Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.030453254 = product of:
  0.07613313 = sum of:
    0.062516235 = weight(_text_:semantic in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062516235 = score(doc=4823,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.32483283 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
    0.013616893 = product of:
      0.027233787 = sum of:
        0.027233787 = weight(_text_:web in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027233787 = score(doc=4823,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.023953566 = product of:
  0.059883915 = sum of:
    0.04420565 = weight(_text_:semantic in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04420565 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.22969149 = fieldWeight in 2282, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2282)
    0.015678266 = product of:
      0.031356532 = sum of:
        0.031356532 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031356532 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The structure of a classification system contributes in a variety of ways to representing semantic relationships between its topics in the context of subject authority control. We explore this claim using the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system as a case study. The DDC links its classes into a notational hierarchy, supplemented by a network of relationships between topics, expressed in class descriptions and in the Relative Index (RI). Topics/subjects are expressed both by the natural language text of the caption and notes (including Manual notes) in a class description and by the controlled vocabulary of the RI's alphabetic index, which shows where topics are treated in the classificatory structure. The expression of relationships between topics depends on paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships between natural language terms in captions, notes, and RI terms; on the meaning of specific note types; and on references recorded between RI terms. The specific means used in the DDC for capturing hierarchical (including disciplinary), equivalence and associative relationships are surveyed.

Date

8.11.2015 21:27:22

0.021656258 = product of:
  0.10828129 = sum of:
    0.10828129 = weight(_text_:semantic in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10828129 = score(doc=3849,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.56262696 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.

0.0065512233 = product of:
  0.032756116 = sum of:
    0.032756116 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032756116 = score(doc=4615,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 4615, 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=4615)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.0043899147 = product of:
  0.021949572 = sum of:
    0.021949572 = product of:
      0.043899145 = sum of:
        0.043899145 = weight(_text_:22 in 1419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043899145 = score(doc=1419,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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