Search (43 results, page 1 of 3)

0.051541127 = product of:
  0.103082255 = sum of:
    0.08502165 = weight(_text_:engineering in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08502165 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.35615164 = fieldWeight in 4116, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4116)
    0.0180606 = product of:
      0.0361212 = sum of:
        0.0361212 = weight(_text_:22 in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0361212 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

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

0.051541127 = product of:
  0.103082255 = sum of:
    0.08502165 = weight(_text_:engineering in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08502165 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.35615164 = fieldWeight in 5005, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5005)
    0.0180606 = product of:
      0.0361212 = sum of:
        0.0361212 = weight(_text_:22 in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0361212 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.049595967 = product of:
  0.19838387 = sum of:
    0.19838387 = weight(_text_:engineering in 7141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19838387 = score(doc=7141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.83102053 = fieldWeight in 7141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7141)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Guide for source indexing and abstracting engineering literature. Ed.: F.Y. Speight

0.043387435 = product of:
  0.17354974 = sum of:
    0.17354974 = weight(_text_:engineering in 5828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17354974 = score(doc=5828,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.72699153 = fieldWeight in 5828, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5828)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Some of the fundamental activities of the software development process are related to the discipline of Requirements Engineering, whose objective is the discovery, analysis, documentation and verification of the requirements that will be part of the system. Requirements are the conditions or capabilities that software must have or perform to meet the users needs. The present study is being developed to propose a model of cooperation between Information Science and Requirements Engineering. Aims to present the analysis results on the possibilities of using the knowledge organization systems: taxonomies, thesauri and ontologies during the activities of Requirements Engineering: design, survey, elaboration, negotiation, specification, validation and requirements management. From the results obtained it was possible to identify in which stage of the Requirements Engineering process, each type of knowledge organization system could be used. We expect that this study put in evidence the need for new researchs and proposals to strengt the exchange between Information Science, as a science that has information as object of study, and the Requirements Engineering which has in the information the raw material to identify the informational needs of software users.

Footnote

Engl. Übers. des Titels: Taxonomies, ontologies and thesauri: possibilities of contribution to the process of Requirements Engineering.

0.040079594 = product of:
  0.16031837 = sum of:
    0.16031837 = weight(_text_:engineering in 5292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16031837 = score(doc=5292,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.671566 = fieldWeight in 5292, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5292)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports on the development of a thesaurus by Engineering Information, Inc. for use in indexing its databases. The concept in the former, highly precoordinate, indexing vocabulary were converted into postcoodinate descriptors, and a full set of thesaural relationships developed. Issues to be resolved in developing the vocabulary included the degree of postcoordination that was appropriate, the need to make the thesaurus usable with retrospective indexing that could not be converted and the demands on in-house staff during the development and conversion process

0.033306297 = product of:
  0.13322519 = sum of:
    0.13322519 = product of:
      0.26645038 = sum of:
        0.26645038 = weight(_text_:lehrbuch in 130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26645038 = score(doc=130,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.30775926 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.86577535 = fieldWeight in 130, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=130)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

RSWK

Thesaurus / Verwendung / Struktur / Lehrbuch (SWB)

Subject

Thesaurus / Verwendung / Struktur / Lehrbuch (SWB)

0.030059695 = product of:
  0.12023878 = sum of:
    0.12023878 = weight(_text_:engineering in 6345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12023878 = score(doc=6345,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.5036745 = fieldWeight in 6345, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6345)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

TKE'96: Terminology and knowledge engineering. Proceedings 4th International Congress on Terminology and Knowledge Engineering, 26.-28.8.1996, Wien. Ed.: C. Galinski u. K.-D. Schmitz

0.028340552 = product of:
  0.11336221 = sum of:
    0.11336221 = weight(_text_:engineering in 2075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11336221 = score(doc=2075,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.47486886 = fieldWeight in 2075, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2075)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Der Beitrag enthält die Vorstellung des Entwurfs eines neuen Thesaurus-Konzepts, der vom Komitee für Thesaurusforschung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Dokumentation entwickelt worden ist. In diesem Konzept soll der Thesaurus nicht allein dem Information Retrieval dienen, es soll als terminologisches Werkzeug auf möglichst allen Feldern des 'Linguistic engineering' eingesetzt werden können.

0.024543641 = product of:
  0.098174565 = sum of:
    0.098174565 = weight(_text_:engineering in 4648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.098174565 = score(doc=4648,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.41124853 = fieldWeight in 4648, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4648)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Enthält 47 Beiträge den Schwerpunkten der Tagung: Biology and related fields - Engineering and natural sciences - Medicine - Information science and information technology - Law and economics - Social sciences and humanities - Terminology research and interdisciplinary aspects; darunter: OESER, E. u. G. BUDIN: Explication and representation of qualitative biological and medical concepts: the example of the pocket knowledge data base on carnivores; HOHENEGGER, J.: Specles as the basic units in taxonomy and nomenclature; LAVIETER, L. de, J.A. DESCHAMPS u. B. FELLUGA: A multilingual environmental thesaurus: past, present, and future; TODESCHINI, C. u. G. Thoemig: The thesaurus of the International Nuclear Information System: experiences in an international environment; CITKINA, F.: Terminology of mathematics: contrastive analysis as a basis for standardization and harmonization; WALKER, D.G.: Technology and engineering terminolgy: translation problems encountered and suggested solutions; VERVOOM, A.J.: Terminology and engineering sciences; HIRS, W.M.: ICD-10, a missed chance and a new opportunity for medical terminology standardization; THOMAS, P.: Subject indexes in medical literature; RAHMSTORF, G.: Analysis of information technology terms; NEGRINI, G.: Indexing language for research projects and its graphic display; BATEWICZ, M.: Impact of modern information technology on knowledge transfer services and terminology; RATZINGER, M.: Multilingual product description (MPD): a European project; OHLY, H.P.: Terminology of the social sciences and social context approaches; BEAUGRANDE, R. de: Terminology and discourse between the social sciences and the humanities; MUSKENS, G.: Terminological standardisation and socio-linguistic diversity: dilemmas of crosscultural sociology; SNELL, B.: Terminology ten years on; ZHURAVLEV, V.F.: Standard ontological structures of systems of concepts of active knowledge; WRIGHT, S.E.: Terminology standardization in standards societies and professional associations in the United States; DAHLBERG; I.: The terminology of subject fields - reconsidered; AHMAD, K. u. H. Fulford: Terminology of interdisciplinary fields: a new perspective; DATAA, J.: Full-text databases as a terminological support for translation

0.021255413 = product of:
  0.08502165 = sum of:
    0.08502165 = weight(_text_:engineering in 5202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08502165 = score(doc=5202,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.35615164 = fieldWeight in 5202, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5202)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this article, we report research on an algorithmic approach to alleviating search uncertainty in a large information space. Grounded on object filtering, automatic indexing, and co-occurence analysis, we performed a large-scale experiment using a parallel supercomputer (SGI Power Challenge) to analyze 400.000+ abstracts in an INSPEC computer engineering collection. Two system-generated thesauri, one based on a combined object filtering and automatic indexing method, and the other based on automatic indexing only, were compaed with the human-generated INSPEC subject thesaurus. Our user evaluation revealed that the system-generated thesauri were better than the INSPEC thesaurus in 'concept recall', but in 'concept precision' the 3 thesauri were comparable. Our analysis also revealed that the terms suggested by the 3 thesauri were complementary and could be used to significantly increase 'variety' in search terms the thereby reduce search uncertainty

0.012398992 = product of:
  0.049595967 = sum of:
    0.049595967 = weight(_text_:engineering in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049595967 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.20775513 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

According to my findings several relations available in the thesaurus query interface as "roles", are not used, i.e. there are not yet any assertions with them. And those which are used do not contribute to complete concept definitions of concepts which represent thesaurus main entries. In other words: The authors claim to already have a "description logic based nomenclature", where there is not yet one which deserves that title by being much more than a thesaurus with strict subsumption and additional inheritable semantic links. In the last section of the paper the authors say: "The most time consuming process in this conversion was making a careful analysis of the Thesaurus to understand the best way to translate it into OWL." "For other conversions, these same types of distinctions and decisions must be made. The expressive power of a proprietary encoding can vary widely from that in OWL or RDF. Understanding the original semantics and engineering a solution that most closely duplicates it is critical for creating a useful and accu-rate ontology." My question is: What decisions were made and are they exemplary, can they be rec-ommended as "the best way"? I raise strong doubts with respect to that, and I miss more profound discussions of the issues at stake. The following notes are dedicated to a critical description and assessment of the results of that conversion activity. They are written in a tutorial style more or less addressing students, but myself being a learner especially in the field of medical knowledge representation I do not speak "ex cathedra".

0.010535351 = product of:
  0.042141404 = sum of:
    0.042141404 = product of:
      0.08428281 = sum of:
        0.08428281 = weight(_text_:22 in 4199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08428281 = score(doc=4199,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4199, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4199)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Mitteilungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Parlaments- und Behördenbibliotheken. 1989, H.67, S.1-22

0.0090303 = product of:
  0.0361212 = sum of:
    0.0361212 = product of:
      0.0722424 = sum of:
        0.0722424 = weight(_text_:22 in 4483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0722424 = score(doc=4483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

15. 3.2000 10:22:37

0.0090303 = product of:
  0.0361212 = sum of:
    0.0361212 = product of:
      0.0722424 = sum of:
        0.0722424 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0722424 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.0090303 = product of:
  0.0361212 = sum of:
    0.0361212 = product of:
      0.0722424 = sum of:
        0.0722424 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0722424 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.0090303 = product of:
  0.0361212 = sum of:
    0.0361212 = product of:
      0.0722424 = sum of:
        0.0722424 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0722424 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

24. 8.2005 19:20:22

0.008326574 = product of:
  0.033306297 = sum of:
    0.033306297 = product of:
      0.066612594 = sum of:
        0.066612594 = weight(_text_:lehrbuch in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.066612594 = score(doc=2924,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.30775926 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.21644384 = fieldWeight in 2924, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitt. VÖB 60(2007) H.1, S.98-101 (O. Oberhauser): "Die Autorin von Essential thesaurus construction (and essential taxonomy construction, so der implizite Untertitel, vgl. S. 1) ist durch ihre Lehrtätigkeit an der bekannten School of Library, Archive and Information Studies des University College London und durch ihre bisherigen Publikationen auf den Gebieten (Facetten-)Klassifikation und Thesaurus fachlich einschlägig ausgewiesen. Nach Essential classification liegt nun ihr Thesaurus-Lehrbuch vor, mit rund 200 Seiten Text und knapp 100 Seiten Anhang ein handliches Werk, das seine Genese zum Grossteil dem Lehrbetrieb verdankt, wie auch dem kurzen Einleitungskapitel zu entnehmen ist. Das Buch ist der Schule von Jean Aitchison et al. verpflichtet und wendet sich an "the indexer" im weitesten Sinn, d.h. an alle Personen, die ein strukturiertes, kontrolliertes Fachvokabular für die Zwecke der sachlichen Erschliessung und Suche erstellen wollen bzw. müssen. Es möchte dieser Zielgruppe das nötige methodische Rüstzeug für eine solche Aufgabe vermitteln, was einschliesslich der Einleitung und der Schlussbemerkungen in zwanzig Kapiteln geschieht - eine ansprechende Strukturierung, die ein wohldosiertes Durcharbeiten möglich macht. Zu letzterem tragen auch die von der Autorin immer wieder gestellten Übungsaufgaben bei (Lösungen jeweils am Kapitelende). Zu Beginn der Darstellung wird der "information retrieval thesaurus" von dem (zumindest im angelsächsischen Raum) weit öfter mit dem Thesaurusbegriff assoziierten "reference thesaurus" abgegrenzt, einem nach begrifflicher Ähnlichkeit angeordneten Synonymenwörterbuch, das gerne als Mittel zur stilistischen Verbesserung beim Abfassen von (wissenschaftlichen) Arbeiten verwendet wird. Ohne noch ins Detail zu gehen, werden optische Erscheinungsform und Anwendungsgebiete von Thesauren vorgestellt, der Thesaurus als postkoordinierte Indexierungssprache erläutert und seine Nähe zu facettierten Klassifikationssystemen erwähnt. In der Folge stellt Broughton die systematisch organisierten Systeme (Klassifikation/ Taxonomie, Begriffs-/Themendiagramme, Ontologien) den alphabetisch angeordneten, wortbasierten (Schlagwortlisten, thesaurusartige Schlagwortsysteme und Thesauren im eigentlichen Sinn) gegenüber, was dem Leser weitere Einordnungshilfen schafft. Die Anwendungsmöglichkeiten von Thesauren als Mittel der Erschliessung (auch als Quelle für Metadatenangaben bei elektronischen bzw. Web-Dokumenten) und der Recherche (Suchformulierung, Anfrageerweiterung, Browsing und Navigieren) kommen ebenso zur Sprache wie die bei der Verwendung natürlichsprachiger Indexierungssysteme auftretenden Probleme. Mit Beispielen wird ausdrücklich auf die mehr oder weniger starke fachliche Spezialisierung der meisten dieser Vokabularien hingewiesen, wobei auch Informationsquellen über Thesauren (z.B. www.taxonomywarehouse.com) sowie Thesauren für nicht-textuelle Ressourcen kurz angerissen werden.
In einem abschliessenden Kapitel geht das Buch auf Thesauruspflege und -verwaltung ein, wobei auch das Thema "Thesaurussoftware" angerissen wird - letzteres vielleicht ein wenig zu kurz. Erst hier mag manchem unbefangenen Leser bewusst werden, dass die in den vorhergehenden Kapiteln dargestellte Methodik eigentlich ohne den Einsatz dezidierter Software besprochen wurde, ja vielleicht auch so besprochen werden musste, um ein entsprechendes Verständnis herzustellen. In der nachfolgenden zweiseitigen Conclusio wird erwähnt, dass die britische Norm Structured Vocabularies for Information Retrieval (BS 8723) vor einer Neufassung stehe - was den Rezensenten darauf hinzuweisen gemahnt, dass sich dieses Buch natürlich ausschliesslich auf den anglo-amerikanischen Sprachraum und die dort geltenden Thesaurus-Gepflogenheiten bezieht. Der relativ umfangreiche Anhang beinhaltet ausser Materialie zum erwähnten Demonstrationsbeispiel auch ein nützliches Glossarium sowie ein professionell gefertigtes Sachregister. Literaturhinweise werden - in sparsamer Dosierung - jeweils am Ende der einzelnen Kapitel gegeben, sodass sich die "Bibliography" am Ende des Buches auf einige Normen und zwei Standardwerke beschränken kann. Realistisch betrachtet, darf vermutlich nicht davon ausgegangen werden, dass Leser, die dieses Buch durchgearbeitet haben, sogleich in der Lage sein werden, eigenständig einen Thesaurus zu erstellen. Ein Lehrbuch allein kann weder einen Kurs noch die praktische Erfahrung ersetzen, die für eine solche Tätigkeit vonnöten sind. Ich kann mir aber gut vorstellen, dass die Kenntnis der in diesem Buch vermittelten Inhalte sehr wohl in die Lage versetzt, in einem Team, das einen Thesaurus erstellen soll, kompetent mitzuarbeiten, mit den Konzepten und Fachtermini zurechtzukommen und selbst konstruktive Beiträge zu leisten. Ausserdem erscheint mir das Werk hervorragend als Begleitmaterial zu einer Lehrveranstaltung geeignet - oder auch als Grundlage für die Planung einer solchen. Ein britischer Einführungstext eben, im besten Sinne."

0.007525251 = product of:
  0.030101003 = sum of:
    0.030101003 = product of:
      0.060202006 = sum of:
        0.060202006 = weight(_text_:22 in 4158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060202006 = score(doc=4158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4158, 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=4158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information und Märkte: 50. Deutscher Dokumentartag 1998, Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Dokumentation e.V. (DGD), Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, 22.-24. September 1998. Hrsg. von Marlies Ockenfeld u. Gerhard J. Mantwill

0.007525251 = product of:
  0.030101003 = sum of:
    0.030101003 = product of:
      0.060202006 = sum of:
        0.060202006 = weight(_text_:22 in 4162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060202006 = score(doc=4162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4162, 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=4162)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information und Märkte: 50. Deutscher Dokumentartag 1998, Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Dokumentation e.V. (DGD), Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, 22.-24. September 1998. Hrsg. von Marlies Ockenfeld u. Gerhard J. Mantwill

0.007525251 = product of:
  0.030101003 = sum of:
    0.030101003 = product of:
      0.060202006 = sum of:
        0.060202006 = weight(_text_:22 in 4163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060202006 = score(doc=4163,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4163, 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=4163)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information und Märkte: 50. Deutscher Dokumentartag 1998, Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Dokumentation e.V. (DGD), Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, 22.-24. September 1998. Hrsg. von Marlies Ockenfeld u. Gerhard J. Mantwill