Search (90 results, page 1 of 5)

0.11649513 = product of:
  0.1747427 = sum of:
    0.01973992 = weight(_text_:of in 4506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01973992 = score(doc=4506,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 4506, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4506)
    0.15500277 = sum of:
      0.05601155 = weight(_text_:science in 4506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05601155 = score(doc=4506,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 4506, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4506)
      0.09899123 = weight(_text_:22 in 4506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09899123 = score(doc=4506,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4506, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4506)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

8.10.2000 11:52:22

Source

Library science with a slant to documentation. 28(1991) no.4, S.125-130

0.06907657 = product of:
  0.10361485 = sum of:
    0.026113462 = weight(_text_:of in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026113462 = score(doc=1149,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
    0.07750139 = sum of:
      0.028005775 = weight(_text_:science in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028005775 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.049495615 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049495615 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A thesaurus in the controlled vocabulary environment is a tool designed to support effective infonnation retrieval (IR) by guiding indexers and searchers consistently to choose the same terms for expressing a given concept or combination of concepts. Terms in the thesaurus are linked by relationships of three well-known types: equivalence, hierarchical, and associative. The functions and properties of these three basic types and some subcategories are described, as well as some additional relationship types conunonly found in thesauri. Progressive automation of IR processes and the capability for simultaneous searching of vast networked resources are creating some pressures for change in the categorization and consistency of relationships.

Date

22. 9.2007 15:45:57

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.2

Source

Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green

0.045085754 = product of:
  0.06762863 = sum of:
    0.027630134 = weight(_text_:of in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027630134 = score(doc=2943,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
    0.039998498 = product of:
      0.079996996 = sum of:
        0.079996996 = weight(_text_:22 in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079996996 = score(doc=2943,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Describes the developments of the Statistical System for Subject Designation (SSSD): a syntactical system for subject designation for libraries in Croatia, based on the construction of subject headings in agreement with the theory of the sentence nature of subject headings. The discussion is preceded by a brief summary of theories underlying basic principles and fundamental rules of the alphabetical subject catalogue

Date

31. 7.2006 14:22:21

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.1, S.77-93

0.039850555 = product of:
  0.05977583 = sum of:
    0.02442182 = weight(_text_:of in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02442182 = score(doc=6089,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
    0.03535401 = product of:
      0.07070802 = sum of:
        0.07070802 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07070802 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Pages

S.11-22

Source

Compatibility and integration of order systems: Research Seminar Proceedings of the TIP/ISKO Meeting, Warsaw, 13-15 September 1995

0.039792027 = product of:
  0.05968804 = sum of:
    0.020937346 = weight(_text_:of in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020937346 = score(doc=3644,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.25655392 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
    0.038750693 = sum of:
      0.0140028875 = weight(_text_:science in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0140028875 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.101861134 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
      0.024747808 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024747808 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Calvin Mooers' work toward the resolution of the problem of ambiguity in indexing went unrecognized for years. At the time he introduced the "descriptor" - a term with a very distinct meaning-indexers were, for the most part, taking index terms directly from the document, without either rationalizing them with context or normalizing them with some kind of classification. It is ironic that Mooers' term came to be attached to the popular but unsophisticated indexing methods which he was trying to root out. Simply expressed, what Mooers did was to take the dictionary definitions of terms and redefine them so clearly that they could not be used in any context except that provided by the new definition. He did, at great pains, construct such meanings for over four hundred words; disambiguation and specificity were sought after and found for these words. He proposed that all indexers adopt this method so that when the index supplied a term, it also supplied the exact meaning for that term as used in the indexed document. The same term used differently in another document would be defined differently and possibly renamed to avoid ambiguity. The disambiguation was achieved by using unabridged dictionaries and other sources of defining terminology. In practice, this tends to produce circularity in definition, that is, word A refers to word B which refers to word C which refers to word A. It was necessary, therefore, to break this chain by creating a new, definitive meaning for each word. Eventually, means such as those used by Austin (q.v.) for PRECIS achieved the same purpose, but by much more complex means than just creating a unique definition of each term. Mooers, however, was probably the first to realize how confusing undefined terminology could be. Early automatic indexers dealt with distinct disciplines and, as long as they did not stray beyond disciplinary boundaries, a quick and dirty keyword approach was satisfactory. The trouble came when attempts were made to make a combined index for two or more distinct disciplines. A number of processes have since been developed, mostly involving tagging of some kind or use of strings. Mooers' solution has rarely been considered seriously and probably would be extremely difficult to apply now because of so much interdisciplinarity. But for a specific, weIl defined field, it is still weIl worth considering. Mooers received training in mathematics and physics from the University of Minnesota and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was the founder of Zator Company, which developed and marketed a coded card information retrieval system, and of Rockford Research, Inc., which engages in research in information science. He is the inventor of the TRAC computer language.

Footnote

Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

0.037281495 = product of:
  0.05592224 = sum of:
    0.027916465 = weight(_text_:of in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027916465 = score(doc=1271,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.028005775 = product of:
      0.05601155 = sum of:
        0.05601155 = weight(_text_:science in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05601155 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.45, [=Suppl.10]

0.036377676 = product of:
  0.05456651 = sum of:
    0.02255991 = weight(_text_:of in 1592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02255991 = score(doc=1592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 1592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1592)
    0.0320066 = product of:
      0.0640132 = sum of:
        0.0640132 = weight(_text_:science in 1592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0640132 = score(doc=1592,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.4656509 = fieldWeight in 1592, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1592)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Source

Library science with a slant to documentation. 11(1974), S.23-29

0.032847296 = product of:
  0.049270943 = sum of:
    0.028058534 = weight(_text_:of in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028058534 = score(doc=2246,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 2246, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2246)
    0.021212406 = product of:
      0.042424813 = sum of:
        0.042424813 = weight(_text_:22 in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042424813 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2246, 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=2246)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Discusses the apparently unattainable goal of compatibility of information languages. While controlled languages can improve retrieval performance within a single system, they make cooperation across different systems more difficult. The Internet and downloading accentuate this adverse outcome and the acceleration of data exchange aggravates the problem of compatibility. Defines this familiar concept and demonstrates that coherence is just as necessary as it was for indexing languages, the proliferation of which has created confusion in grouped data banks. Describes 2 types of potential solutions, similar to those applied to automatic translation of natural languages: - harmonizing the information languages themselves, both difficult and expensive, or, the more flexible solution involving automatic harmonization of indexing formulae based on pre established concordance tables. However, structural incompatibilities between post coordinated languages and classifications may lead any harmonization tools up a blind alley, while the paths of a universal concordance model are rare and narrow

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Integration of information data banks and compatibility of indexing languages

0.031955566 = product of:
  0.047933348 = sum of:
    0.023928396 = weight(_text_:of in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023928396 = score(doc=2943,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
    0.02400495 = product of:
      0.0480099 = sum of:
        0.0480099 = weight(_text_:science in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0480099 = score(doc=2943,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Source

Library science with a slant to documentation. 13(1976) no.2, S.56-66

0.031938553 = product of:
  0.04790783 = sum of:
    0.03190453 = weight(_text_:of in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03190453 = score(doc=4781,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 4781, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4781)
    0.0160033 = product of:
      0.0320066 = sum of:
        0.0320066 = weight(_text_:science in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0320066 = score(doc=4781,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 4781, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Contemporary research in information science has concentrated on the development of methods for the algorithmic processing of natural language texts. Often, the equivalence of this approach to the intellectual technique of content analysis and indexing is claimed. It is, however, disregarded that contemporary intellectual techniques are far from exploiting their full capabilities. This is largely due to the omission of vocabulary categorisation. It is demonstrated how categorisation can drastically improve the quality of indexing and classification, and, hence, of retrieval

Source

Tools for knowledge organization and the human interface. Proceedings of the 1st International ISKO Conference, Darmstadt, 14.-17.8.1990. Pt.1

0.031158563 = product of:
  0.046737842 = sum of:
    0.032734957 = weight(_text_:of in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032734957 = score(doc=3144,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
    0.0140028875 = product of:
      0.028005775 = sum of:
        0.028005775 = weight(_text_:science in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028005775 = score(doc=3144,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Effective use of syntagmatic relationships in index languages has suffered from inaccurate or incomplete characterization in both linguistics and information science. A number of 'myths' about syntagmatic relationships are debunked: the exclusivity of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships, linearity as a defining characteristic of syntagmatic relationships, the restriction of syntagmatic relationships to surface linguistic units, the limitation of syntagmatic relationship benefits in document retrieval to precision, and the general irrelevance of syntagmatic relationships for document retrieval. None of the mechanisms currently used with index languages is powerful enough to achieve the levels of precision and recall that the expression of conceptual syntagmatic relationships is in theory capable of. New designs for expressing these relationships in index languages will need to take into account such characteristics as their semantic nature, systematicity, generalizability and constituent nature

0.02907518 = product of:
  0.043612767 = sum of:
    0.02960988 = weight(_text_:of in 1923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02960988 = score(doc=1923,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 1923, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1923)
    0.0140028875 = product of:
      0.028005775 = sum of:
        0.028005775 = weight(_text_:science in 1923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028005775 = score(doc=1923,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 1923, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1923)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper develops a classification of relationships among things, with many potential uses within information science. Unlike previous classifications of relationships, it is hoped that this classification will provide benefits that exceed the costs of application. The major theoretical innovation is to stress the importance of causal relationships, albeit not exclusively. The paper also stresses the advantages of using compounds of simpler terms: verbs compounded with other verbs, adverbs, or things. The classification builds upon a review of the previous literature and a broad inductive survey of potential sources in a recent article in this journal. The result is a classification that is both manageable in size and easy to apply and yet encompasses all of the relationships necessary for classifying documents or even ideas.

0.02907518 = product of:
  0.043612767 = sum of:
    0.02960988 = weight(_text_:of in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02960988 = score(doc=131,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
    0.0140028875 = product of:
      0.028005775 = sum of:
        0.028005775 = weight(_text_:science in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028005775 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Several attempts have been made to develop a classification of relationships, but none of these have been widely accepted or applied within information science. It would seem that information scientists, while appreciating the potential value of a classification of relationships, have found all previous classifications to be too complicated in application relative to the benefits they provide. This paper begins by reviewing previous attempts and drawing lessons from these. It then surveys a range of sources within and beyond the field of knowledge organization that can together provide the basis for the development of a novel classification of relationships. One critical insight is that relationships governing causation/influence should be accorded priority.

0.027895387 = product of:
  0.04184308 = sum of:
    0.017095273 = weight(_text_:of in 2245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017095273 = score(doc=2245,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 2245, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2245)
    0.024747808 = product of:
      0.049495615 = sum of:
        0.049495615 = weight(_text_:22 in 2245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049495615 = score(doc=2245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2245, 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=2245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

To illustrate the theoretical analysis presented by J. Maniez published in Documentaliste 34(1997) nos.4/5 presents some concrete examples drawn for experience of the difficulties increasingly faced in trying to make different indexing languages compatible. Various types of problems may be considered: comparing semantic terms and relationships that compose indexing languages, setting standards for writing and vocabulary, and opposing pre and post coordinated descriptors. Proposes several solutions and discusses the need for further applied research in this area

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Compatibility of indexing languages: fusion, marriage or just living together? Some concrete examples

0.02748403 = product of:
  0.041226044 = sum of:
    0.025222747 = weight(_text_:of in 1145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025222747 = score(doc=1145,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 1145, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1145)
    0.0160033 = product of:
      0.0320066 = sum of:
        0.0320066 = weight(_text_:science in 1145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0320066 = score(doc=1145,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 1145, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1145)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The structure of terminology systems can be seen as one way to organize knowledge. This paper focuses an three types of relationships among terms: synonymy, hierarchical relationships, and explicit mapping relationships. Examples drawn from various medical vocabularies illustrate each type of relationship. The integration of disparate terminological knowledge structures in the Unified Medical Language System is presented and discussed.

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.2

Source

Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green

0.026744232 = product of:
  0.040116347 = sum of:
    0.026113462 = weight(_text_:of in 1142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026113462 = score(doc=1142,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 1142, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1142)
    0.0140028875 = product of:
      0.028005775 = sum of:
        0.028005775 = weight(_text_:science in 1142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028005775 = score(doc=1142,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 1142, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1142)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Relationships are specified by simultaneously identifying a semantic relationship and the set of participants involved in it, pairing each participant with its role in the relationship. Properties pertaining to the participant set and the nature of the relationship are explored. Relationships in the organization of knowledge are surveyed, encompassing relationships between units of recorded knowledge based an descriptions of those units; intratextual and intertextual relationships, including relationships based an text structure, citation relationships, and hypertext links; subject relationships in thesauri and other classificatory structures, including relationships for literature-based knowledge discovery; and relevance relationships.

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.2

Source

Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green

0.02670734 = product of:
  0.04006101 = sum of:
    0.028058534 = weight(_text_:of in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028058534 = score(doc=5585,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
    0.012002475 = product of:
      0.02400495 = sum of:
        0.02400495 = weight(_text_:science in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02400495 = score(doc=5585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper forms part of the series "60 years of the best in information research", marking the 60th anniversary of the Journal of Documentation. It aims to review the influence of Brian Vickery's 1971 paper, "Structure and function in retrieval languages". The paper is not an update of Vickery's work, but a comment on a greatly changed environment, in which his analysis still has much validity. Design/methodology/approach - A commentary on selected literature illustrates the continuing relevance of Vickery's ideas. Findings - Generic survey and specific reference are still the main functions of retrieval languages, with minor functional additions such as relevance ranking. New structures are becoming increasingly significant, through developments such as XML. Future development in artificial intelligence hold out new prospects still. Originality/value - The paper shows the continuing relevance of "traditional" ideas of information science from the 1960s and 1970s.

Source

Journal of documentation. 62(2006) no.1, S.21-29

0.025999581 = product of:
  0.03899937 = sum of:
    0.024299404 = weight(_text_:of in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024299404 = score(doc=1978,freq=66.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.2977506 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
          8.124039 = tf(freq=66.0), with freq of:
            66.0 = termFreq=66.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
    0.014699969 = product of:
      0.029399939 = sum of:
        0.029399939 = weight(_text_:science in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029399939 = score(doc=1978,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.21386383 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This chapter examines the nature of semantic relations and their main applications in information science. The nature and types of semantic relations are discussed from the perspectives of linguistics and psychology. An overview of the semantic relations used in knowledge structures such as thesauri and ontologies is provided, as well as the main techniques used in the automatic extraction of semantic relations from text. The chapter then reviews the use of semantic relations in information extraction, information retrieval, question-answering, and automatic text summarization applications. Concepts and relations are the foundation of knowledge and thought. When we look at the world, we perceive not a mass of colors but objects to which we automatically assign category labels. Our perceptual system automatically segments the world into concepts and categories. Concepts are the building blocks of knowledge; relations act as the cement that links concepts into knowledge structures. We spend much of our lives identifying regular associations and relations between objects, events, and processes so that the world has an understandable structure and predictability. Our lives and work depend on the accuracy and richness of this knowledge structure and its web of relations. Relations are needed for reasoning and inferencing. Chaffin and Herrmann (1988b, p. 290) noted that "relations between ideas have long been viewed as basic to thought, language, comprehension, and memory." Aristotle's Metaphysics (Aristotle, 1961; McKeon, expounded on several types of relations. The majority of the 30 entries in a section of the Metaphysics known today as the Philosophical Lexicon referred to relations and attributes, including cause, part-whole, same and opposite, quality (i.e., attribute) and kind-of, and defined different types of each relation. Hume (1955) pointed out that there is a connection between successive ideas in our minds, even in our dreams, and that the introduction of an idea in our mind automatically recalls an associated idea. He argued that all the objects of human reasoning are divided into relations of ideas and matters of fact and that factual reasoning is founded on the cause-effect relation. His Treatise of Human Nature identified seven kinds of relations: resemblance, identity, relations of time and place, proportion in quantity or number, degrees in quality, contrariety, and causation. Mill (1974, pp. 989-1004) discoursed on several types of relations, claiming that all things are either feelings, substances, or attributes, and that attributes can be a quality (which belongs to one object) or a relation to other objects.
Linguists in the structuralist tradition (e.g., Lyons, 1977; Saussure, 1959) have asserted that concepts cannot be defined on their own but only in relation to other concepts. Semantic relations appear to reflect a logical structure in the fundamental nature of thought (Caplan & Herrmann, 1993). Green, Bean, and Myaeng (2002) noted that semantic relations play a critical role in how we represent knowledge psychologically, linguistically, and computationally, and that many systems of knowledge representation start with a basic distinction between entities and relations. Green (2001, p. 3) said that "relationships are involved as we combine simple entities to form more complex entities, as we compare entities, as we group entities, as one entity performs a process on another entity, and so forth. Indeed, many things that we might initially regard as basic and elemental are revealed upon further examination to involve internal structure, or in other words, internal relationships." Concepts and relations are often expressed in language and text. Language is used not just for communicating concepts and relations, but also for representing, storing, and reasoning with concepts and relations. We shall examine the nature of semantic relations from a linguistic and psychological perspective, with an emphasis on relations expressed in text. The usefulness of semantic relations in information science, especially in ontology construction, information extraction, information retrieval, question-answering, and text summarization is discussed. Research and development in information science have focused on concepts and terms, but the focus will increasingly shift to the identification, processing, and management of relations to achieve greater effectiveness and refinement in information science techniques. Previous chapters in ARIST on natural language processing (Chowdhury, 2003), text mining (Trybula, 1999), information retrieval and the philosophy of language (Blair, 2003), and query expansion (Efthimiadis, 1996) provide a background for this discussion, as semantic relations are an important part of these applications.

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 40(2006), S.157-228

0.025884613 = product of:
  0.03882692 = sum of:
    0.021149913 = weight(_text_:of in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021149913 = score(doc=106,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
    0.017677005 = product of:
      0.03535401 = sum of:
        0.03535401 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03535401 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify the concepts, component parts and relationships between vocabularies, linked data and knowledge graphs (KGs) from the perspectives of data and knowledge transitions. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses conceptual analysis methods. This study focuses on distinguishing concepts and analyzing composition and intercorrelations to explore data and knowledge transitions. Findings Vocabularies are the cornerstone for accurately building understanding of the meaning of data. Vocabularies provide for a data-sharing model and play an important role in supporting the semantic expression of linked data and defining the schema layer; they are also used for entity recognition, alignment and linkage for KGs. KGs, which consist of a schema layer and a data layer, are presented as cubes that organically combine vocabularies, linked data and big data. Originality/value This paper first describes the composition of vocabularies, linked data and KGs. More importantly, this paper innovatively analyzes and summarizes the interrelatedness of these factors, which comes from frequent interactions between data and knowledge. The three factors empower each other and can ultimately empower the Semantic Web.

Date

22. 1.2021 14:24:32

Source

Journal of documentation. 77(2021) no.1, S.93-105

0.025708806 = product of:
  0.038563207 = sum of:
    0.02255991 = weight(_text_:of in 584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02255991 = score(doc=584,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 584, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=584)
    0.0160033 = product of:
      0.0320066 = sum of:
        0.0320066 = weight(_text_:science in 584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0320066 = score(doc=584,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 584, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=584)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The issue of free-text versus controlled vocabulary is examined in this article. The history of the issue, which is seen as beginning with the debate over title term indexing in the last century, is reviewed and the attention is turned to questions which have not been satisfactorily addressed by previous research. The point is made that these questions need to be answered if we are to design retrieval tools, such as thesauri, upon a national basis

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 37(1986) no.5, S.331-340