 28 theses and 46 monographs. The growth of the literature peaked between 1989 and 1990 and subsequently declined after 1992. Over 1/3 (287) covered intelligent front ends and interfaces for online searching and retrieval, followed by applications in reference service (113), classification, indexing and abstracting (86) and cataloguing (7). The most productive periodicals comprised 6 titles, of which 'Information processing and management' topped the lsit: 43 authors were found to contribute between 5 and 35 articles each, hence contributing 32,19% of the total contributors. 382 of the publications were single author works, 172 were by 2 authors, 72 were by 3 authors and 49 were by 4 or more authors. Only 161 titles were expressive enough to reveal both the name and function of systems being developed

0.0073026326 = product of:
  0.014605265 = sum of:
    0.014605265 = product of:
      0.02921053 = sum of:
        0.02921053 = weight(_text_:classification in 5063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02921053 = score(doc=5063,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 5063, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5063)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The application of thesauri in networked environments is seriously hampered by the challenges of introducing new concepts and terminology into the formal controlled vocabulary, which is critical for enhancing its retrieval capability. The author describes an automated process of adding new terms to thesauri as entry vocabulary by analyzing the association between words/phrases extracted from bibliographic titles and subject descriptors in the metadata record (subject descriptors are terms assigned from controlled vocabularies of thesauri to describe the subjects of the objects [e.g., books, articles] represented by the metadata records). The investigated approach uses a corpus of metadata for scientific and technical (S&T) publications in which the titles contain substantive words for key topics. The three steps of the method are (a) extracting words and phrases from the title field of the metadata; (b) applying a method to identify and select the specific and meaningful keywords based on the associated controlled vocabulary terms from the thesaurus used to catalog the objects; and (c) inserting selected keywords into the thesaurus as new terms (most of them are in hierarchical relationships with the existing concepts), thereby updating the thesaurus with new terminology that is being used in the literature. The effectiveness of the method was demonstrated by an experiment with the Chinese Classification Thesaurus (CCT) and bibliographic data in China Machine-Readable Cataloging Record (MARC) format (CNMARC) provided by Peking University Library. This approach is equally effective in large-scale collections and in other languages.

0.0070635104 = product of:
  0.014127021 = sum of:
    0.014127021 = product of:
      0.028254041 = sum of:
        0.028254041 = weight(_text_:22 in 2913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028254041 = score(doc=2913,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2913, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2913)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

5. 4.2013 10:18:22

0.0061964896 = product of:
  0.012392979 = sum of:
    0.012392979 = product of:
      0.024785958 = sum of:
        0.024785958 = weight(_text_:classification in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024785958 = score(doc=1169,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.14928313 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.005111843 = product of:
  0.010223686 = sum of:
    0.010223686 = product of:
      0.020447372 = sum of:
        0.020447372 = weight(_text_:classification in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020447372 = score(doc=1800,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.12315229 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The SAC Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures was authorized at the 1995 Midwinter Meeting and appointed shortly before Annual Conference. Its creation was one result of a discussion of how (and why) to promote the display and use of broader-term subject heading references, and its charge reads as follows: To investigate: (1) the kinds of relationships that exist between subjects, the display of which are likely to be useful to catalog users; (2) how these relationships are or could be recorded in authorities and classification formats; (3) options for how these relationships should be presented to users of online and print catalogs, indexes, lists, etc. By the summer 1996 Annual Conference, make some recommendations to SAC about how to disseminate the information and/or implement changes. At that time assess the need for additional time to investigate these issues. The Subcommittee's work on each of the imperatives in the charge was summarized in a report issued at the 1996 Annual Conference (Appendix A). Highlights of this work included the development of a taxonomy of 165 subject relationships; a demonstration that, using existing MARC coding, catalog systems could be programmed to generate references they do not currently support; and an examination of reference displays in several CD-ROM database products. Since that time, work has continued on identifying term relationships and display options; on tracking research, discussion, and implementation of subject relationships in information systems; and on compiling a list of further research needs.

0.0050594127 = product of:
  0.010118825 = sum of:
    0.010118825 = product of:
      0.02023765 = sum of:
        0.02023765 = weight(_text_:classification in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02023765 = score(doc=2924,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.12188917 = fieldWeight in 2924, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many information professionals working in small units today fail to find the published tools for subject-based organization that are appropriate to their local needs, whether they are archivists, special librarians, information officers, or knowledge or content managers. Large established standards for document description and organization are too unwieldy, unnecessarily detailed, or too expensive to install and maintain. In other cases the available systems are insufficient for a specialist environment, or don't bring things together in a helpful way. A purpose built, in-house system would seem to be the answer, but too often the skills necessary to create one are lacking. This practical text examines the criteria relevant to the selection of a subject-management system, describes the characteristics of some common types of subject tool, and takes the novice step by step through the process of creating a system for a specialist environment. The methodology employed is a standard technique for the building of a thesaurus that incidentally creates a compatible classification or taxonomy, both of which may be used in a variety of ways for document or information management. Key areas covered are: What is a thesaurus? Tools for subject access and retrieval; what a thesaurus is used for? Why use a thesaurus? Examples of thesauri; the structure of a thesaurus; thesaural relationships; practical thesaurus construction; the vocabulary of the thesaurus; building the systematic structure; conversion to alphabetic format; forms of entry in the thesaurus; maintaining the thesaurus; thesaurus software; and; the wider environment. Essential for the practising information professional, this guide is also valuable for students of library and information science.

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitt. VÖB 60(2007) H.1, S.98-101 (O. Oberhauser): "Die Autorin von Essential thesaurus construction (and essential taxonomy construction, so der implizite Untertitel, vgl. S. 1) ist durch ihre Lehrtätigkeit an der bekannten School of Library, Archive and Information Studies des University College London und durch ihre bisherigen Publikationen auf den Gebieten (Facetten-)Klassifikation und Thesaurus fachlich einschlägig ausgewiesen. Nach Essential classification liegt nun ihr Thesaurus-Lehrbuch vor, mit rund 200 Seiten Text und knapp 100 Seiten Anhang ein handliches Werk, das seine Genese zum Grossteil dem Lehrbetrieb verdankt, wie auch dem kurzen Einleitungskapitel zu entnehmen ist. Das Buch ist der Schule von Jean Aitchison et al. verpflichtet und wendet sich an "the indexer" im weitesten Sinn, d.h. an alle Personen, die ein strukturiertes, kontrolliertes Fachvokabular für die Zwecke der sachlichen Erschliessung und Suche erstellen wollen bzw. müssen. Es möchte dieser Zielgruppe das nötige methodische Rüstzeug für eine solche Aufgabe vermitteln, was einschliesslich der Einleitung und der Schlussbemerkungen in zwanzig Kapiteln geschieht - eine ansprechende Strukturierung, die ein wohldosiertes Durcharbeiten möglich macht. Zu letzterem tragen auch die von der Autorin immer wieder gestellten Übungsaufgaben bei (Lösungen jeweils am Kapitelende). Zu Beginn der Darstellung wird der "information retrieval thesaurus" von dem (zumindest im angelsächsischen Raum) weit öfter mit dem Thesaurusbegriff assoziierten "reference thesaurus" abgegrenzt, einem nach begrifflicher Ähnlichkeit angeordneten Synonymenwörterbuch, das gerne als Mittel zur stilistischen Verbesserung beim Abfassen von (wissenschaftlichen) Arbeiten verwendet wird. Ohne noch ins Detail zu gehen, werden optische Erscheinungsform und Anwendungsgebiete von Thesauren vorgestellt, der Thesaurus als postkoordinierte Indexierungssprache erläutert und seine Nähe zu facettierten Klassifikationssystemen erwähnt. In der Folge stellt Broughton die systematisch organisierten Systeme (Klassifikation/ Taxonomie, Begriffs-/Themendiagramme, Ontologien) den alphabetisch angeordneten, wortbasierten (Schlagwortlisten, thesaurusartige Schlagwortsysteme und Thesauren im eigentlichen Sinn) gegenüber, was dem Leser weitere Einordnungshilfen schafft. Die Anwendungsmöglichkeiten von Thesauren als Mittel der Erschliessung (auch als Quelle für Metadatenangaben bei elektronischen bzw. Web-Dokumenten) und der Recherche (Suchformulierung, Anfrageerweiterung, Browsing und Navigieren) kommen ebenso zur Sprache wie die bei der Verwendung natürlichsprachiger Indexierungssysteme auftretenden Probleme. Mit Beispielen wird ausdrücklich auf die mehr oder weniger starke fachliche Spezialisierung der meisten dieser Vokabularien hingewiesen, wobei auch Informationsquellen über Thesauren (z.B. www.taxonomywarehouse.com) sowie Thesauren für nicht-textuelle Ressourcen kurz angerissen werden.
Diese Abschnitte sind verständlich geschrieben und trotz der mitunter gar nicht so einfachen Thematik auch für Einsteiger geeignet. Vorteilhaft ist sicherlich, dass die Autorin die Thesauruserstellung konsequent anhand eines einzelnen thematischen Beispiels demonstriert und dafür das Gebiet "animal welfare" gewählt hat, wohl nicht zuletzt auch deshalb, da die hier auftretenden Facetten und Beziehungen ohne allzu tiefgreifende fachwissenschaftliche Kenntnisse für die meisten Leser nachvollziehbar sind. Das methodische Gerüst der Facettenanalyse wird hier deutlich stärker betont als etwa in der (spärlichen) deutschsprachigen Thesaurusliteratur. Diese Vorgangsweise soll neben der Ordnungsbildung auch dazu verhelfen, die Zahl der Deskriptoren überschaubar zu halten und weniger auf komplexe (präkombinierte) Deskriptoren als auf postkoordinierte Indexierung zu setzen. Dafür wird im übrigen das als Verfeinerung der bekannten Ranganathanschen PMEST-Formel geltende Schema der 13 "fundamental categories" der UK Classification Research Group (CRG) vorgeschlagen bzw. in dem Beispiel verwendet (Thing / Kind / Part / Property; Material / Process / Operation; Patient / Product / By-product / Agent; Space; Time). Als "minor criticism" sei erwähnt, dass Broughton in ihrem Demonstrationsbeispiel als Notation für die erarbeitete Ordnung eine m.E. schwer lesbare Buchstabenfolge verwendet, obwohl sie zugesteht (S. 165), dass ein Zifferncode vielfach als einfacher handhabbar empfunden wird.

0.00438158 = product of:
  0.00876316 = sum of:
    0.00876316 = product of:
      0.01752632 = sum of:
        0.01752632 = weight(_text_:classification in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01752632 = score(doc=3243,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.10555911 = fieldWeight in 3243, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3243)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly 37(2005) nos.3/4