Search (68 results, page 1 of 4)

0.02598055 = product of:
  0.1039222 = sum of:
    0.07508315 = weight(_text_:supported in 3222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07508315 = score(doc=3222,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3271659 = fieldWeight in 3222, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3222)
    0.028839052 = weight(_text_:work in 3222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028839052 = score(doc=3222,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 3222, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3222)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The use of thesaurus-based indexing is a common approach for increasing the performance of information retrieval. In this thesis, we examine the suitability of a thesaurus for a given set of information and evaluate improvements of existing thesauri to get better search results. On this area, we focus on two aspects: 1. We demonstrate an analysis of the indexing results achieved by an automatic document indexer and the involved thesaurus. 2. We propose a method for thesaurus evaluation which is based on a combination of statistical measures and appropriate visualization techniques that support the detection of potential problems in a thesaurus. In this chapter, we give an overview of the context of our work. Next, we briefly outline the basics of thesaurus-based information retrieval and describe the Collexis Engine that was used for our experiments. In Chapter 3, we describe two experiments in automatically indexing documents in the areas of medicine and economics with corresponding thesauri and compare the results to available manual annotations. Chapter 4 describes methods for assessing thesauri and visualizing the result in terms of a treemap. We depict examples of interesting observations supported by the method and show that we actually find critical problems. We conclude with a discussion of open questions and future research in Chapter 5.

0.020784441 = product of:
  0.083137766 = sum of:
    0.06006652 = weight(_text_:supported in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06006652 = score(doc=1206,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.26173273 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
    0.02307124 = weight(_text_:work in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02307124 = score(doc=1206,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.16220987 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The Alexandria Digital Library Project announces the online publication of two protocols to support querying and response interactions using distributed services: one for gazetteers and one for thesauri. These protocols have been developed for our own purposes and also to support the general interoperability of gazetteers and thesauri on the web. See <http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/~gjanee/gazetteer/> and <http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/~gjanee/thesaurus/>. For the gazetteer protocol, we have provided a page of test forms that can be used to experiment with the operational functions of the protocol in accessing two gazetteers: the ADL Gazetteer and the ESRI Gazetteer (ESRI has participated in the development of the gazetteer protocol). We are in the process of developing a thesaurus server and a simple client to demonstrate the use of the thesaurus protocol. We are soliciting comments on both protocols. Please remember that we are seeking protocols that are essentially "simple" and easy to implement and that support basic operations - they should not duplicate all of the functions of specialized gazetteer and thesaurus interfaces. We continue to discuss ways of handling various issues and to further develop the protocols. For the thesaurus protocol, outstanding issues include the treatment of multilingual thesauri and the degree to which the language attribute should be supported; whether the Scope Note element should be changed to a repeatable Note element; the best way to handle the hierarchical report for multi-hierarchies where portions of the hierarchy are repeated; and whether support for searching by term identifiers is redundant and unnecessary given that the terms themselves are unique within a thesaurus. For the gazetteer protocol, we continue to work on validation of query and report XML documents and on implementing the part of the protocol designed to support the submission of new entries to a gazetteer. We would like to encourage open discussion of these protocols through the NKOS discussion list (see the NKOS webpage at <http://nkos.slis.kent.edu/>) and the CGGR-L discussion list that focuses on gazetteer development (see ADL Gazetteer Development page at <http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/gazetteer>).

0.016001135 = product of:
  0.12800908 = sum of:
    0.12800908 = weight(_text_:hochschule in 3141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12800908 = score(doc=3141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23689921 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.5403525 = fieldWeight in 3141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3141)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Angesichts aktueller und voraussichtlich in naher Zukunft startender Infrastrukturprojekte der Frauen/Gender-Informationseinrichtungen einerseits und der Gender Studies andererseits, soll im Folgenden auf den Sinn und die Notwendigkeit einer gemeinsamen gendersensiblen Dokumentationssprache hingewiesen werden. Dieser Beitrag entstand im Rahmen des Masterstudiums der Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaften (MALIS) an der Technischen Hochschule Köln und verfolgt das Ziel, Vorschläge für die Erarbeitung eines Gender Thesaurus zu entwickeln.

0.015177046 = product of:
  0.12141637 = sum of:
    0.12141637 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 2248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12141637 = score(doc=2248,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.526254 = fieldWeight in 2248, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2248)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

In 1994 the International Union for Health Promotion and Health Education, Regional Office for Europe began a thesaurus project in the field of health promotion and health education, in collaboration with terminologists and health promotion specialists from various European countries. Describes the different phases of the international project. Pays special attention to the origin of the project and the international cooperative imperative needed to bring such a project to fruition

0.01414314 = product of:
  0.11314512 = sum of:
    0.11314512 = weight(_text_:hochschule in 429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11314512 = score(doc=429,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23689921 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.47760868 = fieldWeight in 429, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=429)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

Bachelorarbeit zur Erlangung des Grades Bachelor of Science Wirtschaftsinformatik des Fachbereichs Wirtschaft der Technischen Hochschule Brandenburg. Vgl. unter: https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-fhbrb/files/2732/20210826_BT_SchulzTheresa.pdf.

Imprint

Brandenburg : Technischen Hochschule Brandenburg

0.013279915 = product of:
  0.10623932 = sum of:
    0.10623932 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 3132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10623932 = score(doc=3132,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.46047226 = fieldWeight in 3132, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3132)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The Electronic Libraries and Information Highways MITRE Sponsored Research project aims to help searchers working in digital libraries increase their chance of matching the language of authors. Focuses on whether query formulation can be improved through the addition of semantic knowledge that is interactively gathered from a thesaurus that exists in a distributed, interoperating, cooperative environment. A prototype, ELVIS, was built that improves information retrieval through query expansion and is based on publicly available Z39.50 standard thesauri integrated with networked information discovery and retrieval tools

0.0131395515 = product of:
  0.10511641 = sum of:
    0.10511641 = weight(_text_:supported in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10511641 = score(doc=4644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.45803228 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper describes a method for converting existing thesauri and related resources from their native format to RDF(S) and OWL. The method identifies four steps in the conversion process. In each step, decisions have to be taken with respect to the syntax or semantics of the resulting representation. Each step is supported through a number of guidelines. The method is illustrated through conversions of two large thesauri: MeSH and WordNet.

0.012589371 = product of:
  0.050357483 = sum of:
    0.034606863 = weight(_text_:work in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034606863 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 4116, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4116)
    0.015750622 = product of:
      0.031501245 = sum of:
        0.031501245 = weight(_text_:22 in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031501245 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4116, 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=4116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This paper describes a proposal for a new approach to thesaurus design and construction that could have significant implicantions for change in the way multilingual thesauri are handled and integrated with each other. The formula presented here has its origin in the work of the German Thesaurus Committee and has had input from a number of scientists and practitioners int he field. The emphasis is on the various types of relationships found among concepts, notiions and universals in languages. These relationships are analysed and refined beyond the approach taken in existing thesauri. This proposal is very much at the discussion stage and the author invites the assistance of interested readers through criticisms, discussion and dialogue. Applications of the proposed thesaurus are included and the major goal of this proposal is to provide the basis for improved desing and integration of multilingual thesauri

Source

Knowledge organization. 26(1999) no.1, S.10-22

0.012589371 = product of:
  0.050357483 = sum of:
    0.034606863 = weight(_text_:work in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034606863 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 5005, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5005)
    0.015750622 = product of:
      0.031501245 = sum of:
        0.031501245 = weight(_text_:22 in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031501245 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5005, 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=5005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

After a period of experiment and evolution in the 1950s and 1960s, a fairly standard format for thesauri was established with the publication of the influential Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) in 1967. This and other early thesauri relied primarily an the presentation of terms in alphabetical order. The value of a classified presentation was subsequently realised, and in particular the technique of facet analysis has profoundly influenced thesaurus evolution. Thesaurofacet and the Art & Architecture Thesaurus have acted as models for two distinct breeds of thesaurus using faceted displays of terms. As of the 1990s, the expansion of end-user access to vast networked resources is imposing further requirements an the style and structure of controlled vocabularies. The international standards for thesauri, first conceived in a print-based era, are badly in need of updating. Work is in hand in the UK and the USA to revise and develop standards in support of electronic thesauri.

Date

22. 9.2007 15:46:13

0.012589371 = product of:
  0.050357483 = sum of:
    0.034606863 = weight(_text_:work in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034606863 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
    0.015750622 = product of:
      0.031501245 = sum of:
        0.031501245 = weight(_text_:22 in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031501245 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 260, 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=260)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The need for Persian thesauri became apparent during the late 1960s with the advent of documentation centres in Iran. The first Persian controlled vocabulary was published by IRANDOC in 1977. Other centres worked on translations of existing thesauri, but it was soon realised that these efforts did not meet the needs of the centres. After the Islamic revolution in 1979, the foundation of new centres intensified the need for Persian thesauri, especially in the fields of history and government documents. Also, during the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian research centres produced reports in scientific and technical fields, both to support military requirements and to meet society's needs. In order to provide a comprehensive thesaurus, the Council of Scientific Research of Iran approved a project for the compilation of such a work. Nowadays, 12 Persian thesauri are available and others are being prepared, based on the literary corpus and conformity with characteristics of Iranian culture.

Source

Indexer. 25(2006) no.1, S.19-22

0.011262473 = product of:
  0.09009978 = sum of:
    0.09009978 = weight(_text_:supported in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09009978 = score(doc=2291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3925991 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Specifications are presented for software designed to support manual development and maintenance of information retrieval thesauri. The specifications are intended to support both evaluation of existing packages for acquisition and design of custom software. Specialized requirements of thesaurus support are emphasized over more general database management requirements. Requirements for integration with larger systems and for the user interface are summarized. Relationships specified by the ANSI standard should be supported, and the relationships should be validated to avoid introduction of conflicting relationships. Flexibility in availability of note and date fields is important, and where required, term classifications should be available. Maintenance procedures should include provision for feedback on the impact of changes, as well as appropriate levels of approval for changes. A wide variety of online displays and printed reports are required, including but not limited to alphabetical, hierarchical, and rotated. In addition, it is desirable to be absle to search the thesaurus database with such capabilities as Boolean logic and proximity operators

0.011262473 = product of:
  0.09009978 = sum of:
    0.09009978 = weight(_text_:supported in 6345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09009978 = score(doc=6345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3925991 = fieldWeight in 6345, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6345)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Five years ago, we raised the question: is there a data model which is general enough such that all existing thesauri can be represented by a specialization of this general model without loss of information? The answer was not given at that time, but we referred to the principle of abstraction, well supported in object-oriented data modelling. We gained the empirical basis for that process of abstraction by modelling existing thesauri and a terminological dictionary; an abstracting view was afterwards presented in a paper to the TKE'93 conference. The present paper reports on a third step of abstraction with its very concrete consequences, embodies in a software called TerminologyFramework(TFw)

0.009385394 = product of:
  0.07508315 = sum of:
    0.07508315 = weight(_text_:supported in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07508315 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3271659 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Reports an algorithmic approach to the automatic generation of thesauri for electronic community systems. The techniques used included terms filtering, automatic indexing, and cluster analysis. The testbed for the research was the Worm Community System, which contains a comprehensive library of specialized community data and literature, currently in use by molecular biologists who study the nematode worm. The resulting worm thesaurus included 2709 researchers' names, 798 gene names, 20 experimental methods, and 4302 subject descriptors. On average, each term had about 90 weighted neighbouring terms indicating relevant concepts. The thesaurus was developed as an online search aide. Tests the worm thesaurus in an experiment with 6 worm researchers of varying degrees of expertise and background. The experiment showed that the thesaurus was an excellent 'memory jogging' device and that it supported learning and serendipitous browsing. Despite some occurrences of obvious noise, the system was useful in suggesting relevant concepts for the researchers' queries and it helped improve concept recall. With a simple browsing interface, an automatic thesaurus can become a useful tool for online search and can assist researchers in exploring and traversing a dynamic and complex electronic community system

0.009385394 = product of:
  0.07508315 = sum of:
    0.07508315 = weight(_text_:supported in 4417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07508315 = score(doc=4417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3271659 = fieldWeight in 4417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4417)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This study explores how experts and novices in pedagogics expanded queries supported by the ERIC thesaurus, and how this was connected to the search effectiveness in an easy and a difficult search task. The expert group consisted of 15 undergraduates in pedagogy and the novice group of 15 students with no previous studies in this field. Their search logs were recorded and a pre- and post-search interview was conducted. The results show that the number and type of terms selected from the thesaurus for expansion by experts improved search effectiveness, whereas there were no connections between the use of thesaurus and improvement of effectiveness among novices. The effectiveness of expansions varied between the facets of the queries. Thus, a vital condition for benefiting from a thesaurus in query expansion to improve search results is sufficient familiarity with the search topic. The results suggest also that it is not in the first place the number of terms used in expansion, but their type and quality that are crucial for search success.

0.007492605 = product of:
  0.05994084 = sum of:
    0.05994084 = weight(_text_:work in 4477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05994084 = score(doc=4477,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.4214336 = fieldWeight in 4477, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4477)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Design and construction of indexing languages require thorough knowledge and understanding of the information environment. This empirical study investigated a mixed set of methods (group interviews, recollection of information needs and word association tests to collect data; content analysis and discourse analysis to analyse data) to evaluate whether these methods collected the data needed for work domain oriented thesaurus design. The findings showed that the study methods together provided the domain knowledge needed to define the role of the thesaurus and design its content and structure. The study was carried out from a person-insituation perspective. The findings reflected the information environment and made it possible to develop a thesaurus according to the characteristics of the work domain. It seemed more difficult to capture the needs of the individual user and adapt the thesaurus to individual characteristics.

0.0073438 = product of:
  0.0293752 = sum of:
    0.020187335 = weight(_text_:work in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020187335 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.14193363 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
    0.009187864 = product of:
      0.018375728 = sum of:
        0.018375728 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018375728 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

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

Footnote

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

0.0061176866 = product of:
  0.048941493 = sum of:
    0.048941493 = weight(_text_:work in 2908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048941493 = score(doc=2908,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3440991 = fieldWeight in 2908, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2908)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The recent ISKO-UK conference considered the question of whether the traditional thesaurus has any place in modern information retrieval. This note is intended to continue in the spirit of that good-natured debate, arguing that there is indeed a role today and highlighting some recent work showing the continued relevance of the thesaurus, particularly in the linked data area. Key functionality that a thesaurus makes possible is discussed. A brief outline is provided of prominent work hat employs thesauri in three key areas of infrastructure underpinning advanced retrieval functionality today: metadata enrichment,vocabulary mapping and web services.

0.005098072 = product of:
  0.040784575 = sum of:
    0.040784575 = weight(_text_:work in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040784575 = score(doc=1520,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28674924 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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

0.005046834 = product of:
  0.04037467 = sum of:
    0.04037467 = weight(_text_:work in 4455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037467 = score(doc=4455,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 4455, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4455)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The amount of work to be done in rendering the digital information space more efficient and effective has attracted a wide range of disciplines which, in turn, has given rise to a degree of confusion in the terminology applied to information problems. This note seeks to shed some light on the three terms thesauri, taxonomies and ontologies as they are currently being used by, among others, information scientists, AI practitioners, and those working on the foundations of the semantic Web. The paper is not a review of the techniques themselves.

0.005046834 = product of:
  0.04037467 = sum of:
    0.04037467 = weight(_text_:work in 5566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037467 = score(doc=5566,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 5566, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5566)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The field of subject analysis enjoyed a flurry of interest in the 1970s, and has recently become a focus of attention again. The scholarly community doing work in this area has become more diffuse, and has grown to include new groups, such as information architects. Changes in information services and information seeking have led to reexamination of the nature and role of subject analysis tools and practices. This selective review looks at thesauri, guided navigation, and folksonomy as three activity areas in which subject analysis researchers have been attempting to address rapidly changing new environments.