Search (64 results, page 1 of 4)

0.033714578 = product of:
  0.11800102 = sum of:
    0.10059443 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 2566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10059443 = score(doc=2566,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15681393 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.6414891 = fieldWeight in 2566, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2566)
    0.017406588 = product of:
      0.052219763 = sum of:
        0.052219763 = weight(_text_:29 in 2566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052219763 = score(doc=2566,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 2566, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2566)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

6. 1.1999 9:29:10

Footnote

Examensarbeit Höherer Dienst an der FHBD in Köln. - Auch veröffentlicht in: Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis 8(1984) S.159-203

0.023823049 = product of:
  0.055587113 = sum of:
    0.023168506 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023168506 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = 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)
    0.022068607 = weight(_text_:internet in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022068607 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 2246, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2246)
    0.010350002 = product of:
      0.031050006 = sum of:
        0.031050006 = weight(_text_:22 in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031050006 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

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

0.021585472 = product of:
  0.07554915 = sum of:
    0.027029924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027029924 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = 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)
    0.048519224 = product of:
      0.072778836 = sum of:
        0.036553834 = weight(_text_:29 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036553834 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
        0.036225006 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036225006 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

Date

2. 3.2013 12:29:05

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

0.016857661 = product of:
  0.059001815 = sum of:
    0.046817202 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046817202 = score(doc=1395,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = 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)
    0.0121846115 = product of:
      0.036553834 = sum of:
        0.036553834 = weight(_text_:29 in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036553834 = score(doc=1395,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

Source

Knowledge organization. 29(2002) no.2, S.87-93

Theme

Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval

0.014449425 = product of:
  0.050572984 = sum of:
    0.040129032 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040129032 = score(doc=5585,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
    0.010443954 = product of:
      0.03133186 = sum of:
        0.03133186 = weight(_text_:29 in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03133186 = score(doc=5585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5585, 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=5585)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper forms part of the series "60 years of the best in information research", marking the 60th anniversary of the Journal of Documentation. It aims to review the influence of Brian Vickery's 1971 paper, "Structure and function in retrieval languages". The paper is not an update of Vickery's work, but a comment on a greatly changed environment, in which his analysis still has much validity. Design/methodology/approach - A commentary on selected literature illustrates the continuing relevance of Vickery's ideas. Findings - Generic survey and specific reference are still the main functions of retrieval languages, with minor functional additions such as relevance ranking. New structures are becoming increasingly significant, through developments such as XML. Future development in artificial intelligence hold out new prospects still. Originality/value - The paper shows the continuing relevance of "traditional" ideas of information science from the 1960s and 1970s.

Source

Journal of documentation. 62(2006) no.1, S.21-29

0.012193887 = product of:
  0.085357204 = sum of:
    0.085357204 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085357204 = score(doc=984,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15681393 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.54432154 = fieldWeight in 984, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=984)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Die deutsche Bibliothek in Frankfurt bietet seit einigen Jahren zentrale Dienste im Bereich der verbalen Sacherschließung an, Um deren Akzeptanz zu verbessern, will die Deutsche Bibliothek ab 1986 von der augenblicklichen gleichordnenden Indexierung zu einem syntaktischen Verfahren übergehen. Als Alternativen standen die RSWK und eine verkürzte Version des britischen Indexierungsverfahrens PRECIS zur Diskussion. Die Anforderungen einer Fachwissenschaft an die Schlagwort-Syntax einer adäquaten Dokumentationssprache werden exemplarisch entwickelt, die vier Alternativen - augenblickliche verbale Sacherschließunf der DB, RSWK, PRECIS (britische Version) und Kurz-PRECIS (DB-Version) - an ihnen gemessen. Die Kriterien basiern auf Grammatiktheorien der modernen Linguistik und gehen von einer Analogie zwischen Dokumentationssprachen und natürlicher Sprache aus.

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 8(1984), S.159-202

0.011172837 = product of:
  0.039104927 = sum of:
    0.027029924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027029924 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = 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)
    0.012075002 = product of:
      0.036225006 = sum of:
        0.036225006 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036225006 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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

0.010921738 = product of:
  0.076452166 = sum of:
    0.076452166 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076452166 = score(doc=35,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

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

0.010444539 = product of:
  0.036555883 = sum of:
    0.021843476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021843476 = score(doc=2615,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = 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)
    0.014712405 = weight(_text_:internet in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014712405 = score(doc=2615,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.1304718 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

0.00960356 = product of:
  0.03361246 = sum of:
    0.023168506 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023168506 = score(doc=5599,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5599, 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=5599)
    0.010443954 = product of:
      0.03133186 = sum of:
        0.03133186 = weight(_text_:29 in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03133186 = score(doc=5599,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5599, 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=5599)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.29, nos.1/2

Theme

Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval

0.00960356 = product of:
  0.03361246 = sum of:
    0.023168506 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023168506 = score(doc=5602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5602, 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=5602)
    0.010443954 = product of:
      0.03133186 = sum of:
        0.03133186 = weight(_text_:29 in 5602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03133186 = score(doc=5602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5602, 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=5602)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.29, nos.1/2

Theme

Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval

0.00960356 = product of:
  0.03361246 = sum of:
    0.023168506 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023168506 = score(doc=5611,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5611, 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=5611)
    0.010443954 = product of:
      0.03133186 = sum of:
        0.03133186 = weight(_text_:29 in 5611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03133186 = score(doc=5611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5611, 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=5611)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.29, nos.1/2

Theme

Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval

0.008826098 = product of:
  0.061782684 = sum of:
    0.061782684 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061782684 = score(doc=5310,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.008413172 = product of:
  0.029446103 = sum of:
    0.023408601 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023408601 = score(doc=3644,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.20260347 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
    0.006037501 = product of:
      0.018112503 = sum of:
        0.018112503 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018112503 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

0.008002967 = product of:
  0.028010383 = sum of:
    0.019307088 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019307088 = score(doc=1921,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1921, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1921)
    0.008703294 = product of:
      0.026109882 = sum of:
        0.026109882 = weight(_text_:29 in 1921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026109882 = score(doc=1921,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1921, 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=1921)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Classification schemes, thesauri, taxonomies, and other controlled vocabularies play important roles in the organization and retrieval of information in many different environments. While the design and construction of controlled vocabularies have been prescribed at the technical level in great detail over the past decades, the methodological level has been somewhat neglected. However, classification research has in recent years focused on developing approaches to the analysis of users, domains, and activities that could produce requirements for the design of controlled vocabularies. Researchers have often argued that the design, construction, and use of controlled vocabularies need to be based on analyses and understandings of the contexts in which these controlled vocabularies function. While one would assume that the growing body of research on human information behavior might help guide the development of controlled vocabularies shed light on these contexts, unfortunately, much of the research in this area is descriptive in nature and of little use for systems design. This paper discusses these trends and outlines a holistic approach that demonstrates how the design of controlled vocabularies can be informed by investigations of people's interactions with information. This approach is based on the Cognitive Work Analysis framework and outlines several dimensions of human-information interactions. Application of this approach will result is a comprehensive understanding of the contexts in which the controlled vocabulary will function and which can be used for the development of for the development of controlled vocabularies.

Source

Knowledge organization. 35(2008) no.1, S.16-29

0.007722836 = product of:
  0.05405985 = sum of:
    0.05405985 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05405985 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.007722836 = product of:
  0.05405985 = sum of:
    0.05405985 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05405985 = score(doc=5314,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.007722836 = product of:
  0.05405985 = sum of:
    0.05405985 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05405985 = score(doc=4971,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 4971, 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=4971)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.0076436256 = product of:
  0.053505376 = sum of:
    0.053505376 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053505376 = score(doc=2642,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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

0.0076436256 = product of:
  0.053505376 = sum of:
    0.053505376 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053505376 = score(doc=215,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

LCSH

Information retrieval

Subject

Information retrieval