Search (84 results, page 1 of 5)

0.056351602 = product of:
  0.1690548 = sum of:
    0.022384524 = weight(_text_:information in 887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022384524 = score(doc=887,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 887, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=887)
    0.046996824 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046996824 = score(doc=887,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 887, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=887)
    0.09967345 = weight(_text_:techniques in 887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09967345 = score(doc=887,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.5840566 = fieldWeight in 887, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=887)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Actuality of information languages: theoretical foundation of information retrieval

Series

Collections Sciences de l'Information, série Etudes et techniques

0.045285475 = product of:
  0.13585642 = sum of:
    0.010552166 = weight(_text_:information in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010552166 = score(doc=834,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 834, 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=834)
    0.031331215 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031331215 = score(doc=834,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 834, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=834)
    0.09397303 = weight(_text_:techniques in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09397303 = score(doc=834,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.5506539 = fieldWeight in 834, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=834)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

Index language (the system of symbols for representing subject content after analysis) is considered as a separate component and a variable in an information retrieval system. It is suggested that for purposes of testing, comparing and evaluating index language, the techniques of structural linguistics may provide a descriptive methodology by which all such languages (hierarchical and faceted classification, analytico-synthetic indexing, traditional subject indexing, indexes and classifications based on automatic text analysis, etc.) could be described in term of a linguistic model, and compared on a common basis

0.036110785 = product of:
  0.10833235 = sum of:
    0.010552166 = weight(_text_:information in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010552166 = score(doc=4781,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4781, 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=4781)
    0.031331215 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031331215 = score(doc=4781,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 4781, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4781)
    0.06644897 = weight(_text_:techniques in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06644897 = score(doc=4781,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.3893711 = fieldWeight in 4781, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4781)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

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

0.025667045 = product of:
  0.1155017 = sum of:
    0.01582825 = weight(_text_:information in 6022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01582825 = score(doc=6022,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 6022, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6022)
    0.09967345 = weight(_text_:techniques in 6022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09967345 = score(doc=6022,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.5840566 = fieldWeight in 6022, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6022)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Imprint

Calcutta : Indian Association of Special Libraries and Information Centres (IASLIC)

0.023681607 = product of:
  0.07104482 = sum of:
    0.011423056 = weight(_text_:information in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011423056 = score(doc=1462,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1462, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1462)
    0.027693143 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027693143 = score(doc=1462,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 1462, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1462)
    0.031928614 = product of:
      0.06385723 = sum of:
        0.06385723 = weight(_text_:theories in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06385723 = score(doc=1462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.30176204 = fieldWeight in 1462, 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=1462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

A thesaurus is a controlled vocabulary designed to allow for effective information retrieval. It con- sists of different kinds of semantic relationships, with the aim of guiding users to the choice of the most suitable index and search terms for expressing a certain concept. The relational semantics of a thesaurus deal with methods to connect terms with related meanings and arc intended to enhance information recall capabilities. In this paper, focused on hierarchical relations, different aspects of the relational semantics of thesauri, and among them the possibility of developing richer structures, are analyzed. Thesauri are viewed as semantic tools providing, for operational purposes, the representation of the meaning of the terms. The paper stresses how theories of semantics, holding different perspectives about the nature of meaning and how it is represented, affect the design of the relational semantics of thesauri. The need for tools capable of representing the complexity of knowledge and of the semantics of terms as it occurs in the literature of their respective subject fields is advocated. It is underlined how this would contribute to improving the retrieval of information. To achieve this goal, even though in a preliminary manner, we explore the possibility of setting against the framework of thesaurus design the notions of language games and hermeneutic horizon.

0.023034686 = product of:
  0.10365608 = sum of:
    0.02611528 = weight(_text_:information in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02611528 = score(doc=35,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
    0.0775408 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0775408 = score(doc=35,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.6617001 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Source

Information storage and retrieval. 3(1967) S.297-314

0.022904735 = product of:
  0.0687142 = sum of:
    0.013124091 = weight(_text_:information in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013124091 = score(doc=1978,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.19298252 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
    0.020350223 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020350223 = score(doc=1978,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.17366013 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
    0.035239886 = weight(_text_:techniques in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035239886 = score(doc=1978,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.2064952 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, 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

0.021977058 = product of:
  0.06593117 = sum of:
    0.010552166 = weight(_text_:information in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010552166 = score(doc=2615,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
    0.022154516 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022154516 = score(doc=2615,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
    0.033224486 = weight(_text_:techniques in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033224486 = score(doc=2615,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.19468555 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

The current standards for monolingual and multilingual thesauri are long overdue for an update. This applies to the international standards ISO 2788 and ISO 5964, as well as the corresponding national standards in several countries and the American standard ANSI/NISO Z39.19. Work is now under way in the UK and in the USA to revise and extend the standards, with particular emphasis on interoperability needs in our world of vast electronic networks. Work in the UK is starting with the British Standards, in the hope of leading on to one international standard to serve all. Some of the issues still under discussion include the treatment of facet analysis, coverage of additional types of controlled vocabulary such as classification schemes, taxonomies and ontologies, and mapping from one vocabulary to another. 1. Are thesaurus standards still needed? Since the 1960s, even before the renowned Cranfield experiments (Cleverdon et al., 1966; Cleverdon, 1967) arguments have raged over the usefulness or otherwise of controlled vocabularies. The case has never been proved definitively one way or the other. At the same time, a recognition has become widespread that no one search method can answer all retrieval requirements. In today's environment of very large networks of resources, the skilled information professional uses a range of techniques. Among these, controlled vocabularies are valued alongside others. The first international standard for monolingual thesauri was issued in 1974. In those days, the main application was for postcoordinate indexing and retrieval from document collections or bibliographic databases. For many information professionals the only practicable alternative to a thesaurus was a classification scheme. And so the thesaurus developed a strong following. After computer systems with full text search capability became widely available, however, the arguments against controlled vocabularies gained more followers. The cost of building and maintaining a thesaurus or a classification scheme was a strong disincentive. Today's databases are typically immense compared with those three decades ago. Full text searching is taken for granted, not just in discrete databases but across all the resources in an intranet or even the Internet. But intranets have brought particular frustration as users discover that despite all the computer power, they cannot find items which they know to be present an the network. So the trend against controlled vocabularies is now being reversed, as many information professionals are turning to them for help. Standards to guide them are still in demand.

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

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

0.018614836 = product of:
  0.08376676 = sum of:
    0.021104332 = weight(_text_:information in 5310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021104332 = score(doc=5310,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 5310, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5310)
    0.06266243 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06266243 = score(doc=5310,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 5310, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5310)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

0.018339459 = product of:
  0.055018373 = sum of:
    0.009233146 = weight(_text_:information in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009233146 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
    0.027414814 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027414814 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
    0.018370414 = product of:
      0.03674083 = sum of:
        0.03674083 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03674083 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

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

Date

22. 9.2007 15:45:57

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.2

0.018339459 = product of:
  0.055018373 = sum of:
    0.009233146 = weight(_text_:information in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009233146 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
    0.027414814 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027414814 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
    0.018370414 = product of:
      0.03674083 = sum of:
        0.03674083 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03674083 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

Moderne Verfahren des Information Retrieval verlangen nach aussagekräftigen und detailliert relationierten Dokumentationssprachen. Der selektive Transfer einzelner Modellierungsstrategien aus dem Bereich semantischer Technologien für die Gestaltung und Relationierung bestehender Dokumentationssprachen wird diskutiert. In Form einer Taxonomie wird ein hierarchisch strukturiertes Relationeninventar definiert, welches sowohl hinreichend allgemeine als auch zahlreiche spezifische Relationstypen enthält, die eine detaillierte und damit aussagekräftige Relationierung des Vokabulars ermöglichen. Das bringt einen Zugewinn an Übersichtlichkeit und Funktionalität. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Ansätzen und Überlegungen zur Schaffung von Relationeninventaren entwickelt der vorgestellte Vorschlag das Relationeninventar aus der Begriffsmenge eines bestehenden Gegenstandsbereichs heraus.

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.017950412 = product of:
  0.16155371 = sum of:
    0.16155371 = sum of:
      0.10217157 = weight(_text_:theories in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10217157 = score(doc=2943,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038739666 = queryNorm
          0.4828193 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
      0.059382148 = weight(_text_:22 in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059382148 = score(doc=2943,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038739666 = queryNorm
          0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

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

Date

31. 7.2006 14:22:21

Source

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

0.017650716 = product of:
  0.052952148 = sum of:
    0.013707667 = weight(_text_:information in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013707667 = score(doc=2246,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2246, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2246)
    0.023498412 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023498412 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2246, 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=2246)
    0.01574607 = product of:
      0.03149214 = sum of:
        0.03149214 = weight(_text_:22 in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03149214 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = 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

0.017302806 = product of:
  0.07786262 = sum of:
    0.023595361 = weight(_text_:information in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023595361 = score(doc=215,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.3469568 = fieldWeight in 215, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=215)
    0.05426726 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05426726 = score(doc=215,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.46309367 = fieldWeight in 215, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=215)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

LCSH

Information retrieval

RSWK

Information und Dokumentation / Systemgrundlage (BVB)

Subject

Information und Dokumentation / Systemgrundlage (BVB)
Information retrieval

0.016287982 = product of:
  0.07329592 = sum of:
    0.018466292 = weight(_text_:information in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018466292 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
    0.054829627 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054829627 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

0.016287982 = product of:
  0.07329592 = sum of:
    0.018466292 = weight(_text_:information in 5314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018466292 = score(doc=5314,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 5314, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5314)
    0.054829627 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054829627 = score(doc=5314,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 5314, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5314)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

0.015609016 = product of:
  0.07024057 = sum of:
    0.017696522 = weight(_text_:information in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017696522 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
    0.05254405 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05254405 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Thesaural relations have long been used in information retrieval to enrich queries; they have sometimes been used to cluster documents as well. Sometimes the first query to an information retrieval system yields no results at all, or, what can be even more disconcerting, many thousands of hits. One solution is to rephrase the query, improving the choice of query terms by using related terms of different types. A collection of related terms is often called a thesaurus. This chapter describes the lexical-semantic relations that have been used in building thesauri and summarizes some of the effects of using these relational thesauri in information retrieval experiments

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.3

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.014655587 = product of:
  0.06595014 = sum of:
    0.018466292 = weight(_text_:information in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018466292 = score(doc=1395,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1395, 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=1395)
    0.04748385 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04748385 = score(doc=1395,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This article deals with the meaningful processing of information in relation to two systems of Information processing: pre-coordination and post-coordination. The different approaches are discussed, with emphasis an the need for a controlled vocabulary in information retrieval. Assigned indexing, which employs a controlled vocabulary, is described in detail. Types of indexing language can be divided into two broad groups - those using pre-coordinated terms and those depending an post-coordination. They represent two different basic approaches in processing and Information retrieval. The historical development of these two approaches is described, as well as the two tools that apply to these approaches: thesauri and subject headings.

Theme

Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval

0.014404316 = product of:
  0.064819425 = sum of:
    0.010552166 = weight(_text_:information in 2642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010552166 = score(doc=2642,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 2642, 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=2642)
    0.05426726 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05426726 = score(doc=2642,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.46309367 = fieldWeight in 2642, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2642)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

In online retrieval search results do not always match the intent in spite of using correct keywords (descriptors). One of the causes of this problem is found in the hierarchical structures of the thesaurus, which often contains relations between broader and narrower concepts, the opposite of which is not necessarily true. Some examples are described from 2 thesauri, MeSH and JICST. In these cases searchers need to make an effort to increase precision

Theme

Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval