Search (40 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Theorie verbaler Dokumentationssprachen"
  1. Khoo, S.G.; Na, J.-C.: Semantic relations in information science (2006) 0.05
    0.053157344 = product of:
      0.08859557 = sum of:
        0.042174287 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042174287 = score(doc=1978,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.18292886 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
        0.019450538 = weight(_text_:of in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019450538 = score(doc=1978,freq=66.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2977506 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
              8.124039 = tf(freq=66.0), with freq of:
                66.0 = termFreq=66.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
        0.026970748 = product of:
          0.053941496 = sum of:
            0.053941496 = weight(_text_:mind in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.053941496 = score(doc=1978,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2607373 = queryWeight, product of:
                  6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04177434 = queryNorm
                0.20688063 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6 = coord(3/5)
    
    Abstract
    This chapter examines the nature of semantic relations and their main applications in information science. The nature and types of semantic relations are discussed from the perspectives of linguistics and psychology. An overview of the semantic relations used in knowledge structures such as thesauri and ontologies is provided, as well as the main techniques used in the automatic extraction of semantic relations from text. The chapter then reviews the use of semantic relations in information extraction, information retrieval, question-answering, and automatic text summarization applications. Concepts and relations are the foundation of knowledge and thought. When we look at the world, we perceive not a mass of colors but objects to which we automatically assign category labels. Our perceptual system automatically segments the world into concepts and categories. Concepts are the building blocks of knowledge; relations act as the cement that links concepts into knowledge structures. We spend much of our lives identifying regular associations and relations between objects, events, and processes so that the world has an understandable structure and predictability. Our lives and work depend on the accuracy and richness of this knowledge structure and its web of relations. Relations are needed for reasoning and inferencing. Chaffin and Herrmann (1988b, p. 290) noted that "relations between ideas have long been viewed as basic to thought, language, comprehension, and memory." Aristotle's Metaphysics (Aristotle, 1961; McKeon, expounded on several types of relations. The majority of the 30 entries in a section of the Metaphysics known today as the Philosophical Lexicon referred to relations and attributes, including cause, part-whole, same and opposite, quality (i.e., attribute) and kind-of, and defined different types of each relation. Hume (1955) pointed out that there is a connection between successive ideas in our minds, even in our dreams, and that the introduction of an idea in our mind automatically recalls an associated idea. He argued that all the objects of human reasoning are divided into relations of ideas and matters of fact and that factual reasoning is founded on the cause-effect relation. His Treatise of Human Nature identified seven kinds of relations: resemblance, identity, relations of time and place, proportion in quantity or number, degrees in quality, contrariety, and causation. Mill (1974, pp. 989-1004) discoursed on several types of relations, claiming that all things are either feelings, substances, or attributes, and that attributes can be a quality (which belongs to one object) or a relation to other objects.
    Linguists in the structuralist tradition (e.g., Lyons, 1977; Saussure, 1959) have asserted that concepts cannot be defined on their own but only in relation to other concepts. Semantic relations appear to reflect a logical structure in the fundamental nature of thought (Caplan & Herrmann, 1993). Green, Bean, and Myaeng (2002) noted that semantic relations play a critical role in how we represent knowledge psychologically, linguistically, and computationally, and that many systems of knowledge representation start with a basic distinction between entities and relations. Green (2001, p. 3) said that "relationships are involved as we combine simple entities to form more complex entities, as we compare entities, as we group entities, as one entity performs a process on another entity, and so forth. Indeed, many things that we might initially regard as basic and elemental are revealed upon further examination to involve internal structure, or in other words, internal relationships." Concepts and relations are often expressed in language and text. Language is used not just for communicating concepts and relations, but also for representing, storing, and reasoning with concepts and relations. We shall examine the nature of semantic relations from a linguistic and psychological perspective, with an emphasis on relations expressed in text. The usefulness of semantic relations in information science, especially in ontology construction, information extraction, information retrieval, question-answering, and text summarization is discussed. Research and development in information science have focused on concepts and terms, but the focus will increasingly shift to the identification, processing, and management of relations to achieve greater effectiveness and refinement in information science techniques. Previous chapters in ARIST on natural language processing (Chowdhury, 2003), text mining (Trybula, 1999), information retrieval and the philosophy of language (Blair, 2003), and query expansion (Efthimiadis, 1996) provide a background for this discussion, as semantic relations are an important part of these applications.
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 40(2006), S.157-228
  2. Khoo, C.; Chan, S.; Niu, Y.: ¬The many facets of the cause-effect relation (2002) 0.03
    0.028743207 = product of:
      0.07185802 = sum of:
        0.01791652 = weight(_text_:of in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01791652 = score(doc=1192,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
        0.053941496 = product of:
          0.10788299 = sum of:
            0.10788299 = weight(_text_:mind in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.10788299 = score(doc=1192,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2607373 = queryWeight, product of:
                  6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04177434 = queryNorm
                0.41376126 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    This chapter presents a broad survey of the cause-effect relation, with particular emphasis an how the relation is expressed in text. Philosophers have been grappling with the concept of causation for centuries. Researchers in social psychology have found that the human mind has a very complex mechanism for identifying and attributing the cause for an event. Inferring cause-effect relations between events and statements has also been found to be an important part of reading and text comprehension, especially for narrative text. Though many of the cause-effect relations in text are implied and have to be inferred by the reader, there is also a wide variety of linguistic expressions for explicitly indicating cause and effect. In addition, it has been found that certain words have "causal valence"-they bias the reader to attribute cause in certain ways. Cause-effect relations can also be divided into several different types.
    Source
    The semantics of relationships: an interdisciplinary perspective. Eds: Green, R., C.A. Bean u. S.H. Myaeng
  3. Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Thesaural relationships (2001) 0.02
    0.016284827 = product of:
      0.040712066 = sum of:
        0.020902606 = weight(_text_:of in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020902606 = score(doc=1149,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
        0.019809462 = product of:
          0.039618924 = sum of:
            0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.039618924 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04177434 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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
    Source
    Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
  4. Tudhope, D.; Alani, H.; Jones, C.: Augmenting thesaurus relationships : possibilities for retrieval (2001) 0.01
    0.013670124 = product of:
      0.03417531 = sum of:
        0.008315044 = product of:
          0.041575223 = sum of:
            0.041575223 = weight(_text_:problem in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.041575223 = score(doc=1520,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04177434 = queryNorm
                0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
        0.025860265 = weight(_text_:of in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025860265 = score(doc=1520,freq=42.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.39587128 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
              6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
                42.0 = termFreq=42.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    This paper discusses issues concerning the augmentation of thesaurus relationships, in light of new application possibilities for retrieval. We first discuss a case study that explored the retrieval potential of an augmented set of thesaurus relationships by specialising standard relationships into richer subtypes, in particular hierarchical geographical containment and the associative relationship. We then locate this work in a broader context by reviewing various attempts to build taxonomies of thesaurus relationships, and conclude by discussing the feasibility of hierarchically augmenting the core set of thesaurus relationships, particularly the associative relationship. We discuss the possibility of enriching the specification and semantics of Related Term (RT relationships), while maintaining compatibility with traditional thesauri via a limited hierarchical extension of the associative (and hierarchical) relationships. This would be facilitated by distinguishing the type of term from the (sub)type of relationship and explicitly specifying semantic categories for terms following a faceted approach. We first illustrate how hierarchical spatial relationships can be used to provide more flexible retrieval for queries incorporating place names in applications employing online gazetteers and geographical thesauri. We then employ a set of experimental scenarios to investigate key issues affecting use of the associative (RT) thesaurus relationships in semantic distance measures. Previous work has noted the potential of RTs in thesaurus search aids but also the problem of uncontrolled expansion of query term sets. Results presented in this paper suggest the potential for taking account of the hierarchical context of an RT link and specialisations of the RT relationship
    Source
    Journal of digital information. 1(2001) no.8
  5. Barite, M.G.: ¬The notion of "category" : its implications in subject analysis and in the construction and evaluation of indexing languages (2000) 0.01
    0.005473587 = product of:
      0.027367935 = sum of:
        0.027367935 = weight(_text_:of in 6036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027367935 = score(doc=6036,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.41895083 = fieldWeight in 6036, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6036)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    The notion of category, from Aristotle and Kant to the present time, has been used as a basic intellectual tool for the analysis of the existence and changeableness of things. Ranganathan was the first to extrapolate the concept into the Theory of Classification, placing it as an essential axis for the logical organization of knowledge and the construction of indexing languages. This paper proposes a conceptual and methodological reexamination of the notion of category from a functional and instrumental perspective, and tries to clarify the essential characters of categories in that context, and their present implications regarding the construction and evaluation of indexing languages
  6. Mazzocchi, F.; Tiberi, M.; De Santis, B.; Plini, P.: Relational semantics in thesauri : an overview and some remarks at theoretical and practical levels (2007) 0.01
    0.0054127416 = product of:
      0.027063707 = sum of:
        0.027063707 = weight(_text_:of in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027063707 = score(doc=1462,freq=46.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.41429368 = fieldWeight in 1462, product of:
              6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
                46.0 = termFreq=46.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1462)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    A thesaurus is a controlled vocabulary designed to allow for effective information retrieval. It con- sists of different kinds of semantic relationships, with the aim of guiding users to the choice of the most suitable index and search terms for expressing a certain concept. The relational semantics of a thesaurus deal with methods to connect terms with related meanings and arc intended to enhance information recall capabilities. In this paper, focused on hierarchical relations, different aspects of the relational semantics of thesauri, and among them the possibility of developing richer structures, are analyzed. Thesauri are viewed as semantic tools providing, for operational purposes, the representation of the meaning of the terms. The paper stresses how theories of semantics, holding different perspectives about the nature of meaning and how it is represented, affect the design of the relational semantics of thesauri. The need for tools capable of representing the complexity of knowledge and of the semantics of terms as it occurs in the literature of their respective subject fields is advocated. It is underlined how this would contribute to improving the retrieval of information. To achieve this goal, even though in a preliminary manner, we explore the possibility of setting against the framework of thesaurus design the notions of language games and hermeneutic horizon.
  7. Vickery, B.B.: Structure and function in retrieval languages (2006) 0.00
    0.00488322 = product of:
      0.024416098 = sum of:
        0.024416098 = weight(_text_:of in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024416098 = score(doc=5584,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to summarize the varied structural characteristics which may be present in retrieval languages. Design/methodology/approach - The languages serve varied purposes in information systems, and a number of these are identified. The relations between structure and function are discussed and suggestions made as to the most suitable structures needed for various purposes. Findings - A quantitative approach has been developed: a simple measure is the number of separate terms in a retrieval language, but this has to be related to the scope of its subject field. Some ratio of terms to items in the field seems a more suitable measure of the average specificity of the terms. Other aspects can be quantified - for example, the average number of links in hierarchical chains, or the average number of cross-references in a thesaurus. Originality/value - All the approaches to the analysis of retrieval language reported in this paper are of continuing value. Some practical studies of computer information systems undertaken by Aslib Research Department have suggested a further approach.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 62(2006) no.1, S.7-20
  8. Mai, J.-E.: Actors, domains, and constraints in the design and construction of controlled vocabularies (2008) 0.00
    0.004788391 = product of:
      0.023941955 = sum of:
        0.023941955 = weight(_text_:of in 1921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023941955 = score(doc=1921,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.36650562 = fieldWeight in 1921, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1921)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    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.
  9. Gilchrist, A.: Structure and function in retrieval (2006) 0.00
    0.0044919094 = product of:
      0.022459546 = sum of:
        0.022459546 = weight(_text_:of in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022459546 = score(doc=5585,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    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
  10. Green, R.; Bean, C.A.: Aligning systems of relationships (2006) 0.00
    0.004423326 = product of:
      0.02211663 = sum of:
        0.02211663 = weight(_text_:of in 4949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02211663 = score(doc=4949,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 4949, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4949)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    The lateral relations of Neelameghan and Raghavan are mapped to their closest correspondents in FrameNet. Analvsis of this alignment highlights important characteristics of each system of relationships and reveals varying degrees of compatibility between them.
  11. ¬The semantics of relationships : an interdisciplinary perspective (2002) 0.00
    0.004371183 = product of:
      0.021855915 = sum of:
        0.021855915 = weight(_text_:of in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021855915 = score(doc=1430,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Work on relationships takes place in many communities, including, among others, data modeling, knowledge representation, natural language processing, linguistics, and information retrieval. Unfortunately, continued disciplinary splintering and specialization keeps any one person from being familiar with the full expanse of that work. By including contributions form experts in a variety of disciplines and backgrounds, this volume demonstrates both the parallels that inform work on relationships across a number of fields and the singular emphases that have yet to be fully embraced, The volume is organized into 3 parts: (1) Types of relationships (2) Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning (3) Applications of relationships
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: Pt.1: Types of relationships: CRUDE, D.A.: Hyponymy and its varieties; FELLBAUM, C.: On the semantics of troponymy; PRIBBENOW, S.: Meronymic relationships: from classical mereology to complex part-whole relations; KHOO, C. u.a.: The many facets of cause-effect relation - Pt.2: Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning: GREEN, R.: Internally-structured conceptual models in cognitive semantics; HOVY, E.: Comparing sets of semantic relations in ontologies; GUARINO, N., C. WELTY: Identity and subsumption; JOUIS; C.: Logic of relationships - Pt.3: Applications of relationships: EVENS, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval; KHOO, C., S.H. MYAENG: Identifying semantic relations in text for information retrieval and information extraction; McCRAY, A.T., O. BODENREICHER: A conceptual framework for the biiomedical domain; HETZLER, B.: Visual analysis and exploration of relationships
    Footnote
    Mit ausführlicher Einleitung der Herausgeber zu den Themen: Types of relationships - Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning - Applications of relationships
  12. Green, R.: Relationships in the organization of knowledge : an overview (2001) 0.00
    0.0041805212 = product of:
      0.020902606 = sum of:
        0.020902606 = weight(_text_:of in 1142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020902606 = score(doc=1142,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 1142, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1142)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Relationships are specified by simultaneously identifying a semantic relationship and the set of participants involved in it, pairing each participant with its role in the relationship. Properties pertaining to the participant set and the nature of the relationship are explored. Relationships in the organization of knowledge are surveyed, encompassing relationships between units of recorded knowledge based an descriptions of those units; intratextual and intertextual relationships, including relationships based an text structure, citation relationships, and hypertext links; subject relationships in thesauri and other classificatory structures, including relationships for literature-based knowledge discovery; and relevance relationships.
    Source
    Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
  13. Beghtol, C.: Relationships in classificatory structure and meaning (2001) 0.00
    0.0040630843 = product of:
      0.02031542 = sum of:
        0.02031542 = weight(_text_:of in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02031542 = score(doc=1138,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    In a changing information environment, we need to reassess each element of bibliographic control, including classification theories and systems. Every classification system is a theoretical construct imposed an "reality." The classificatory relationships that are assumed to be valuable have generally received less attention than the topics included in the systems. Relationships are functions of both the syntactic and semantic axes of classification systems, and both explicit and implicit relationships are discussed. Examples are drawn from a number of different systems, both bibliographic and non-bibliographic, and the cultural warrant (i. e., the sociocultural context) of classification systems is examined. The part-whole relationship is discussed as an example of a universally valid concept that is treated as a component of the cultural warrant of a classification system.
    Source
    Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
  14. Milstead, J.L.: Standards for relationships between subject indexing terms (2001) 0.00
    0.0040630843 = product of:
      0.02031542 = sum of:
        0.02031542 = weight(_text_:of in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02031542 = score(doc=1148,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 1148, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1148)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Relationships between the terms in thesauri and Indexes are the subject of national and international standards. The standards for thesauri enumerate and provide criteria for three basic types of relationship: equivalence, hierarchical, and associative. Standards and guidelines for indexes draw an the thesaurus standards to provide less detailed guidance for showing relationships between the terms used in an Index. The international standard for multilingual thesauri adds recommendations for assuring equal treatment of the languages of a thesaurus. The present standards were developed when lookup and search were essentially manual, and the value of the kinds of relationships has never been determined. It is not clear whether users understand or can use the distinctions between kinds of relationships. On the other hand, sophisticated text analysis systems may be able both to assist with development of more powerful term relationship schemes and to use the relationships to improve retrieval.
    Source
    Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
  15. Bodenreider, O.; Bean, C.A.: Relationships among knowledge structures : vocabulary integration within a subject domain (2001) 0.00
    0.004037926 = product of:
      0.02018963 = sum of:
        0.02018963 = weight(_text_:of in 1145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018963 = score(doc=1145,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 1145, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1145)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    The structure of terminology systems can be seen as one way to organize knowledge. This paper focuses an three types of relationships among terms: synonymy, hierarchical relationships, and explicit mapping relationships. Examples drawn from various medical vocabularies illustrate each type of relationship. The integration of disparate terminological knowledge structures in the Unified Medical Language System is presented and discussed.
    Source
    Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
  16. Green, R.; Fraser, L.: Patterns in verbal polysemy (2004) 0.00
    0.004037926 = product of:
      0.02018963 = sum of:
        0.02018963 = weight(_text_:of in 2621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018963 = score(doc=2621,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 2621, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2621)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Although less well studied than noun polysemy, verb polysemy affects both natural language and controlled vocabulary searching. This paper reports the preliminary conclusions of an empirical investigation of the semantic relationships between ca. 600 verb sense pairs in English, illustrating six classes of semantic relationships that account for a significant proportion of verbal polysemy.
    Source
    Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
  17. Fugmann, R.: ¬The complementarity of natural and index language in the field of information supply : an overview of their specific capabilities and limitations (2002) 0.00
    0.003909705 = product of:
      0.019548526 = sum of:
        0.019548526 = weight(_text_:of in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019548526 = score(doc=1412,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Natural text phrasing is an indeterminate process and, thus, inherently lacks representational predictability. This holds true in particular in the Gase of general concepts and of their syntactical connectivity. Hence, natural language query phrasing and searching is an unending adventure of trial and error and, in most Gases, has an unsatisfactory outcome with respect to the recall and precision ratlos of the responses. Human indexing is based an knowledgeable document interpretation and aims - among other things - at introducing predictability into the representation of documents. Due to the indeterminacy of natural language text phrasing and image construction, any adequate indexing is also indeterminate in nature and therefore inherently defies any satisfactory algorithmization. But human indexing suffers from a different Set of deficiencies which are absent in the processing of non-interpreted natural language. An optimally effective information System combines both types of language in such a manner that their specific strengths are preserved and their weaknesses are avoided. lf the goal is a large and enduring information system for more than merely known-item searches, the expenditure for an advanced index language and its knowledgeable and careful employment is unavoidable.
  18. Hoerman, H.L.; Furniss, K.A.: Turning practice into principles : a comparison of the IFLA Principles underlying Subject Heading Languages (SHLs) and the principles underlying the Library of Congress Subject Headings system (2000) 0.00
    0.0038307128 = product of:
      0.019153563 = sum of:
        0.019153563 = weight(_text_:of in 5611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019153563 = score(doc=5611,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 5611, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5611)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    The IFLA Section on Classification and Indexing's Working Group on Principles Underlying Subject Headings Languages has identified a set of eleven principles for subject heading languages and excerpted the texts that match each principle from the instructions for each of eleven national subject indexing systems, including excerpts from the LC's Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings. This study compares the IFLA principles with other texts that express the principles underlying LCSH, especially Library of Congress Subject Headings: Principles of Structure and Policies for Application, prepared by Lois Mai Chan for the Library of Congress in 1990, Chan's later book on LCSH, and earlier documents by Haykin and Cutter. The principles are further elaborated for clarity and discussed
    Source
    The LCSH century: one hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system. Ed.: A.T. Stone
  19. Maniez, J.: Actualité des langages documentaires : fondements théoriques de la recherche d'information (2002) 0.00
    0.0038307128 = product of:
      0.019153563 = sum of:
        0.019153563 = weight(_text_:of in 887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019153563 = score(doc=887,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 887, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=887)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Footnote
    Übers. d. Titels: Actuality of information languages: theoretical foundation of information retrieval
  20. Schmitz-Esser, W.: Formalizing terminology-based knowledge for an ontology independently of a particular language (2008) 0.00
    0.0038307128 = product of:
      0.019153563 = sum of:
        0.019153563 = weight(_text_:of in 1680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019153563 = score(doc=1680,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1680, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1680)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Last word ontological thought and practice is exemplified on an axiomatic framework [a model for an Integrative Cross-Language Ontology (ICLO), cf. Poli, R., Schmitz-Esser, W., forthcoming 2007] that is highly general, based on natural language, multilingual, can be implemented as topic maps and may be openly enhanced by software available for particular languages. Basics of ontological modelling, conditions for construction and maintenance, and the most salient points in application are addressed, such as cross-language text mining and knowledge generation. The rationale is to open the eyes for the tremendous potential of terminology-based ontologies for principled Knowledge Organization and the interchange and reuse of formalized knowledge.
    Source
    Kompatibilität, Medien und Ethik in der Wissensorganisation - Compatibility, Media and Ethics in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings der 10. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Wien, 3.-5. Juli 2006 - Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the German Section of the International Society of Knowledge Organization Vienna, 3-5 July 2006. Ed.: H.P. Ohly, S. Netscher u. K. Mitgutsch