Search (153 results, page 1 of 8)

0.022541106 = product of:
  0.11270553 = sum of:
    0.046685066 = weight(_text_:software in 1457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046685066 = score(doc=1457,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.3719205 = fieldWeight in 1457, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1457)
    0.036906876 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 1457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036906876 = score(doc=1457,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.278072 = fieldWeight in 1457, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1457)
    0.029113589 = product of:
      0.058227178 = sum of:
        0.058227178 = weight(_text_:analyse in 1457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058227178 = score(doc=1457,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670908 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.3492742 = fieldWeight in 1457, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1457)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)

Abstract

Traditionell werden Thesauren in Listen dargestellt, doch die Existenz von Software legt nahe, die Möglichkeiten moderner Informationsvisualisierung auszuschöpfen.Wolfram Sieber evaluiert, ob und wie Software zur Thesaurus-Visualisierung über die reine Listendarstellung hinausgeht. Besonderes Augenmerk richtet er darauf, wie gut dabei die Chancen der Visualisierung - Stichworte prä-/attentive Wahrnehmung und Change Blindness - genutzt werden, bzw. wie gegen sie verstoßen und der Nutzer dadurch in seiner Arbeit behindert wird.Zugunsten einer soliden Entscheidungsgrundlage hat Sieber eine detaillierte Liste von Prüfkriterien zusammengestellt und sieben verschiedene Thesaurus-Visualisierer daran gemessen. Diese Liste kann als Grundlage für weitergehende Evaluierungen verwendet werden, bietet sich aber vor allem als Richtschnur bei der Entwicklung eigener Thesaurus- und Graph-Visualisierer an. Anwendern und interessierten Laien hilft sie, zur Auswahl stehende Graph-Visualisierer aus fachlicher Sicht, wissenschaftlich abgesichert zu beurteilen. Dieses Werk richtet sich an Entscheider, Entwickler und Anwender aus Informationswissenschaft und -praxis, Informatik, Dokumentation.

0.020748777 = product of:
  0.10374388 = sum of:
    0.009659718 = product of:
      0.019319436 = sum of:
        0.019319436 = weight(_text_:online in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019319436 = score(doc=2291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.05717729 = weight(_text_:software in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05717729 = score(doc=2291,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.4555077 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
    0.036906876 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036906876 = score(doc=2291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.278072 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)

Abstract

Specifications are presented for software designed to support manual development and maintenance of information retrieval thesauri. The specifications are intended to support both evaluation of existing packages for acquisition and design of custom software. Specialized requirements of thesaurus support are emphasized over more general database management requirements. Requirements for integration with larger systems and for the user interface are summarized. Relationships specified by the ANSI standard should be supported, and the relationships should be validated to avoid introduction of conflicting relationships. Flexibility in availability of note and date fields is important, and where required, term classifications should be available. Maintenance procedures should include provision for feedback on the impact of changes, as well as appropriate levels of approval for changes. A wide variety of online displays and printed reports are required, including but not limited to alphabetical, hierarchical, and rotated. In addition, it is desirable to be absle to search the thesaurus database with such capabilities as Boolean logic and proximity operators

0.018643364 = product of:
  0.13982522 = sum of:
    0.071893506 = product of:
      0.14378701 = sum of:
        0.14378701 = weight(_text_:recherche in 2311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14378701 = score(doc=2311,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17150146 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4202437 = idf(docFreq=531, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.83840114 = fieldWeight in 2311, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4202437 = idf(docFreq=531, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2311)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.06793171 = product of:
      0.13586342 = sum of:
        0.13586342 = weight(_text_:analyse in 2311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13586342 = score(doc=2311,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670908 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.8149731 = fieldWeight in 2311, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2311)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

0.01845156 = product of:
  0.0922578 = sum of:
    0.033011325 = weight(_text_:software in 4724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033011325 = score(doc=4724,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 4724, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4724)
    0.036906876 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 4724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036906876 = score(doc=4724,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.278072 = fieldWeight in 4724, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4724)
    0.022339594 = weight(_text_:web in 4724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022339594 = score(doc=4724,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4724, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4724)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)

Abstract

Purpose - With the growing recognition that thesauri aid information retrieval, organisations are beginning to adopt, and in many cases, create thesauri. This paper offers some guidance on the construction process. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece with a practical focus, based on recent experiences gleaned from consultancy work. Findings - A number of steps can be taken to ensure any thesaurus under construction is fit for purpose. Due consideration is therefore given to aspects such as term selection, structure and notation, thesauri standards, software and Web display issues, thesauri evaluation and maintenance. This paper also notes that creating new subject schemes from scratch, however attractive, contributes to the plethora of terminologies currently in existence and can limit user searching within particular contexts. The decision to create a "new" thesaurus should therefore be taken carefully and observance of standards is paramount. Practical implications - This paper offers advice to assist practitioners in the development of thesauri. Originality/value - Useful guidance for those practitioners new to the area of thesaurus construction is provided, together with an overview of selected key processes involved in the construction of a thesaurus.

0.013601724 = product of:
  0.102012925 = sum of:
    0.038693316 = weight(_text_:web in 4729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038693316 = score(doc=4729,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 4729, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4729)
    0.06331961 = weight(_text_:site in 4729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06331961 = score(doc=4729,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1738463 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.3642275 = fieldWeight in 4729, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4729)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Abstract

The task of an information architect is to create web sites where users can actually find the information they are looking for. As the ocean of information rises and leaves what we seek ever more deeply buried in what we don't seek, this discipline becomes ever more relevant. Information architecture involves many different aspects of web site creation and organization, but its principal tools are information organization techniques developed in other disciplines. Most of these techniques come from library science, such as thesauri, taxonomies, and faceted classification. Topic maps are a relative newcomer to this area and bring with them the promise of better-organized web sites, compared to what is possible with existing techniques. However, it is not generally understood how topic maps relate to the traditional techniques, and what advantages and disadvantages they have, compared to these techniques. The aim of this paper is to help build a better understanding of these issues.

0.012988472 = product of:
  0.06494236 = sum of:
    0.016505662 = weight(_text_:software in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016505662 = score(doc=3243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.13149375 = fieldWeight in 3243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3243)
    0.026097102 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026097102 = score(doc=3243,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.1966266 = fieldWeight in 3243, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3243)
    0.022339594 = weight(_text_:web in 3243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022339594 = score(doc=3243,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3243, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3243)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)

Content

Enthält u.a. folgende Aussage von J. Aitchison u. S. Dextre Clarke: "We face a paradox. Ostensibly, the need and the opportunity to apply thesauri to information retrieval are greater than ever before. On the other hand, users resist most efforts to persuade them to apply one. The drive for interoperability of systems means we must design our vocabularies for easy integration into downstream applications such as content management systems, indexing/metatagging interfaces, search engines, and portals. Summarizing the search for vocabularies that work more intuitively, we see that there are trends working in opposite directions. In the hugely popular taxonomies an the one hand, relationships between terms are more loosely defined than in thesauri. In the ontologies that will support computer-to-computer communications in AI applications such as the Semantic Web, we see the need for much more precisely defined term relationships."
Enthält die Beiträge: Spiteri, L.F.: Word association testing and thesaurus construction: a pilot study. Aitchison, J., S.G. Dextre-Clarke: The Thesaurus: a historical viewpoint, with a look to the future. Thomas, A.R.: Teach yourself thesaurus: exercises, reading, resources. Shearer, J.R.: A practical exercise in building a thesaurus. Nielsen, M.L.: Thesaurus construction: key issues and selected readings. Riesland, M.A.: Tools of the trade: vocabulary management software. Will, L.: Thesaurus consultancy. Owens, L.A., P.A. Cochrane: Thesaurus evaluation. Greenberg, J.: User comprehension and application of information retrieval thesauri. Johnson, E.H.: Distributed thesaurus Web services. Thomas, A.R., S.K. Roe: An interview with Dr. Amy J. Warner. Landry, P.: Multilingual subject access: the linking approach of MACS.

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 32(2005) no.2, S.95-97 (A. Gilchrist):"It might be thought unfortunate that the word thesaurus is assonant with prehistoric beasts but as this book clearly demonstrates, the thesaurus is undergoing a notable revival, and we can remind ourselves that the word comes from the Greek thesaurus, meaning a treasury. This is a useful and timely source book, bringing together ten chapters, following an Editorial introduction and culminating in an interview with a member of the team responsible for revising the NISO Standard Guidelines for the construction, format and management of monolingual thesauri; formal proof of the thesaural renaissance. Though predominantly an American publication, it is good to see four English authors as well as one from Canada and one from Denmark; and with a good balance of academics and practitioners. This has helped to widen the net in the citing of useful references. While the techniques of thesaurus construction are still basically sound, the Editors, in their introduction, point out that the thesaurus, in its sense of an information retrieval tool is almost exactly 50 years old, and that the information environment of today is radically different. They claim three purposes for the compilation: "to acquaint or remind the Library and Information Science community of the history of the development of the thesaurus and standards for thesaurus construction. to provide bibliographies and tutorials from which any reader can become more grounded in her or his understanding of thesaurus construction, use and evaluation. to address topics related to thesauri but that are unique to the current digital environment, or network of networks." This last purpose, understandably, tends to be the slightly more tentative part of the book, but as Rosenfeld and Morville said in their book Information architecture for the World Wide Web "thesauri [will] become a key tool for dealing with the growing size and importance of web sites and intranets". The evidence supporting their belief has been growing steadily in the seven years since the first edition was published.

0.012288162 = product of:
  0.061440807 = sum of:
    0.015774254 = product of:
      0.031548508 = sum of:
        0.031548508 = weight(_text_:online in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031548508 = score(doc=4800,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.3285377 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.024604581 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024604581 = score(doc=4800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.18538132 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
    0.021061972 = weight(_text_:web in 4800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021061972 = score(doc=4800,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 4800, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4800)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)

Abstract

The usefulness of online geological maps is hindered by linguistic barriers. Multilingual geoscience thesauri alleviate linguistic barriers of geological maps. However, the benefits of multilingual geoscience thesauri for online geological maps are less studied. In this regard, we developed a multilingual thesaurus of geological time scale (GTS) to alleviate linguistic barriers of GTS records among online geological maps. We extended the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) model to represent the ordinal hierarchical structure of GTS terms. We collected GTS terms in seven languages and encoded them into a thesaurus by using the extended SKOS model. We implemented methods of characteristic-oriented term retrieval in JavaScript programs for accessing Web Map Services (WMS), recognizing GTS terms, and making translations. With the developed thesaurus and programs, we set up a pilot system to test recognitions and translations of GTS terms in online geological maps. Results of this pilot system proved the accuracy of the developed thesaurus and the functionality of the developed programs. Therefore, with proper deployments, SKOS-based multilingual geoscience thesauri can be functional for alleviating linguistic barriers among online geological maps and, thus, improving their interoperability.

Content

Article Outline 1. Introduction 2. SKOS-based multilingual thesaurus of geological time scale 2.1. Addressing the insufficiency of SKOS in the context of the Semantic Web 2.2. Addressing semantics and syntax/lexicon in multilingual GTS terms 2.3. Extending SKOS model to capture GTS structure 2.4. Summary of building the SKOS-based MLTGTS 3. Recognizing and translating GTS terms retrieved from WMS 4. Pilot system, results, and evaluation 5. Discussion 6. Conclusions Vgl. unter: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_cid=271720&_user=3865853&_pii=S0098300411000744&_check=y&_origin=&_coverDate=31-Oct-2011&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlt-zSkzS&_valck=1&md5=e2c1daf53df72d034d22278212578f42&ie=/sdarticle.pdf.

0.012118336 = product of:
  0.09088752 = sum of:
    0.052194204 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 1322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052194204 = score(doc=1322,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.3932532 = fieldWeight in 1322, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1322)
    0.038693316 = weight(_text_:web in 1322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038693316 = score(doc=1322,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 1322, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1322)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Content

Thesauri : introduction and recent developments -- Thesauri in interactive information retrieval -- User-centered approach to the evaluation of thesauri : query formulation and expansion -- Thesauri in web-based search systems -- Thesaurus-based search and browsing functionalities in new thesaurus construction standards -- Design of search user interfaces for thesauri -- Design of user interfaces for multilingual and meta-thesauri -- User-centered evaluation of thesaurus-enhanced search user interfaces -- Guidelines for the design of thesaurus-enhanced search user interfaces -- Current trends and developments.

LCSH

World Wide Web

Subject

World Wide Web

0.011869453 = product of:
  0.08902089 = sum of:
    0.027509436 = weight(_text_:software in 2106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027509436 = score(doc=2106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 2106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2106)
    0.061511453 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 2106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061511453 = score(doc=2106,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.4634533 = fieldWeight in 2106, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2106)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Abstract

The use of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOSs) in aggregated metadata collections facilitates the implementation of search mechanisms operating on the same term or keyphrase space, thus preparing the ground for improved browsing, more accurate retrieval and better user profiling. Automatic thesaurus-based keyphrase extraction appears to be an inexpensive tool to obtain this information, but the studies on its effectiveness are scattered and do not consider the practical applicability of these techniques compared to the quality obtained by involving human experts. This paper presents an evaluation of keyphrase extraction using the KEA software and the AGROVOC vocabulary on a sample of a large collection of metadata in the field of agriculture from the AGRIS database. This effort includes a double evaluation, the classical automatic evaluation based on precision and recall measures, plus a blind evaluation aimed to contrast the quality of the keyphrases extracted against expert-provided samples and against the keyphrases originally recorded in the metadata. Results show not only that KEA outperforms humans in matching the original keyphrases, but also that the quality of the keyphrases extracted was similar to those provided by humans.

0.011462201 = product of:
  0.042983253 = sum of:
    0.0102705015 = product of:
      0.020541003 = sum of:
        0.020541003 = weight(_text_:recherche in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020541003 = score(doc=2924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17150146 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4202437 = idf(docFreq=531, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.11977159 = fieldWeight in 2924, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4202437 = idf(docFreq=531, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.015561688 = weight(_text_:software in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015561688 = score(doc=2924,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.123973496 = fieldWeight in 2924, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2924)
    0.0074465317 = weight(_text_:web in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074465317 = score(doc=2924,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.07211407 = fieldWeight in 2924, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2924)
    0.00970453 = product of:
      0.01940906 = sum of:
        0.01940906 = weight(_text_:analyse in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01940906 = score(doc=2924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670908 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.11642473 = fieldWeight in 2924, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)

Abstract

Many information professionals working in small units today fail to find the published tools for subject-based organization that are appropriate to their local needs, whether they are archivists, special librarians, information officers, or knowledge or content managers. Large established standards for document description and organization are too unwieldy, unnecessarily detailed, or too expensive to install and maintain. In other cases the available systems are insufficient for a specialist environment, or don't bring things together in a helpful way. A purpose built, in-house system would seem to be the answer, but too often the skills necessary to create one are lacking. This practical text examines the criteria relevant to the selection of a subject-management system, describes the characteristics of some common types of subject tool, and takes the novice step by step through the process of creating a system for a specialist environment. The methodology employed is a standard technique for the building of a thesaurus that incidentally creates a compatible classification or taxonomy, both of which may be used in a variety of ways for document or information management. Key areas covered are: What is a thesaurus? Tools for subject access and retrieval; what a thesaurus is used for? Why use a thesaurus? Examples of thesauri; the structure of a thesaurus; thesaural relationships; practical thesaurus construction; the vocabulary of the thesaurus; building the systematic structure; conversion to alphabetic format; forms of entry in the thesaurus; maintaining the thesaurus; thesaurus software; and; the wider environment. Essential for the practising information professional, this guide is also valuable for students of library and information science.

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 den stärker ins Detail gehenden Kapiteln weist Broughton zunächst auf die Bedeutung des systematischen Teils eines Thesaurus neben dem alphabetischen Teil hin und erläutert dann die Elemente des letzteren, wobei neben den gängigen Thesaurusrelationen auch die Option der Ausstattung der Einträge mit Notationen eines Klassifikationssystems erwähnt wird. Die Thesaurusrelationen selbst werden später noch in einem weiteren Kapitel ausführlicher diskutiert, wobei etwa auch die polyhierarchische Beziehung thematisiert wird. Zwei Kapitel zur Vokabularkontrolle führen in Aspekte wie Behandlung von Synonymen, Vermeidung von Mehrdeutigkeit, Wahl der bevorzugten Terme sowie die Formen von Thesauruseinträgen ein (grammatische Form, Schreibweise, Zeichenvorrat, Singular/Plural, Komposita bzw. deren Zerlegung usw.). Insgesamt acht Kapitel - in der Abfolge mit den bisher erwähnten Abschnitten didaktisch geschickt vermischt - stehen unter dem Motto "Building a thesaurus". Kurz zusammengefasst, geht es dabei um folgende Tätigkeiten und Prozesse: - Sammlung des Vokabulars unter Nutzung entsprechender Quellen; - Termextraktion aus den Titeln von Dokumenten und Probleme hiebei; - Analyse des Vokabulars (Facettenmethode); - Einbau einer internen Struktur (Facetten und Sub-Facetten, Anordnung der Terme); - Erstellung einer hierarchischen Struktur und deren Repräsentation; - Zusammengesetzte Themen bzw. Begriffe (Facettenanordnung: filing order vs. citation order); - Konvertierung der taxonomischen Anordnung in ein alphabetisches Format (Auswahl der Vorzugsbegriffe, Identifizieren hierarchischer Beziehungen, verwandter Begriffe usw.); - Erzeugen der endgültigen Thesaurus-Einträge.
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."

0.010876165 = product of:
  0.08157123 = sum of:
    0.03851321 = weight(_text_:software in 1456) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03851321 = score(doc=1456,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.30681872 = fieldWeight in 1456, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1456)
    0.04305802 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 1456) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04305802 = score(doc=1456,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.32441732 = fieldWeight in 1456, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1456)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Abstract

Wenige Software-Werkzeuge zur Visualisierung von Thesaurus-Strukturen sind über das prototypische Stadium hinaus gelangt. Konkrete Implementationen entsprechender Anwendungen werden evaluiert. Aus den Gebieten Thesaurus-Entwicklung, Visualisierung, Interaktion, Informations- und Graphenvisualisierung werden Kriterien ermittelt, an denen die Implementierungen gemessen werden. Ein generisches Werkzeug zur Visualisierung dreidimensionaler hyperbolischer Bäume wird dazu verwendet, die Strukturen eines Thesaurus darzustellen. Dieses Werkzeug wird mit in die Evaluation einbezogen. Es hat sich gezeigt, dass die Visualisierung der Thesaurus-Strukturen auf Basis weniger unterschiedlicher Verfahren erfolgt. Der generische Visualisierer ist für Thesaurus-Strukturen prinzipiell geeignet, doch fehlen ihm spezifische Möglichkeiten der Domäne Thesaurus.

0.009663876 = product of:
  0.07247907 = sum of:
    0.03851321 = weight(_text_:software in 128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03851321 = score(doc=128,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.30681872 = fieldWeight in 128, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=128)
    0.033965856 = product of:
      0.06793171 = sum of:
        0.06793171 = weight(_text_:analyse in 128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06793171 = score(doc=128,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670908 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.40748656 = fieldWeight in 128, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=128)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Abstract

Bericht über die Ergebnisse einer von der Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften in Brüssel vom 11.12.3.86 organisierten Konferenz. Als Ausgangspunkte dienten Folgerungen aus einer umfassenden Analyse von fast 1.000 Thesauri, dahingehemd, daß 'too many thesauri hampered by inadequate design, inappropriate exploitation, sometimes even non-use, insufficient maintenance, and inadequate development and updating software'. Die Ziele der Konferenz waren: (1) Set up an inventory of problems encountered in compiling, using, and managing a thesaurus; (2) Measure the impact of these problems on the effectiveness of information retrieval; (3) Make recommendations in order to solve these problems or avoid their occurrence

0.009287993 = product of:
  0.06965995 = sum of:
    0.03890422 = weight(_text_:software in 6050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03890422 = score(doc=6050,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.30993375 = fieldWeight in 6050, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6050)
    0.030755727 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 6050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030755727 = score(doc=6050,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.23172665 = fieldWeight in 6050, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6050)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: SCHMITZ-ESSER, W.: Language of general communication and concept compatibility; RIESTHUIS, G.: Theory of compatibility of information languages; DAHLBERG, I.: The compatibility guidelines - a re-evaluation; SOERGEL, D.: Data structure and software support for integrated thesauri; MURASZKIEWICZ, M., H. RYBINSKI u. W. STRUK: Software problems of merging multilingual thesauri; CHMIELEWSKA-GORCZYCA, E.: Compatibility of indexing tools in multidatabase environment; NEGRINI, G.: Towards structural compatibility between concept systems; SCIBOR, E.: Some remarks on the establishment of concordances between a universal classification system and an interdisciplinary thesaurus; HOPPE, S.: The UMLS - a model for knowledge integration in a subject field; DEXTRE-CLARKE, S.: Integrating thesauri in the agricultural sciences; ROULIN, C.: Bringing multilingual thesauri together: a feasibility study; ZIMMERMANN, H.: Conception and application possibilities of classification concordances in an OPAC environment; SOSINSKA-KALATA, B.: The Universal Decimal Classification as an international standard for knowledge organization in bibliographic databases and library catalogues; WOZNIAK, J. u. T. GLOWACKA: KABA Subject Authority File - an example of an integrated Polish-French-English subject headings system; BABIK, W.: Terminology as a level for the compatibility of indexing languages - some remarks; STANCIKOVA, P.: International integrated database systems linked to multilingual thesauri covering the field of environment and agriculture; SAMEK, T.: Indexing languages integration and the EUROVOC Thesaurus in the Czech Republic; SIWEK, K.: Compatibility discrepancies between Polish and foreign databases; GLINSKI, W. u. M. MURASZKIEWICZ: An intelligent front-end processor for accessing information systems

0.009287993 = product of:
  0.06965995 = sum of:
    0.03890422 = weight(_text_:software in 3222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03890422 = score(doc=3222,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.30993375 = fieldWeight in 3222, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3222)
    0.030755727 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 3222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030755727 = score(doc=3222,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.23172665 = fieldWeight in 3222, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3222)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Abstract

The use of thesaurus-based indexing is a common approach for increasing the performance of information retrieval. In this thesis, we examine the suitability of a thesaurus for a given set of information and evaluate improvements of existing thesauri to get better search results. On this area, we focus on two aspects: 1. We demonstrate an analysis of the indexing results achieved by an automatic document indexer and the involved thesaurus. 2. We propose a method for thesaurus evaluation which is based on a combination of statistical measures and appropriate visualization techniques that support the detection of potential problems in a thesaurus. In this chapter, we give an overview of the context of our work. Next, we briefly outline the basics of thesaurus-based information retrieval and describe the Collexis Engine that was used for our experiments. In Chapter 3, we describe two experiments in automatically indexing documents in the areas of medicine and economics with corresponding thesauri and compare the results to available manual annotations. Chapter 4 describes methods for assessing thesauri and visualizing the result in terms of a treemap. We depict examples of interesting observations supported by the method and show that we actually find critical problems. We conclude with a discussion of open questions and future research in Chapter 5.

Content

Vgl. unter: http://ki.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/fileadmin/publication/Eckert07Thesis.pdf. Für die Software vgl.: http://www.semtinel.org. Zur Beschreibung der Software: https://ub-madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/29611/.

0.009236307 = product of:
  0.069272295 = sum of:
    0.019319436 = product of:
      0.03863887 = sum of:
        0.03863887 = weight(_text_:online in 4863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03863887 = score(doc=4863,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.40237486 = fieldWeight in 4863, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4863)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.049952857 = weight(_text_:web in 4863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049952857 = score(doc=4863,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 4863, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4863)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Abstract

The World Wide Web and the use of HTML-based information displays has greatly increased access to online information sources, but at the same time limits the ways in which they can be used. By the same token, Web-based indexing and search engines give us access to the full text of online documents, but make it difficult to access them in any kind of organized, systematic way. For years before the advent of the Internet, lexicographers built weIl-structured subject thesauri to organize large collections of documents. These have since been converted into electronic form and even put online, but in ways that are largely uncoordinated and not useful for searching. This paper describes some of the ways in which XML-based Web services could be used to coordinate subject thesauri and other online vocabulary sources to create a "Thesauro-Web" that could be used by both searchers and indexers to improve subject access an the Internet.

0.009203289 = product of:
  0.06902466 = sum of:
    0.046685066 = weight(_text_:software in 3485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046685066 = score(doc=3485,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.3719205 = fieldWeight in 3485, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3485)
    0.022339594 = weight(_text_:web in 3485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022339594 = score(doc=3485,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3485, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3485)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Abstract

Thesauri are knowledge models commonly used for information classication and retrieval whose structure is dened by standards that describe the main features the concepts and relations must have. However, following these standards requires a deep knowledge of the field the thesaurus is going to cover and experience in their creation. To help in this task, this paper describes a software processing chain that provides dierent validation components that evaluates the quality of the main thesaurus features.

Series

Information Systems and Applications, incl. Internet/Web, and HCI; 10151

0.009010845 = product of:
  0.06758133 = sum of:
    0.054720614 = weight(_text_:web in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054720614 = score(doc=3197,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.5299281 = fieldWeight in 3197, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3197)
    0.01286072 = product of:
      0.02572144 = sum of:
        0.02572144 = weight(_text_:22 in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02572144 = score(doc=3197,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3197, 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=3197)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Abstract

Indexing consists of both novel and more traditional techniques. Cutting-edge indexing techniques, such as automatic indexing, ontologies, and topic maps, were developed independently of older techniques such as thesauri, but it is now recognized that these older methods also hold expertise. Indexing describes various traditional and novel indexing techniques, giving information professionals and students of library and information sciences a broad and comprehensible introduction to indexing. This title consists of twelve chapters: an Introduction to subject readings and theasauri; Automatic indexing versus manual indexing; Techniques applied in automatic indexing of text material; Automatic indexing of images; The black art of indexing moving images; Automatic indexing of music; Taxonomies and ontologies; Metadata formats and indexing; Tagging; Topic maps; Indexing the web; and The Semantic Web.

Date

24. 8.2016 14:03:22

RSWK

Semantic Web

Subject

Semantic Web

Theme

Semantic Web

0.008801577 = product of:
  0.044007882 = sum of:
    0.020541003 = product of:
      0.041082006 = sum of:
        0.041082006 = weight(_text_:recherche in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041082006 = score(doc=3487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17150146 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4202437 = idf(docFreq=531, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.23954318 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4202437 = idf(docFreq=531, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.014893063 = weight(_text_:web in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014893063 = score(doc=3487,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
    0.008573813 = product of:
      0.017147627 = sum of:
        0.017147627 = weight(_text_:22 in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017147627 = score(doc=3487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)

Abstract

Das Buch gibt einen umfassenden Überblick über vorhandene Thesauri und Klassifikationen. Es liefert detaillierte Beschreibungen zu mehr als 150 Klassifikationen und Thesauri aus Naturwissenschaften, Technik, Wirtschaft und Patentwesen. Da gegenwärtig eine aktuelle Zusammenstellung international verfügbarer Thesauri und Klassifikationen fehlt, schließt das vorliegende Buch diese Lücke und kann somit dazu beitragen, Doppelarbeit bei der Erstellung von Thesauri und Klassifikationen zu verhindern und den intellektuellen wie kostenintensiven Aufwand zu minimieren. Zusätzlich bietet dieses Nachschlagewerk mit einem umfangreichen Index den Informationsspezialisten Unterstützung bei der Formulierung präziser Rechercheanfragen, indem es Informationen über Vorhandensein, Aufbau und Verfügbarkeit der Thesauri und Klassifikationen bereitstellt, die für die Recherche genutzt werden können. Das Buch wendet sich an alle Information Professionals, die Dokumentationssprachen aufbauen und nutzen.

Footnote

Rez. in: Information: Wissenschaft & Praxis 56(2005) H.5/6, S.337 (W. Ratzek): "Bettina Brühl legt mit "Thesauri und Klassifikationen" ein Fleißarbeit vor. Das Buch mit seiner Auswahl von über 150 Klassifikationen und Thesauri aus Naturwissenschaft, Technik, Wirtschaft und Patenwesen macht es zu einem brauchbaren Nachschlagewerk, zumal auch ein umfassender Index nach Sachgebieten, nach Datenbanken und nach Klassifikationen und Thesauri angeboten wird. Nach einer 13-seitigen Einführung (Kapitel 1 und 2) folgt mit dem 3. Kapitel die "Darstellung von Klassifikationen und Thesauri", im wesentlichen aus den Beschreibungen der Hersteller zusammengestellt. Hier werden Dokumentationssprachen der Fachgebiete - Naturwissenschaften (3.1) und deren Spezialisierungen wie zum Beispiel "Biowissenschaften und Biotechnologie", "Chemie" oder "Umwelt und Ökonomie", aber auch "Mathematik und Informatik" (?) auf 189 Seiten vorgestellt, - Technik mit zum Beispiel "Fachordnung Technik", "Subject Categories (INIS/ ETDE) mit 17 Seiten verhältnismäßig knapp abgehandelt, - Wirtschaft mit "Branchen-Codes", "Product-Codes", "Länder-Codes"",Fachklas-sifikationen" und "Thesauri" ausführlich auf 57 Seiten präsentiert, - Patente und Normen mit zum Beispiel "Europäische Patentklassifikation" oder "International Patent Classification" auf 33 Seiten umrissen. Jedes Teilgebiet wird mit einer kurzen Beschreibung eingeleitet. Danach folgen die jeweiligen Beschreibungen mit den Merkmalen: "Anschrift des Erstellers", "Themen-gebiet(e)", "Sprache", "Verfügbarkeit", "An-wendung" und "Ouelle(n)". "Das Buch wendet sich an alle Information Professionals, die Dokumentationssprachen aufbauen und nutzen" heißt es in der Verlagsinformation. Zwar ist es nicht notwendig, die informationswissenschaftlichen Aspekte der Klassifikationen und Thesauri abzuhandeln, aber ein Hinweis auf die Bedeutung der Information und Dokumentation und/oder der Informationswissenschaft wäre schon angebracht, um in der Welt der Informations- und Wissenswirtschaft zu demonstrieren, welchen Beitrag unsere Profession leistet. Andernfalls bleibt das Blickfeld eingeschränkt und der Anschluss an neuere Entwicklungen ausgeblendet. Dieser Anknüpfungspunkt wäre beispielsweise durch einen Exkurs über Topic Map/Semantic Web gegeben. Der Verlag liefert mit der Herausgabe die ses Kompendiums einen nützlichen ersten Baustein zu einem umfassenden Verzeichnis von Thesauri und Klassifikationen."

Series

Materialien zur Information und Dokumentation; Bd.22

0.008610143 = product of:
  0.064576074 = sum of:
    0.03851321 = weight(_text_:software in 6773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03851321 = score(doc=6773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.30681872 = fieldWeight in 6773, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6773)
    0.026062861 = weight(_text_:web in 6773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026062861 = score(doc=6773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 6773, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6773)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Abstract

Members offer comments and suggest resources on programs for creating, maintaining, and publishing thesauri. Formerly a tool for writers and indexers, the thesaurus has taken on a new role as an essential component of the corporate information infrastructure. Many people are using word processor or database programs to create and maintain thesauri, while others are using specialized tools that perform consistency checks and offer special reporting capabilities. Some also use thesaurus modules integrated into another application, such as web publishing, content management, or e-commerce. This article includes material comes from our own experience, email responses from members, and comments from participants in our seminars and roundtables. There's also an introduction to thesauri in a corporate information management system

0.008278506 = product of:
  0.062088788 = sum of:
    0.012879624 = product of:
      0.025759248 = sum of:
        0.025759248 = weight(_text_:online in 4892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025759248 = score(doc=4892,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 4892, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.049209163 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 4892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049209163 = score(doc=4892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.37076265 = fieldWeight in 4892, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4892)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Abstract

Explores the strengths and limitations of hypertext for the online presentation of thesauri used in information retrieval. Examines the ability of hypertext to support each of 3 common types of thesaurus display: graphic, alphabetical, and hierarchical. Presents a design for a hypertext-based hierarchical display that addresses many inadequacies of printed hierarchical displays. Ullustrates how the design might be implemented using a commercially available hypertext system. Considers issues related to the implementation and evaluation of hypertext-based thesauri