Search (24 results, page 1 of 2)

0.02014706 = product of:
  0.090661764 = sum of:
    0.058733147 = weight(_text_:techniques in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058733147 = score(doc=3849,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.34415868 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
    0.031928614 = product of:
      0.06385723 = sum of:
        0.06385723 = weight(_text_:theories in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06385723 = score(doc=3849,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.30176204 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.

0.019012814 = product of:
  0.08555766 = sum of:
    0.027414814 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027414814 = score(doc=4475,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 4475, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4475)
    0.05814285 = weight(_text_:techniques in 4475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05814285 = score(doc=4475,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.3406997 = fieldWeight in 4475, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, 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

0.012191377 = product of:
  0.054861195 = sum of:
    0.010552166 = weight(_text_:information in 3960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010552166 = score(doc=3960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3960)
    0.04430903 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04430903 = score(doc=3960,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 3960, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3960)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Source

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

0.011802301 = product of:
  0.053110354 = sum of:
    0.029611943 = weight(_text_:information in 2724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029611943 = score(doc=2724,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.4354273 = fieldWeight in 2724, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2724)
    0.023498412 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023498412 = score(doc=2724,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2724, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2724)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This study establishes 3 predominant cognitive models of information and the information transfer process manifest in the literature of library and information science, based on a linguistic analysis of phrases incoporating the word 'information' from a random sample of abstracts in the LISA database. The direct communication (DC) and indirect communication (IC) models (drawn from Reddy's frameworks of metalinguistic usage) adopt the perspective of the information system; the information-seeking (IS) model takes the viewpoint of the information user. 2 disturbing findings are presented: 1. core elements of the DC and IC models are more weakly supported by the data than are most of the peripheral elements; and 2. even though the IS model presents the information user's perspective, the data emphasise the role of the information system. These findings suggest respectively that the field lacks a coherent model of information transfer per se and that our model of information retrieval is mechanistic, oblivious to the cognitive models of end users

Footnote

Enthält eine umfangreiche Liste von Redewendungen mit 'Information'

Theme

Information

0.011517343 = product of:
  0.05182804 = sum of:
    0.01305764 = weight(_text_:information in 1150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01305764 = score(doc=1150,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1150, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1150)
    0.0387704 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0387704 = score(doc=1150,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 1150, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1150)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Relevance arises from relationships between user needs and documents/information. In the quest for relevant retrieval, some content-based relationships are best used initially to cast a net that emphasizes recall, while others, both content- and non-content-based, are best used subsequently as filtering devices to achieve better precision. Topical relevance, the primary factor in the initial retrieval operation, extends far beyond topic matching, as often assumed. Empirical studies demonstrate that topical relevance relationships are drawn from a broad but systematic inventory of semantic relationships.

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.2

0.010667455 = product of:
  0.048003547 = sum of:
    0.009233146 = weight(_text_:information in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009233146 = score(doc=3144,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
    0.0387704 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0387704 = score(doc=3144,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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

0.010195802 = product of:
  0.045881107 = sum of:
    0.018466292 = weight(_text_:information in 4696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018466292 = score(doc=4696,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 4696, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4696)
    0.027414814 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027414814 = score(doc=4696,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 4696, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4696)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

WordNet, a lexical database for English, is organized around semantic and lexical relationships between synsets, concepts represented by sets of synonymous word senses. Offering reasonably comprehensive coverage of the nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs of general English, WordNet is a widely used resource for dealing with the ambiguity that arises from homonymy, polysemy, and synonymy. WordNet is used in many information-related tasks and applications (e.g., word sense disambiguation, semantic similarity, lexical chaining, alignment of parallel corpora, text segmentation, sentiment and subjectivity analysis, text classification, information retrieval, text summarization, question answering, information extraction, and machine translation).

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.007709039 = product of:
  0.034690674 = sum of:
    0.011192262 = weight(_text_:information in 7712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011192262 = score(doc=7712,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 7712, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7712)
    0.023498412 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023498412 = score(doc=7712,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 7712, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7712)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Reports results of a study, conducted by Maryland University, College of Library and Information Services, to establish the basic logical design of large scale bibliographic databases using the entity relationship (ER) model, with a view to the eventual conversion of the ER based conceptual schemas into relational databases. A fully normalized relational bibliographic database promises relief from the update, insertion, and deletion anomalies that plague bibliographic databases using MARC formats and USMARC formats internally. Presents the conceptual design of a full scale bibliographic database (inclusing bibliographic, authority, holdings, and classification data), based on entity relationship modelling. This design translates easily into a logical relational design. Discusses the treatment of format integration and the differentiation between the intellectual and bibliographic levels of description and between collective and individual levels of description. Unfortunately, the complexities of bibliographic data result in a tension between the semantic integrity of the relatioal approach and the inefficiencies of normalization and decomposition. Outlines compromise approaches to the dilemma

Source

Information technology and libraries. 15(1996) no.4, S.207-221

0.006980564 = product of:
  0.03141254 = sum of:
    0.007914125 = weight(_text_:information in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007914125 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
    0.023498412 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023498412 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Develops a framework for evaluating the indexing needs of the humanities with reference to 4 set of contrasts: user-oriented vs. document oriented indexing; subject indexing vs. attribute indexing; scientific writing vs. humanistic writing; and topical relevance vs. logical relevance vs. evidential relevance vs. aesthetic relevance. The indexing needs of the humanities range broadly across these contrasts. Established the centrality of relationship to the communication of indexable matter and examines the advantages and disadvantages of means used for their expression in both natural languages and index languages. The use of a relational structure, such as a frame, is shown to represent perhaps the best available option. Illustrates where the use of relational structures in humanities indexing would help meet some of the needs previously identified. The adoption of frame-based indexing in the humanities might substantially improve the retrieval of its literature

Source

Information services and use. 17(1997) nos.2/3, S.85-100

0.0064603165 = product of:
  0.05814285 = sum of:
    0.05814285 = weight(_text_:techniques in 2236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05814285 = score(doc=2236,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.3406997 = fieldWeight in 2236, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2236)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Content

Relative Index (RI) terms in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system correspond to concepts that either approximate the whole of the class they index or that are in standing room there. DDC conventions and shallow natural language processing are used to determine automatically whether specific RI terms approximate the whole of or are in standing room in the classes they index. Approximately three-quarters of all RI terms are processed by the techniques described.

0.0030460905 = product of:
  0.027414814 = sum of:
    0.027414814 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027414814 = score(doc=3685,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 3685, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3685)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The significant differences that exist between the print and digital worlds are sometimes felt to diminish the need for bibliographic description in the electronic world. An analysis of these differences, especially with respect to (1) the control of production and distribution of documents and (2) the need for software intermediation, coupled with a discussion of the functions of bibliographic description in the task of document retrieval argue, however, for an increased role for bibliographic description in the electronic world

0.0030460905 = product of:
  0.027414814 = sum of:
    0.027414814 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027414814 = score(doc=5159,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 5159, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5159)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Various shortcomings typically attend thesaural relationships: failure to support extended relevance relationships; lack of effort in identifying a common relational inventory across types of retrieval systems; limitation to binary relationships; inattention to relationships built into the meaning of lexical units. To counteract this failings, a preliminary inventory of relational structures underlying the ca. 1250 most frequently occuring English verbs is presented. The inventory is compact and corresponds to a combination of semantic role-based verb types as identified by Chafe (1970), and image schemata, as identified by Johnson (1987). The nature of hierarchical relationships among relational structures within the inventory is surveyed

0.0030460905 = product of:
  0.027414814 = sum of:
    0.027414814 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027414814 = score(doc=4615,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 4615, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4615)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.0026109347 = product of:
  0.023498412 = sum of:
    0.023498412 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023498412 = score(doc=474,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 474, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=474)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The paper is divided into 3 parts. The 1st develops a framework for evaluating the indexing needs of the humanities with reference to 4 sets of contrasts: user (need)-oriented vs. document-oriented indexing; subject indexing vs. attribute indexing; scientific writing vs. humanistic writing; and topical relevance vs. logical relevance vs. evidential relevance vs. aesthetic relevance. The indexing needs for the humanities range broadly across these contrasts. The 2nd part establishes the centrality of relationships to the communication of indexable matter and examines the advantages and disadvantages of means used for their expression inboth natural languages and indexing languages. The use of relational structure, such as a frame, is shown to represent perhaps the best available option. The 3rd part illustrates where the use of relational structures in humanities indexing would help meet some of the needs previously identified. Although not a panacea, the adoption of frame-based indexing in the humanities might substantially improve the retrieval of its literature

0.002041157 = product of:
  0.018370414 = sum of:
    0.018370414 = product of:
      0.03674083 = sum of:
        0.03674083 = weight(_text_:22 in 1419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03674083 = score(doc=1419,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1419, 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=1419)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.001740623 = product of:
  0.015665608 = sum of:
    0.015665608 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015665608 = score(doc=2730,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 2730, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2730)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This paper examines whether a concept's hierarchical level affects the likelihood of its universality across schemes for knowledge representation and knowledge organization. Empirical data an equivalents are drawn from a bilingual thesaurus, a pair of biomedical vocabularies, and two ontologies. Conceptual equivalence across resources occurs significantly more often at the basic level than at subordinate or superordinate levels. Attempts to integrate knowledge representation or knowledge organization tools should concentrate an establishing equivalences at the basic level. 1. Rationale The degree of success attainable in the integration of multiple knowledge representation systems or knowledge organization schemes is constrained by limitations an the universality of human conceptual systems. For example, human languages do not all lexicalize the same set of concepts; nor do they structure (quasi-)equivalent concepts in the same relational patterns (Riesthuis, 2001). As a consequence, even multilingual thesauri designed from the outset from the perspective of multiple languages may routinely include situations where corresponding terms are not truly equivalent (Hudon, 1997, 2001). Intuitively, where inexactness and partialness in equivalence mappings across knowledge representation schemes and knowledge organizations schemes exist, a more difficult retrieval scenario arises than where equivalence mappings reflect full and exact conceptual matches. The question we address in this paper is whether a concept's hierarchical level af ects the likelihood of its universality/full equivalence across schemes for knowledge representation and knowledge organization. Cognitive science research has shown that one particular hierarchical level-called the basic level--enjoys a privileged status (Brown, 1958; Rosch et al., 1976). Our underlying hypothesis is that concepts at the basic level (e.g., apple, shoe, chair) are more likely to match across knowledge representation schemes and knowledge organization schemes than concepts at the superordinate (e.g., fruit, footwear, furniture) or subordinate (e.g., Granny Smith, sneaker, recliner) levels. This hypothesis is consistent with ethnobiological data showing that folk classifications of flora are more likely to agree at the basic level than at superordinate or subordinate levels (Berlin, 1992).

0.0014579694 = product of:
  0.013121725 = sum of:
    0.013121725 = product of:
      0.02624345 = sum of:
        0.02624345 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02624345 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

8.11.2015 21:27:22

0.001172463 = product of:
  0.010552166 = sum of:
    0.010552166 = weight(_text_:information in 4949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010552166 = score(doc=4949,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4949, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4949)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad

0.001172463 = product of:
  0.010552166 = sum of:
    0.010552166 = weight(_text_:information in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010552166 = score(doc=1193,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.3

0.001172463 = product of:
  0.010552166 = sum of:
    0.010552166 = weight(_text_:information in 2621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010552166 = score(doc=2621,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 2621, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2621)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine