Search (92 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Theorie verbaler Dokumentationssprachen"
  1. Tudhope, D.; Binding, C.: Faceted thesauri (2008) 0.04
    0.038161904 = product of:
      0.11448571 = sum of:
        0.06711562 = weight(_text_:applications in 1855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06711562 = score(doc=1855,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.38913056 = fieldWeight in 1855, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1855)
        0.014666359 = weight(_text_:of in 1855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014666359 = score(doc=1855,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 1855, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1855)
        0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 1855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03270373 = score(doc=1855,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 1855, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1855)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Abstract
    The basic elements of faceted thesauri are described, together with a review of their origins and some prominent examples. Their use in browsing and searching applications is discussed. Faceted thesauri are distinguished from faceted classification schemes, while acknowledging the close similarities. The paper concludes by comparing faceted thesauri and related knowledge organization systems to ontologies and discussing appropriate areas of use.
  2. Compatibility and integration of order systems : Research Seminar Proceedings of the TIP/ISKO Meeting, Warsaw, 13-15 September 1995 (1996) 0.04
    0.03579417 = product of:
      0.107382506 = sum of:
        0.018332949 = weight(_text_:of in 6050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018332949 = score(doc=6050,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 6050, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6050)
        0.040879667 = weight(_text_:systems in 6050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040879667 = score(doc=6050,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.339541 = fieldWeight in 6050, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6050)
        0.048169892 = weight(_text_:software in 6050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048169892 = score(doc=6050,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.30993375 = fieldWeight in 6050, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6050)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: SCHMITZ-ESSER, W.: Language of general communication and concept compatibility; RIESTHUIS, G.: Theory of compatibility of information languages; DAHLBERG, I.: The compatibility guidelines - a re-evaluation; SOERGEL, D.: Data structure and software support for integrated thesauri; MURASZKIEWICZ, M., H. RYBINSKI u. W. STRUK: Software problems of merging multilingual thesauri; CHMIELEWSKA-GORCZYCA, E.: Compatibility of indexing tools in multidatabase environment; NEGRINI, G.: Towards structural compatibility between concept systems; SCIBOR, E.: Some remarks on the establishment of concordances between a universal classification system and an interdisciplinary thesaurus; HOPPE, S.: The UMLS - a model for knowledge integration in a subject field; DEXTRE-CLARKE, S.: Integrating thesauri in the agricultural sciences; ROULIN, C.: Bringing multilingual thesauri together: a feasibility study; ZIMMERMANN, H.: Conception and application possibilities of classification concordances in an OPAC environment; SOSINSKA-KALATA, B.: The Universal Decimal Classification as an international standard for knowledge organization in bibliographic databases and library catalogues; WOZNIAK, J. u. T. GLOWACKA: KABA Subject Authority File - an example of an integrated Polish-French-English subject headings system; BABIK, W.: Terminology as a level for the compatibility of indexing languages - some remarks; STANCIKOVA, P.: International integrated database systems linked to multilingual thesauri covering the field of environment and agriculture; SAMEK, T.: Indexing languages integration and the EUROVOC Thesaurus in the Czech Republic; SIWEK, K.: Compatibility discrepancies between Polish and foreign databases; GLINSKI, W. u. M. MURASZKIEWICZ: An intelligent front-end processor for accessing information systems
  3. Schmitz-Esser, W.: Language of general communication and concept compatibility (1996) 0.03
    0.028584046 = product of:
      0.08575214 = sum of:
        0.018332949 = weight(_text_:of in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018332949 = score(doc=6089,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = 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)
        0.040879667 = weight(_text_:systems in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040879667 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.339541 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
        0.026539518 = product of:
          0.053079035 = sum of:
            0.053079035 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.053079035 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03917671 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    Pages
    S.11-22
    Source
    Compatibility and integration of order systems: Research Seminar Proceedings of the TIP/ISKO Meeting, Warsaw, 13-15 September 1995
  4. Khoo, S.G.; Na, J.-C.: Semantic relations in information science (2006) 0.02
    0.024699276 = product of:
      0.07409783 = sum of:
        0.043592874 = weight(_text_:applications in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043592874 = score(doc=1978,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2527477 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
        0.018241053 = weight(_text_:of in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018241053 = score(doc=1978,freq=66.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = 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)
        0.0122639 = weight(_text_:systems in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0122639 = score(doc=1978,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.1018623 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    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
  5. ¬The semantics of relationships : an interdisciplinary perspective (2002) 0.02
    0.020700369 = product of:
      0.09315166 = sum of:
        0.0726548 = weight(_text_:applications in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0726548 = score(doc=1430,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.42124623 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
        0.02049686 = weight(_text_:of in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02049686 = score(doc=1430,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    Work on relationships takes place in many communities, including, among others, data modeling, knowledge representation, natural language processing, linguistics, and information retrieval. Unfortunately, continued disciplinary splintering and specialization keeps any one person from being familiar with the full expanse of that work. By including contributions form experts in a variety of disciplines and backgrounds, this volume demonstrates both the parallels that inform work on relationships across a number of fields and the singular emphases that have yet to be fully embraced, The volume is organized into 3 parts: (1) Types of relationships (2) Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning (3) Applications of relationships
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: Pt.1: Types of relationships: CRUDE, D.A.: Hyponymy and its varieties; FELLBAUM, C.: On the semantics of troponymy; PRIBBENOW, S.: Meronymic relationships: from classical mereology to complex part-whole relations; KHOO, C. u.a.: The many facets of cause-effect relation - Pt.2: Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning: GREEN, R.: Internally-structured conceptual models in cognitive semantics; HOVY, E.: Comparing sets of semantic relations in ontologies; GUARINO, N., C. WELTY: Identity and subsumption; JOUIS; C.: Logic of relationships - Pt.3: Applications of relationships: EVENS, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval; KHOO, C., S.H. MYAENG: Identifying semantic relations in text for information retrieval and information extraction; McCRAY, A.T., O. BODENREICHER: A conceptual framework for the biiomedical domain; HETZLER, B.: Visual analysis and exploration of relationships
    Footnote
    Mit ausführlicher Einleitung der Herausgeber zu den Themen: Types of relationships - Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning - Applications of relationships
  6. Maniez, J.: Fusion de banques de donnees documentaires at compatibilite des languages d'indexation (1997) 0.02
    0.020504821 = product of:
      0.061514463 = sum of:
        0.021062955 = weight(_text_:of in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021062955 = score(doc=2246,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = 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)
        0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0245278 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 2246, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2246)
        0.015923709 = product of:
          0.031847417 = sum of:
            0.031847417 = weight(_text_:22 in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.031847417 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03917671 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    
    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
  7. Fox, E.A.: Lexical relations : enhancing effectiveness of information retrieval systems (1980) 0.02
    0.018298382 = product of:
      0.082342714 = sum of:
        0.016935252 = weight(_text_:of in 5310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016935252 = score(doc=5310,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 5310, 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=5310)
        0.06540746 = weight(_text_:systems in 5310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06540746 = score(doc=5310,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.5432656 = fieldWeight in 5310, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5310)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
  8. Kobrin, R.Y.: On the principles of terminological work in the creation of thesauri for information retrieval systems (1979) 0.02
    0.017375076 = product of:
      0.07818784 = sum of:
        0.020956306 = weight(_text_:of in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020956306 = score(doc=2954,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 2954, 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=2954)
        0.057231534 = weight(_text_:systems in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057231534 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
  9. Beghtol, C.: Relationships in classificatory structure and meaning (2001) 0.02
    0.016421774 = product of:
      0.07389798 = sum of:
        0.019052157 = weight(_text_:of in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019052157 = score(doc=1138,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
        0.054845825 = weight(_text_:systems in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054845825 = score(doc=1138,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.45554203 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    In a changing information environment, we need to reassess each element of bibliographic control, including classification theories and systems. Every classification system is a theoretical construct imposed an "reality." The classificatory relationships that are assumed to be valuable have generally received less attention than the topics included in the systems. Relationships are functions of both the syntactic and semantic axes of classification systems, and both explicit and implicit relationships are discussed. Examples are drawn from a number of different systems, both bibliographic and non-bibliographic, and the cultural warrant (i. e., the sociocultural context) of classification systems is examined. The part-whole relationship is discussed as an example of a universally valid concept that is treated as a component of the cultural warrant of a classification system.
    Source
    Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
  10. Mazzocchi, F.; Plini, P.: Refining thesaurus relational structure : implications and opportunities (2008) 0.01
    0.014919809 = product of:
      0.06713914 = sum of:
        0.050336715 = weight(_text_:applications in 5448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050336715 = score(doc=5448,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2918479 = fieldWeight in 5448, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5448)
        0.016802425 = weight(_text_:of in 5448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016802425 = score(doc=5448,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 5448, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5448)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    In this paper the possibility to develop a richer relational structure for thesauri is explored and described. The development of a new environmental thesaurus - EARTh (Environmental Applications Reference Thesaurus) - is serving as a case study for exploring the refinement of thesaurus relational structure by specialising standard relationships into different subtypes. Together with benefits and opportunities, implications and possible challenges that an expanded set of thesaurus relations may cause are evaluated.
    Source
    Kompatibilität, Medien und Ethik in der Wissensorganisation - Compatibility, Media and Ethics in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings der 10. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Wien, 3.-5. Juli 2006 - Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the German Section of the International Society of Knowledge Organization Vienna, 3-5 July 2006. Ed.: H.P. Ohly, S. Netscher u. K. Mitgutsch
  11. Green, R.; Bean, C.A.: Aligning systems of relationships (2006) 0.01
    0.014886984 = product of:
      0.066991426 = sum of:
        0.020741362 = weight(_text_:of in 4949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020741362 = score(doc=4949,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 4949, 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=4949)
        0.046250064 = weight(_text_:systems in 4949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046250064 = score(doc=4949,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 4949, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4949)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    The lateral relations of Neelameghan and Raghavan are mapped to their closest correspondents in FrameNet. Analvsis of this alignment highlights important characteristics of each system of relationships and reveals varying degrees of compatibility between them.
    Source
    Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad
  12. Tudhope, D.; Alani, H.; Jones, C.: Augmenting thesaurus relationships : possibilities for retrieval (2001) 0.01
    0.014710994 = product of:
      0.066199474 = sum of:
        0.041947264 = weight(_text_:applications in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041947264 = score(doc=1520,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2432066 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
        0.024252208 = weight(_text_:of in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024252208 = score(doc=1520,freq=42.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.39587128 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
              6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
                42.0 = termFreq=42.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    This paper discusses issues concerning the augmentation of thesaurus relationships, in light of new application possibilities for retrieval. We first discuss a case study that explored the retrieval potential of an augmented set of thesaurus relationships by specialising standard relationships into richer subtypes, in particular hierarchical geographical containment and the associative relationship. We then locate this work in a broader context by reviewing various attempts to build taxonomies of thesaurus relationships, and conclude by discussing the feasibility of hierarchically augmenting the core set of thesaurus relationships, particularly the associative relationship. We discuss the possibility of enriching the specification and semantics of Related Term (RT relationships), while maintaining compatibility with traditional thesauri via a limited hierarchical extension of the associative (and hierarchical) relationships. This would be facilitated by distinguishing the type of term from the (sub)type of relationship and explicitly specifying semantic categories for terms following a faceted approach. We first illustrate how hierarchical spatial relationships can be used to provide more flexible retrieval for queries incorporating place names in applications employing online gazetteers and geographical thesauri. We then employ a set of experimental scenarios to investigate key issues affecting use of the associative (RT) thesaurus relationships in semantic distance measures. Previous work has noted the potential of RTs in thesaurus search aids but also the problem of uncontrolled expansion of query term sets. Results presented in this paper suggest the potential for taking account of the hierarchical context of an RT link and specialisations of the RT relationship
    Source
    Journal of digital information. 1(2001) no.8
  13. Svenonius, E.: Indexical contents (1982) 0.01
    0.013723786 = product of:
      0.061757036 = sum of:
        0.012701439 = weight(_text_:of in 27) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012701439 = score(doc=27,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 27, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=27)
        0.0490556 = weight(_text_:systems in 27) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0490556 = score(doc=27,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 27, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=27)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Source
    Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg
  14. Subject indexing systems : concepts, methods and techniques (1998) 0.01
    0.013723786 = product of:
      0.061757036 = sum of:
        0.012701439 = weight(_text_:of in 6022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012701439 = score(doc=6022,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 6022, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6022)
        0.0490556 = weight(_text_:systems in 6022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0490556 = score(doc=6022,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 6022, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6022)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Imprint
    Calcutta : Indian Association of Special Libraries and Information Centres (IASLIC)
  15. Schmitz-Esser, W.: Formalizing terminology-based knowledge for an ontology independently of a particular language (2008) 0.01
    0.013074678 = product of:
      0.05883605 = sum of:
        0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 1680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017962547 = score(doc=1680,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1680, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1680)
        0.040873505 = weight(_text_:software in 1680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040873505 = score(doc=1680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 1680, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1680)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    Last word ontological thought and practice is exemplified on an axiomatic framework [a model for an Integrative Cross-Language Ontology (ICLO), cf. Poli, R., Schmitz-Esser, W., forthcoming 2007] that is highly general, based on natural language, multilingual, can be implemented as topic maps and may be openly enhanced by software available for particular languages. Basics of ontological modelling, conditions for construction and maintenance, and the most salient points in application are addressed, such as cross-language text mining and knowledge generation. The rationale is to open the eyes for the tremendous potential of terminology-based ontologies for principled Knowledge Organization and the interchange and reuse of formalized knowledge.
    Source
    Kompatibilität, Medien und Ethik in der Wissensorganisation - Compatibility, Media and Ethics in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings der 10. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Wien, 3.-5. Juli 2006 - Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the German Section of the International Society of Knowledge Organization Vienna, 3-5 July 2006. Ed.: H.P. Ohly, S. Netscher u. K. Mitgutsch
  16. Vickery, B.B.: Structure and function in retrieval languages (2006) 0.01
    0.012796753 = product of:
      0.05758539 = sum of:
        0.022897845 = weight(_text_:of in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022897845 = score(doc=5584,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
        0.034687545 = weight(_text_:systems in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034687545 = score(doc=5584,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to summarize the varied structural characteristics which may be present in retrieval languages. Design/methodology/approach - The languages serve varied purposes in information systems, and a number of these are identified. The relations between structure and function are discussed and suggestions made as to the most suitable structures needed for various purposes. Findings - A quantitative approach has been developed: a simple measure is the number of separate terms in a retrieval language, but this has to be related to the scope of its subject field. Some ratio of terms to items in the field seems a more suitable measure of the average specificity of the terms. Other aspects can be quantified - for example, the average number of links in hierarchical chains, or the average number of cross-references in a thesaurus. Originality/value - All the approaches to the analysis of retrieval language reported in this paper are of continuing value. Some practical studies of computer information systems undertaken by Aslib Research Department have suggested a further approach.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 62(2006) no.1, S.7-20
  17. Lopes, M.I.: Principles underlying subject heading languages : an international approach (1996) 0.01
    0.012286034 = product of:
      0.055287153 = sum of:
        0.014818345 = weight(_text_:of in 5608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014818345 = score(doc=5608,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 5608, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5608)
        0.04046881 = weight(_text_:systems in 5608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04046881 = score(doc=5608,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 5608, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5608)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    Discusses the problems in establishing commonly accepted principles for subject retrieval between different bibliographic systems. The Working Group on Principles Underlying Subject Heading Languages was established to devise general principles for any subject retrieval system and to review existing real systems in the light of such principles and compare them in order to evaluate the extent of their coverage and their application in current practices. Provides a background and history of the Working Group. Discusses the principles underlying subject headings and their purposes and the state of the work and major findings
  18. Green, R.: ¬The expression of conceptual syntagmatic relationships : a comparative survey (1995) 0.01
    0.0115656955 = product of:
      0.05204563 = sum of:
        0.023429861 = weight(_text_:of in 4475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023429861 = score(doc=4475,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 4475, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4475)
        0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 4475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028615767 = score(doc=4475,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 4475, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4475)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Abstract
    The expression of conceptual syntagmatic relationships in document retrieval systems holds out hope for both increased discrimination generally and increased recall in certain contexts. Such relationships require both a structured inventory of relationships. Examines the means of expressing these. The expression of conceptual syntagmatic relationships must comply with criteria of systematicity, complexity, efficiency and naturalness. Unfortunately, the complex interaction of natural language expression based on lexicalization, word order, function words, and morphosyntactic cases causes failure regarding systematicity. Most methods of expressing conceptual syntagmatic relationships, e.g. term co occurrence techniques, links and role indicators, fail to comply with this and other of the criteria. Only gestalt structures simultaneously representing relationships, participants and roles conform fully to the critical checklist
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 51(1995) no.4, S.315-338
  19. Ruge, G.: ¬A spreading activation network for automatic generation of thesaurus relationships (1991) 0.01
    0.011549704 = product of:
      0.051973667 = sum of:
        0.014818345 = weight(_text_:of in 4506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014818345 = score(doc=4506,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = 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)
        0.037155323 = product of:
          0.074310645 = sum of:
            0.074310645 = weight(_text_:22 in 4506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.074310645 = score(doc=4506,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03917671 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    Date
    8.10.2000 11:52:22
  20. Bodenreider, O.; Bean, C.A.: Relationships among knowledge structures : vocabulary integration within a subject domain (2001) 0.01
    0.011475093 = product of:
      0.051637918 = sum of:
        0.018934188 = weight(_text_:of in 1145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018934188 = score(doc=1145,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = 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)
        0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 1145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03270373 = score(doc=1145,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 1145, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1145)
      0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    
    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.
    Source
    Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green

Languages

  • e 83
  • d 4
  • f 3
  • ja 1
  • nl 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 79
  • m 8
  • s 7
  • el 4
  • r 2
  • d 1
  • More… Less…