Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.001789391 = product of:
  0.014315128 = sum of:
    0.014315128 = product of:
      0.042945385 = sum of:
        0.042945385 = weight(_text_:problem in 2111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042945385 = score(doc=2111,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.3282676 = fieldWeight in 2111, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2111)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

To show the difference and explain the move to a new kind of thesauri in the information science area, some of the main characteristics of conventional thesauri are pointed out as well as their side-effects. The new approaches for thesauri apllication are seen to exist in (1) expert systems, (2) interface systems, (3) object oriented design and programming, (4) hypertext systems, (5) machine translation, and (6) machine abstracting. These areas are shortly described including also the new problem which they might create. A discussion of the limitations of the new thesaurus application areas finishes the article which challenges, finally, an awareness to meet the new possibilities of a thesaural retrieval

0.0017399922 = product of:
  0.013919937 = sum of:
    0.013919937 = product of:
      0.04175981 = sum of:
        0.04175981 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04175981 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Pages

S.11-22

0.0012179945 = product of:
  0.009743956 = sum of:
    0.009743956 = product of:
      0.029231867 = sum of:
        0.029231867 = weight(_text_:22 in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029231867 = score(doc=152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 152, 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=152)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

3. 1.2002 13:22:08

0.0010534719 = product of:
  0.008427775 = sum of:
    0.008427775 = product of:
      0.025283325 = sum of:
        0.025283325 = weight(_text_:29 in 1285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025283325 = score(doc=1285,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1285, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1285)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

17. 7.2006 12:29:55

0.0010439953 = product of:
  0.008351962 = sum of:
    0.008351962 = product of:
      0.025055885 = sum of:
        0.025055885 = weight(_text_:22 in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025055885 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

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

0.0010225092 = product of:
  0.008180073 = sum of:
    0.008180073 = product of:
      0.02454022 = sum of:
        0.02454022 = weight(_text_:problem in 1684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02454022 = score(doc=1684,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.1875815 = fieldWeight in 1684, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1684)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Modern ontologies, what are they good for? How did they take us in KO theory and application, and what can we expect from them in the future? These were the focal questions in an afternoon workshop initiated and run by three passionate knowledge organizers from the front of ontology research, Alexander Sigel (Cologne), Winfried Schmitz-Esser (Hamburg), and Roberto Poli (Trento), at the International ISKO 06 Congress in Vienna. Those who in the knowledge organization business till the classic grounds of library and archival sciences will more and more frequently find themselves stumbling over the classic, philösophical notion of ontolögy which now comes in a modern context where nothing can be achieved any longer without the assistance of the computer. They will be asking: Ontology, what is it, a prestige-fishing, fashionable, neo-term? Old wine in new skins? Or, rather, new wine in old skins? It was clear from the beginning that in Vienna, where KO theoreticians and practitioners from all over the world were to convene, some basic explanations and clarifications, and an overview on where we stand and where we go with modern ontolögies would be most welcome, and suitable. The workshop entitled "Introducing Terminology-based Ontologies" aimed straight at the heart of the ontology approach in Knowledge Organization: This is an urgently needed, better command of the deep-structured conceptual matter, - beyond of the potentials and constraints of linguistics and the languages. With this, one was right in the middle of the problem that has been haunting knowledge organizers ever since up to the present day.

8.7789324E-4 = product of:
  0.007023146 = sum of:
    0.007023146 = product of:
      0.021069437 = sum of:
        0.021069437 = weight(_text_:29 in 1404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021069437 = score(doc=1404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1404)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Footnote

Rez.in: KO 29(2002) no.2, S.103-104 (G.J.A. Riesthuis)