Search (78 results, page 1 of 4)

0.063268594 = product of:
  0.12653719 = sum of:
    0.12653719 = sum of:
      0.07042801 = weight(_text_:language in 4092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07042801 = score(doc=4092,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.34677336 = fieldWeight in 4092, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4092)
      0.056109186 = weight(_text_:22 in 4092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056109186 = score(doc=4092,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4092, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4092)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This 1993 edition is the authoritative guide constructing single-language thesauri, one of the most powerful tools for information retrieval. Written by experts, Z39.19 shows how to formulate descriptors, establish relationships among terms, and present the information in print and on a screen. Also included are thesaurus maintenance procedures and recommended features for thesaurus management systems

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 22(1995) no.3/4, S.180-181 (M. Hudon)

0.03406144 = product of:
  0.06812288 = sum of:
    0.06812288 = sum of:
      0.043575108 = weight(_text_:language in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043575108 = score(doc=3644,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = queryNorm
          0.21455508 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
      0.024547769 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024547769 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051766515 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0264105 = product of:
  0.052821 = sum of:
    0.052821 = product of:
      0.105642 = sum of:
        0.105642 = weight(_text_:language in 1147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.105642 = score(doc=1147,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.52016 = fieldWeight in 1147, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1147)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Because the multilingual thesaurus has a critical role to play in the global networked information world, its relational structure must come under close scrutiny. Traditionally, identity of relational structures has been sought for the different language versions of a multilingual thesaurus, often leading to the artificialization of all target languages. The various types of cross-lingual and intralingual relations found in thesauri are examined in the context of two questions: Are all types of thesaural relations transferable from one language to another? and Are the two members of a valid relation in a source language always the same in the target language(s)? Two options for resolving semantic conflicts in multilingual thesauri are presented.

0.024547769 = product of:
  0.049095538 = sum of:
    0.049095538 = product of:
      0.098191075 = sum of:
        0.098191075 = weight(_text_:22 in 4199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098191075 = score(doc=4199,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4199, 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=4199)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Mitteilungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Parlaments- und Behördenbibliotheken. 1989, H.67, S.1-22

0.022872169 = product of:
  0.045744337 = sum of:
    0.045744337 = product of:
      0.091488674 = sum of:
        0.091488674 = weight(_text_:language in 7862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.091488674 = score(doc=7862,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.45047188 = fieldWeight in 7862, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The information retrieval problem is described starting from an analysis of the concepts 'user's information request' and 'information offerings of texts'. It is shown that natural language phrases are a more adequate medium for expressing information requests and information offerings than character string based query and indexing languages complemented by Boolean oprators. The phrases must be represented as concepts to reach a language invariant level for rule based relevance analysis. The special type of representation called advanced thesaurus is used for the semantic representation of natural language phrases and for relevance processing. The analysis of the retrieval problem leads to a symmetric system structure

0.022872169 = product of:
  0.045744337 = sum of:
    0.045744337 = product of:
      0.091488674 = sum of:
        0.091488674 = weight(_text_:language in 1622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.091488674 = score(doc=1622,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.45047188 = fieldWeight in 1622, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, 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.

0.021787554 = product of:
  0.043575108 = sum of:
    0.043575108 = product of:
      0.087150216 = sum of:
        0.087150216 = weight(_text_:language in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.087150216 = score(doc=3565,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.42911017 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) was designed as a comprehensive vocabulary in its domain. Its faceted, hierarchically arranged structure allows for powerful indexing and retrieval capabilities, while its planned network of related term relationships makes it especially amenable to natural language processing. To gauge the AAT's effectiveness as a search tool against natural language queries, an experiment was carried out on DIALOG. There are 3 art data bases on DIALOG and there are also a number of other data bases that contain art related material. The experiment used queries culled from reference librarians at art and architecture libraries.

0.021787554 = product of:
  0.043575108 = sum of:
    0.043575108 = product of:
      0.087150216 = sum of:
        0.087150216 = weight(_text_:language in 3227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.087150216 = score(doc=3227,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.42911017 = fieldWeight in 3227, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Discusses the various functions which a thesaurus can have. Highlights the main function of a thesaurus in vocabulary control, eliminating natural language ambiguity and providing consistency of indexing, and serving as an aid in the searching process. Further discusses the function of a search thesaurus in serving as a user's aid in full text systems and in free indexing systems, and the additional function of an online thesaurus integrated with an online database, that of a vocabulary master file. Notes also how a thesaurus can function as a switching language or intermediary lexicon in multidatabase systems

0.021040944 = product of:
  0.04208189 = sum of:
    0.04208189 = product of:
      0.08416378 = sum of:
        0.08416378 = weight(_text_:22 in 4483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08416378 = score(doc=4483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

15. 3.2000 10:22:37

0.021040944 = product of:
  0.04208189 = sum of:
    0.04208189 = product of:
      0.08416378 = sum of:
        0.08416378 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08416378 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.021040944 = product of:
  0.04208189 = sum of:
    0.04208189 = product of:
      0.08416378 = sum of:
        0.08416378 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08416378 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.021040944 = product of:
  0.04208189 = sum of:
    0.04208189 = product of:
      0.08416378 = sum of:
        0.08416378 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08416378 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

24. 8.2005 19:20:22

0.01906014 = product of:
  0.03812028 = sum of:
    0.03812028 = product of:
      0.07624056 = sum of:
        0.07624056 = weight(_text_:language in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07624056 = score(doc=2915,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.3753932 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The introduction (1.0) of this article considers the status of the thesaurus within LIS and asks about the future prospect for thesauri. The main following points are: (2.0) Any knowledge organization system (KOS) is today threatened by Google-like systems, and it is therefore important to consider if there still is a need for knowledge organization (KO) in the traditional sense. (3.0) A thesaurus is a somewhat reduced form of KOS compared to, for example, an ontology, and its "bundling" and restricted number of semantic relations has never been justified theoretically or empirically. Which semantic relations are most fruitful for a given task is thus an open question, and different domains may need different kinds of KOS including different sets of relations between terms. (4.0) A KOS is a controlled vocabulary (CV) and should not be considered a "perfect language" (Eco 1995) that is simply able to remove the ambiguity of natural language; rather much ambiguity in language represents a battle between many "voices" (Bakhtin 1981) or "paradigms" (Kuhn 1962). In this perspective, a specific KOS, e.g. a specific thesaurus, is just one "voice" among many voices, and that voice has to demonstrate its authority and utility. It is concluded (5.0) that the traditional thesaurus does not have a place in modern information retrieval, but that more flexible semantic tools based on proper studies of domains will always be important.

0.01906014 = product of:
  0.03812028 = sum of:
    0.03812028 = product of:
      0.07624056 = sum of:
        0.07624056 = weight(_text_:language in 579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07624056 = score(doc=579,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.3753932 = fieldWeight in 579, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=579)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A multilingual thesaurus' development needs the appropriate methodological considerations not only for linguistics, but also cultural heterogeneity, as demonstrated in this report on the multilingual project of the Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) in the Chinese language, which has been a collaboration between the Academia Sinica Center for Digital Culture and the Getty Research Institute for more than a decade. After a brief overview of the project, the paper will introduce a holistic methodology for considering how to enable Western art to be accessible to Chinese users and Chinese art accessible to Western users. The conceptual and structural issues will be discussed, especially the challenges of developing terminology in two different cultures. For instance, some terms shared by Western and Chinese cultures could be understood differently in each culture, which raises questions regarding their locations within the hierarchical structure of the AAT. Finally, the report will provide cases to demonstrate how the Chinese-Language AAT language supports online exhibitions, digital humanities and linking of digital art history content to the web of data.

0.018675046 = product of:
  0.037350092 = sum of:
    0.037350092 = product of:
      0.074700184 = sum of:
        0.074700184 = weight(_text_:language in 145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074700184 = score(doc=145,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.3678087 = fieldWeight in 145, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=145)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

For more than thirty years thesauri have been valuable tools in information retrieval. Originally, the basic function of the thesauri was to help the indexer to transform concepts and their relationships, as expressed in the language of documents, into the more regularised indexing language of catalogues and databases. In the nineties another important purpose of the thesauri is to guide the searcher to the best search terms. In spite of the new role, the design of the thesauri has remained more or less stable. This paper explores the demands which are put on the thesauri in relation to searching. Findings are presented in the form of generalisations and moreover illustrated in relation to a real-life situation. Suggestions for improved functionality are presented in the form of a prototype of a thesaurus record. The new role as a conceptual searching tool is also influencing the construction process. Therefore, the paper ends up with a discussion of new methods for thesaurus construction

0.018675046 = product of:
  0.037350092 = sum of:
    0.037350092 = product of:
      0.074700184 = sum of:
        0.074700184 = weight(_text_:language in 2732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074700184 = score(doc=2732,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.3678087 = fieldWeight in 2732, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2732)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper evaluates and compares three thesaurus construction methodologies: literary scanning, word association tests, and involvement of subject expert groups. The evaluation concentrates an exploring advantages in relation to the sub-processes: collection, formation and structuring of concepts and terms. Quantitative as well as qualitative analyses have been carried out. The analysis Shows that the methods are complementary each providing distinct conceptual information from respectively a domain-oriented and a scientific viewpoint. The combination of methods provides a thesaurus, at the same time, mapping authoritative language and reflecting the diversity of language.

0.018675046 = product of:
  0.037350092 = sum of:
    0.037350092 = product of:
      0.074700184 = sum of:
        0.074700184 = weight(_text_:language in 2826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074700184 = score(doc=2826,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.3678087 = fieldWeight in 2826, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper is aimed at assessing the potential of interoperable knowledge organization systems to respond to search strategies in order to retrieve information from databases in the areas of health and biomedicine. An analysis was done on the semantic consistency of synonym grouping of a term selected from the Metathesaurus, the Unified Medical Language System of the National Library of Medicine, based on the characteristics of equivalence proposed in ISO 25964: 2: 2011 and based on the following categories: semantic, morphological, syntactic and typographical variations. This paper highlights the importance of understanding the results of automatic mapping as well as the need for characterization, evaluation and selection of equivalences for preparation of consistent search strategies and presentation of search results in scientific work methodologies.

0.018675046 = product of:
  0.037350092 = sum of:
    0.037350092 = product of:
      0.074700184 = sum of:
        0.074700184 = weight(_text_:language in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074700184 = score(doc=3678,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.3678087 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper explores the relationships between natural language lexicons in lexical semantics and thesauri in information retrieval research. These different areas of knowledge have different restrictions on use of vocabulary; thesauri are used only in information search and retrieval contexts, whereas lexicons are mental systems and generally applicable in all domains of life. A set of vocabulary requirements that defines the more concrete characteristics of vocabulary items in the 2 contexts can be derived from this framework: lexicon items have to be learnable, complex, transparent, etc., whereas thesaurus terms must be effective, current and relevant, searchable, etc. The differences in vocabulary properties correlate with 2 other factors, the well-known dimension of Control (deliberate, social activities of building and maintaining vocabularies), and Syntagmatization, which is less known and describes vocabulary items' varying formal preparedness to exit the thesaurus/lexicon, enter into linear syntactic constructions, and, finally, acquire communicative functionality. It is proposed that there is an inverse relationship between Control and Syntagmatization.

0.017607002 = product of:
  0.035214003 = sum of:
    0.035214003 = product of:
      0.07042801 = sum of:
        0.07042801 = weight(_text_:language in 6246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07042801 = score(doc=6246,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.34677336 = fieldWeight in 6246, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6246)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes a consultancy project for the development of a health care thesaurus involving the movement of text between different application programs. The thesaurus was built from existing text within the organisation originating from 3 sources: natural language registry file headings; descriptions from an internal business directory and a controlled vocabulary. The software used was WordPerfect and Cardbox

0.017607002 = product of:
  0.035214003 = sum of:
    0.035214003 = product of:
      0.07042801 = sum of:
        0.07042801 = weight(_text_:language in 3457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07042801 = score(doc=3457,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051766515 = queryNorm
            0.34677336 = fieldWeight in 3457, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3457)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A central consideration in the study of whole language semantic space as encoded in thesauri is word sense comparability. Shows how word sense comparability can be adequately expressed by the logical implications and rules from Formal Concept Analysis. Formal concept analysis, a new approach to formal logic initiated by Rudolf Wille, has been used for data modelling, analysis and interpretation, and also for knowledge representation and knowledge discovery