Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024693392 = product of:
  0.14816035 = sum of:
    0.14816035 = weight(_text_:relationship in 1142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14816035 = score(doc=1142,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.6463077 = fieldWeight in 1142, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1142)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Relationships are specified by simultaneously identifying a semantic relationship and the set of participants involved in it, pairing each participant with its role in the relationship. Properties pertaining to the participant set and the nature of the relationship are explored. Relationships in the organization of knowledge are surveyed, encompassing relationships between units of recorded knowledge based an descriptions of those units; intratextual and intertextual relationships, including relationships based an text structure, citation relationships, and hypertext links; subject relationships in thesauri and other classificatory structures, including relationships for literature-based knowledge discovery; and relevance relationships.

0.024693392 = product of:
  0.14816035 = sum of:
    0.14816035 = weight(_text_:relationship in 2135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14816035 = score(doc=2135,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.6463077 = fieldWeight in 2135, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2135)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Relationships that interconnect entity classes of import to knowledge organization (knowledge, documents, concepts, beings, information needs, language) include both non-subject bibliographic relationships (document-to-document relationships, responsibility relationships) and conceptual content relationships (subject relationships, relevance relationships). While the MARC format allows the recording of most bibliographic relationships, many of them are not expressed systematically. Conceptual content relationships include, in turn, interconcept and intraconcept relationships. The expression of interconcept relationships is covered by standard thesaural relationships, which typically do not distinguish fully between the underlying lexical relationship types. The full expression of complex intraconcept relationships includes indication of the basic nature of the relationship (including a set of semantic roles), the set of entities that participate in the relationship, and a mapping between participants and semantic roles. Knowledge organization schemes seldom express these relationships fully.

0.023042366 = product of:
  0.1382542 = sum of:
    0.1382542 = weight(_text_:relationship in 6425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1382542 = score(doc=6425,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.6030949 = fieldWeight in 6425, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6425)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The paper examines the role of attributes within entity-relationship-based conceptual modeling, investigating the interplay between attributes and relationships within (1) data modeling and (2) natural language use. Attribution is found to be an important relationship type. The lack of distinctiveness between attributes and relationships leads to a re-examination of how hierarchy should be treated in both the practice and theory of knowledge organization

0.021165766 = product of:
  0.1269946 = sum of:
    0.1269946 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1269946 = score(doc=3722,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.553978 = fieldWeight in 3722, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3722)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Presents conceptual background. Since topicality is a major factor in relevance, it is crucial to identify the range of relationship types that occur between the topics of user needs and the topics of texts relevant to those needs. Assumes that a single relationship type obtains i.e. that the 2 topics match. Evidence from the analysis of recall failures, citation analysis, and knowledge synthesis suggests otherwise: topical relevance relationships are not limited to topic matching relationships; to the contrary, in certain circumstances they are quite likely not to be matching relationships. Relationships are 1 of the 2 fundamental components of human conceptual systems. Attempts to classify them usually accept a distinction between relationships that occur by virute of the combination of component units (syntagmatic relationships) and relationships that are bulit into the language system (paradigmatic relationships). Given the variety of relationship types previously identified, empirical research is needed to determine the subset that actually account for topical relevance

0.020366766 = product of:
  0.12220059 = sum of:
    0.12220059 = weight(_text_:relationship in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12220059 = score(doc=4823,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.53306556 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

As part of a larger assessment of relationships in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system, this study investigates the semantic nature of relationships in the DDC notational hierarchy. The semantic relationship between each of a set of randomly selected classes and its parent class in the notational hierarchy is examined against a set of relationship types (specialization, class-instance, several flavours of whole-part).The analysis addresses the prevalence of specific relationship types, their lexical expression, difficulties encountered in assigning relationship types, compatibility of relationships found in the DDC with those found in other knowledge organization systems (KOS), and compatibility of relationships found in the DDC with those in a shared formalism like the Web Ontology Language (OWL). Since notational hierarchy is an organizational mechanism shared across most classification schemes and is often considered to provide an easy solution for ontological transformation of a classification system, the findings of the study are likely to generalize across classification schemes with respect to difficulties that might be encountered in such a transformation process.

0.017281776 = product of:
  0.103690654 = sum of:
    0.103690654 = weight(_text_:relationship in 7712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.103690654 = score(doc=7712,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.45232117 = fieldWeight in 7712, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7712)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.016293414 = product of:
  0.097760476 = sum of:
    0.097760476 = weight(_text_:relationship in 2093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097760476 = score(doc=2093,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.42645246 = fieldWeight in 2093, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2093)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The frame structure matches the profile of features desirable in a syntagmatic relationship system and should be incorporated as the basic structural unit in index languages. The construction of frame-based index languages is discussed. Selected findings based on the case study analysis of implementing a New Testament-oriented frame-based indexing language are presented

0.014256737 = product of:
  0.08554042 = sum of:
    0.08554042 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08554042 = score(doc=3144,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3731459 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=3724,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 3724, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3724)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The assumption of topic matching between user needs and texts topically relevant to those needs is often erroneous. Reports an emprical investigantion of the question 'what relationship types actually account for topical relevance'? In order to avoid the bias to topic matching search strategies, user needs are back generated from a randomly selected subset of the subject headings employed in a user oriented topical concordance. The corresponding relevant texts are those indicated in the concordance under the subject heading. Compares the topics of the user needs with the topics of the relevant texts to determine the relationships between them. Topical relevance relationships include a large variety of relationships, only some of which are matching relationships. Others are examples of paradigmatic or syntagmatic relationships. There appear to be no constraints on the kinds of relationships that can function as topical relevance relationships. They are distinguishable from other types of relationships only on functional grounds

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=236,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 236, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=236)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Semantic types provide a level of abstraction over particulars with shared behavior, such as in the participant structure of semantic frames. The paper presents a preliminary investigation, drawing on data from WordNet and FrameNet, into the relationship between hierarchical level and the semantic types that name frame elements (a.k.a. slots). Patterns discovered include: (1) The level of abstraction of a frame is generally matched by the level of abstraction of its frame elements. (2) The roles played by persons tend to be expressed very specifically. (3) Frame elements that mirror the name of the frame tend to be expressed specifically. (4) Some frame participants tend to be expressed at a constant (general) level of abstraction, regardless of the level of abstraction of the overall frame.

0.0075103277 = product of:
  0.045061965 = sum of:
    0.045061965 = weight(_text_:22 in 1419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045061965 = score(doc=1419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.00536452 = product of:
  0.03218712 = sum of:
    0.03218712 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03218712 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

8.11.2015 21:27:22