Fugmann, R.: ¬The complementarity of natural and index language in the field of information supply : an overview of their specific capabilities and limitations (2002)
0.01
0.009676432 = product of:
0.067735024 = sum of:
0.067735024 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.067735024 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = queryNorm
0.3164402 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- 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.
