-
Evens, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval (2002)
0.02
0.01964334 = product of:
0.09166892 = sum of:
0.04711391 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04711391 = score(doc=1201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13215348 = queryWeight, product of:
5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.35650903 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
0.01122526 = weight(_text_:information in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01122526 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
0.033329744 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033329744 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- Thesaural relations have long been used in information retrieval to enrich queries; they have sometimes been used to cluster documents as well. Sometimes the first query to an information retrieval system yields no results at all, or, what can be even more disconcerting, many thousands of hits. One solution is to rephrase the query, improving the choice of query terms by using related terms of different types. A collection of related terms is often called a thesaurus. This chapter describes the lexical-semantic relations that have been used in building thesauri and summarizes some of the effects of using these relational thesauri in information retrieval experiments
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
- Theme
- Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
-
Boteram, F.: Semantische Relationen in Dokumentationssprachen : vom Thesaurus zum semantischen Netz (2010)
0.02
0.01591827 = product of:
0.074285254 = sum of:
0.00585677 = weight(_text_:information in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00585677 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
0.017389767 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017389767 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
0.051038712 = product of:
0.07655807 = sum of:
0.05325262 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05325262 = score(doc=4792,freq=3.0), product of:
0.117538005 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.45306724 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
1.7320508 = tf(freq=3.0), with freq of:
3.0 = termFreq=3.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
0.023305446 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023305446 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08605168 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- Moderne Verfahren des Information Retrieval verlangen nach aussagekräftigen und detailliert relationierten Dokumentationssprachen. Der selektive Transfer einzelner Modellierungsstrategien aus dem Bereich semantischer Technologien für die Gestaltung und Relationierung bestehender Dokumentationssprachen wird diskutiert. In Form einer Taxonomie wird ein hierarchisch strukturiertes Relationeninventar definiert, welches sowohl hinreichend allgemeine als auch zahlreiche spezifische Relationstypen enthält, die eine detaillierte und damit aussagekräftige Relationierung des Vokabulars ermöglichen. Das bringt einen Zugewinn an Übersichtlichkeit und Funktionalität. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Ansätzen und Überlegungen zur Schaffung von Relationeninventaren entwickelt der vorgestellte Vorschlag das Relationeninventar aus der Begriffsmenge eines bestehenden Gegenstandsbereichs heraus.
- Source
- Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
- Year
- 2010
-
Fugmann, R.: ¬Die Funktion von semantischen Kategorien in Indexierungssprachen und bei der Indexierung (1986)
0.02
0.015677702 = product of:
0.1097439 = sum of:
0.0816037 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 1554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0816037 = score(doc=1554,freq=6.0), product of:
0.13215348 = queryWeight, product of:
5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.61749184 = fieldWeight in 1554, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1554)
0.0281402 = weight(_text_:frankfurt in 1554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0281402 = score(doc=1554,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10213336 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.27552408 = fieldWeight in 1554, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1554)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Wenn man unter "Indexierung" den zweistufigen Prozeß (a) des Erkennens der Essenz eines wiederauffindbar zu machenden Textes und (b) des Wiedergebens dieser Essenz in einer ausreichend wiedergabetreuen und genügend gut voraussagbaren Form versteht, dann kann die Qualität der Indexierung gesteigert werden, wenn sie unter besonderer Beachtung der Begriffe aus einer kleinen Zahl von besonders wichtigen semantischen Kategorien erfolgt. Bei der Gestaltung der Indexierungssprache müssen die Begriffe aus diesen Kategorien in der erforderlichen Detailliertheit in den Wortschatz aufgenommen werden, und Präkombinationen, die zu "multikategorialen" Begroffen führen, sind möglichst weitgehend zu vermeiden. Präkombinationen, die ausschließlich durch Einbeziehung von häufig vorkommenden ("ubiquitätren") monokategorialen Begriffen gebildet werden, können und sollen aus pragmatischen Gründen für den Wortschatz zugelassen werden. Das Konzept des "Relationenweges" erklärt, inwiefern solche Präkombinationen für den Wortschatz nicht schädlich sind
- Imprint
- Frankfurt : Indeks
-
Tudhope, D.; Alani, H.; Jones, C.: Augmenting thesaurus relationships : possibilities for retrieval (2001)
0.02
0.015261383 = product of:
0.07121979 = sum of:
0.03926159 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03926159 = score(doc=1520,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13215348 = queryWeight, product of:
5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.29709086 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
0.004183407 = weight(_text_:information in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004183407 = score(doc=1520,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
0.027774787 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027774787 = score(doc=1520,freq=10.0), product of:
0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.37365708 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- 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
- Theme
- Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
-
Michel, D.: Taxonomy of Subject Relationships (1997)
0.01
0.01476653 = product of:
0.103365704 = sum of:
0.07852318 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 5346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07852318 = score(doc=5346,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13215348 = queryWeight, product of:
5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.5941817 = fieldWeight in 5346, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5346)
0.024842525 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024842525 = score(doc=5346,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 5346, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5346)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Theme
- Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
-
Fugmann, R.: Unusual possibilities in indexing and classification (1990)
0.01
0.013733087 = product of:
0.06408774 = sum of:
0.006693451 = weight(_text_:information in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006693451 = score(doc=4781,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4781, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4781)
0.01987402 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01987402 = score(doc=4781,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 4781, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4781)
0.03752027 = weight(_text_:frankfurt in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03752027 = score(doc=4781,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10213336 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.36736545 = fieldWeight in 4781, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4781)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- Contemporary research in information science has concentrated on the development of methods for the algorithmic processing of natural language texts. Often, the equivalence of this approach to the intellectual technique of content analysis and indexing is claimed. It is, however, disregarded that contemporary intellectual techniques are far from exploiting their full capabilities. This is largely due to the omission of vocabulary categorisation. It is demonstrated how categorisation can drastically improve the quality of indexing and classification, and, hence, of retrieval
- Imprint
- Frankfurt : Indeks
-
DIN 31623: Indexierung zur inhaltlichen Erschließung von Dokumenten : T.1: Begriffe, Grundlagen; T.2: Gleichordnende Indexierung mit Deskriptoren; T.3: Syntaktische Indexierung mit Deskriptoren (1988)
0.01
0.013461118 = product of:
0.18845564 = sum of:
0.18845564 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18845564 = score(doc=832,freq=8.0), product of:
0.13215348 = queryWeight, product of:
5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
1.4260361 = fieldWeight in 832, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=832)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Footnote
- Vgl. auch den Beitrag: Jansen, R.: Intentionen der Indexierungsnorm 31623 und Überlegungen zum Verhältnis gleichordnende/syntaktische Indexierung
-
Körner, H.G.: Syntax und Gewichtung in Informationssprachen : Ein Fortschrittsbericht über präzisere Indexierung und Computer-Suche (1985)
0.01
0.011104856 = product of:
0.15546797 = sum of:
0.15546797 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15546797 = score(doc=281,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13215348 = queryWeight, product of:
5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
1.1764199 = fieldWeight in 281, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=281)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Footnote
- Eine gute Darstellung über die verschiedenen Möglichkeiten der syntaktischen Indexierung
-
Krömmelbein, U.: Linguistische und fachwissenschaftliche Gesichtspunkte der Schlagwortsyntax : Eine vergleichende Untersuchung der Regeln für die Schlagwortvergabe der Deutschen Bibliothek, der RSWK und der Indexierungsverfahren Voll-PRECIS und Kurz-PRECIS (1984)
0.01
0.010750588 = product of:
0.07525411 = sum of:
0.04711391 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04711391 = score(doc=984,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13215348 = queryWeight, product of:
5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.35650903 = fieldWeight in 984, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=984)
0.0281402 = weight(_text_:frankfurt in 984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0281402 = score(doc=984,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10213336 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.27552408 = fieldWeight in 984, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=984)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Die deutsche Bibliothek in Frankfurt bietet seit einigen Jahren zentrale Dienste im Bereich der verbalen Sacherschließung an, Um deren Akzeptanz zu verbessern, will die Deutsche Bibliothek ab 1986 von der augenblicklichen gleichordnenden Indexierung zu einem syntaktischen Verfahren übergehen. Als Alternativen standen die RSWK und eine verkürzte Version des britischen Indexierungsverfahrens PRECIS zur Diskussion. Die Anforderungen einer Fachwissenschaft an die Schlagwort-Syntax einer adäquaten Dokumentationssprache werden exemplarisch entwickelt, die vier Alternativen - augenblickliche verbale Sacherschließunf der DB, RSWK, PRECIS (britische Version) und Kurz-PRECIS (DB-Version) - an ihnen gemessen. Die Kriterien basiern auf Grammatiktheorien der modernen Linguistik und gehen von einer Analogie zwischen Dokumentationssprachen und natürlicher Sprache aus.
-
Bean, C.: ¬The semantics of hierarchy : explicit parent-child relationships in MeSH tree structures (1998)
0.01
0.01033657 = product of:
0.07235599 = sum of:
0.054966226 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 42) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054966226 = score(doc=42,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13215348 = queryWeight, product of:
5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.4159272 = fieldWeight in 42, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=42)
0.017389767 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 42) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017389767 = score(doc=42,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 42, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=42)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Theme
- Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
-
ALA / Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures: Final Report to the ALCTS/CCS Subject Analysis Committee (1997)
0.01
0.009779208 = product of:
0.045636304 = sum of:
0.027483113 = weight(_text_:indexierung in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027483113 = score(doc=1800,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13215348 = queryWeight, product of:
5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.2079636 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.377919 = idf(docFreq=554, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
0.00585677 = weight(_text_:information in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00585677 = score(doc=1800,freq=8.0), product of:
0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
0.012296421 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012296421 = score(doc=1800,freq=4.0), product of:
0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.16542503 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- The SAC Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures was authorized at the 1995 Midwinter Meeting and appointed shortly before Annual Conference. Its creation was one result of a discussion of how (and why) to promote the display and use of broader-term subject heading references, and its charge reads as follows: To investigate: (1) the kinds of relationships that exist between subjects, the display of which are likely to be useful to catalog users; (2) how these relationships are or could be recorded in authorities and classification formats; (3) options for how these relationships should be presented to users of online and print catalogs, indexes, lists, etc. By the summer 1996 Annual Conference, make some recommendations to SAC about how to disseminate the information and/or implement changes. At that time assess the need for additional time to investigate these issues. The Subcommittee's work on each of the imperatives in the charge was summarized in a report issued at the 1996 Annual Conference (Appendix A). Highlights of this work included the development of a taxonomy of 165 subject relationships; a demonstration that, using existing MARC coding, catalog systems could be programmed to generate references they do not currently support; and an examination of reference displays in several CD-ROM database products. Since that time, work has continued on identifying term relationships and display options; on tracking research, discussion, and implementation of subject relationships in information systems; and on compiling a list of further research needs.
- Content
- Enthält: Appendix A: Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures - REPORT TO THE ALCTS/CCS SUBJECT ANALYSIS COMMITTEE - July 1996 Appendix B (part 1): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (alphabetical display) (Separat in: http://web2.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/CCS/committees/subjectanalysis/subjectrelations/msrscu2.pdf) Appendix B (part 2): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (hierarchical display) Appendix C: Checklist of Candidate Subject Relationships for Information Retrieval. Compiled by Dee Michel, Pat Kuhr, and Jane Greenberg; edited by Greg Wool - June 1997 Appendix D: Review of Reference Displays in Selected CD-ROM Abstracts and Indexes by Harriette Hemmasi and Steven Riel Appendix E: Analysis of Relationships in Six LC Subject Authority Records by Harriette Hemmasi and Gary Strawn Appendix F: Report of a Preliminary Survey of Subject Referencing in OPACs by Gregory Wool Appendix G: LC Subject Referencing in OPACs--Why Bother? by Gregory Wool Appendix H: Research Needs on Subject Relationships and Reference Structures in Information Access compiled by Jane Greenberg and Steven Riel with contributions from Dee Michel and others edited by Gregory Wool Appendix I: Bibliography on Subject Relationships compiled mostly by Dee Michel with additional contributions from Jane Greenberg, Steven Riel, and Gregory Wool
- Theme
- Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
-
Farradane, J.: Concept organization for information retrieval (1967)
0.01
0.00939302 = product of:
0.065751135 = sum of:
0.016565446 = weight(_text_:information in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016565446 = score(doc=35,freq=4.0), product of:
0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
0.049185686 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049185686 = score(doc=35,freq=4.0), product of:
0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.6617001 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Source
- Information storage and retrieval. 3(1967) S.297-314
-
Fugmann, R.: ¬The complementarity of natural and indexing languages (1985)
0.01
0.009292958 = product of:
0.04336714 = sum of:
0.0047329846 = weight(_text_:information in 3641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0047329846 = score(doc=3641,freq=4.0), product of:
0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 3641, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3641)
0.01987402 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01987402 = score(doc=3641,freq=8.0), product of:
0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 3641, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3641)
0.018760135 = weight(_text_:frankfurt in 3641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018760135 = score(doc=3641,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10213336 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.18368272 = fieldWeight in 3641, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.1562657 = idf(docFreq=1882, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3641)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- The second Cranfield experiment (Cranfield II) in the mid-1960s challenged assumptions held by librarians for nearly a century, namely, that the objective of providing subject access was to bring together all materials an a given topic and that the achieving of this objective required vocabulary control in the form of an index language. The results of Cranfield II were replicated by other retrieval experiments quick to follow its lead and increasing support was given to the opinion that natural language information systems could perform at least as effectively, and certainly more economically, than those employing index languages. When the results of empirical research dramatically counter conventional wisdom, an obvious course is to question the validity of the research and, in the case of retrieval experiments, this eventually happened. Retrieval experiments were criticized for their artificiality, their unrepresentative sampies, and their problematic definitions-particularly the definition of relevance. In the minds of some, at least, the relative merits of natural languages vs. indexing languages continued to be an unresolved issue. As with many eitherlor options, a seemingly safe course to follow is to opt for "both," and indeed there seems to be an increasing amount of counsel advising a combination of natural language and index language search capabilities. One strong voice offering such counsel is that of Robert Fugmann, a chemist by training, a theoretician by predilection, and, currently, a practicing information scientist at Hoechst AG, Frankfurt/Main. This selection from his writings sheds light an the capabilities and limitations of both kinds of indexing. Its special significance lies in the fact that its arguments are based not an empirical but an rational grounds. Fugmann's major argument starts from the observation that in natural language there are essentially two different kinds of concepts: 1) individual concepts, repre sented by names of individual things (e.g., the name of the town Augsburg), and 2) general concepts represented by names of classes of things (e.g., pesticides). Individual concepts can be represented in language simply and succinctly, often by a single string of alphanumeric characters; general concepts, an the other hand, can be expressed in a multiplicity of ways. The word pesticides refers to the concept of pesticides, but also referring to this concept are numerous circumlocutions, such as "Substance X was effective against pests." Because natural language is capable of infinite variety, we cannot predict a priori the manifold ways a general concept, like pesticides, will be represented by any given author. It is this lack of predictability that limits natural language retrieval and causes poor precision and recall. Thus, the essential and defining characteristic of an index language ls that it is a tool for representational predictability.
-
Fox, E.A.: Lexical relations : enhancing effectiveness of information retrieval systems (1980)
0.01
0.007590706 = product of:
0.05313494 = sum of:
0.013386902 = weight(_text_:information in 5310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013386902 = score(doc=5310,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 5310, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5310)
0.03974804 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03974804 = score(doc=5310,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 5310, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5310)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
-
Fugmann, R.: ¬The analytico-synthetic foundation for large indexing & information retrieval systems : dedicated to Prof. Dr. Werner Schultheis, the vigorous initiator of modern chem. documentation in Germany on the occasion of his 85th birthday (1983)
0.01
0.0070556896 = product of:
0.049389824 = sum of:
0.014967012 = weight(_text_:information in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014967012 = score(doc=215,freq=10.0), product of:
0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.3469568 = fieldWeight in 215, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=215)
0.03442281 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03442281 = score(doc=215,freq=6.0), product of:
0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.46309367 = fieldWeight in 215, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=215)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- LCSH
- Information retrieval
- RSWK
- Information und Dokumentation / Systemgrundlage (BVB)
- Subject
- Information und Dokumentation / Systemgrundlage (BVB)
Information retrieval
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Thesaural relationships (2001)
0.01
0.0066460758 = product of:
0.03101502 = sum of:
0.00585677 = weight(_text_:information in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00585677 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
0.017389767 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017389767 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
0.007768482 = product of:
0.023305446 = sum of:
0.023305446 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023305446 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08605168 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- 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
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.2
-
Kobrin, R.Y.: On the principles of terminological work in the creation of thesauri for information retrieval systems (1979)
0.01
0.006641868 = product of:
0.046493076 = sum of:
0.01171354 = weight(_text_:information in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01171354 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
0.034779534 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034779534 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
-
Salton, G.: Experiments in automatic thesaurus construction for information retrieval (1972)
0.01
0.006641868 = product of:
0.046493076 = sum of:
0.01171354 = weight(_text_:information in 5314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01171354 = score(doc=5314,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 5314, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5314)
0.034779534 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034779534 = score(doc=5314,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 5314, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5314)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
-
Maniez, J.: Fusion de banques de donnees documentaires at compatibilite des languages d'indexation (1997)
0.01
0.0064841276 = product of:
0.030259263 = sum of:
0.008695048 = weight(_text_:information in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008695048 = score(doc=2246,freq=6.0), product of:
0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2246, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2246)
0.014905514 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014905514 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2246, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2246)
0.006658699 = product of:
0.019976096 = sum of:
0.019976096 = weight(_text_:22 in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019976096 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08605168 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2246, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2246)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- Discusses the apparently unattainable goal of compatibility of information languages. While controlled languages can improve retrieval performance within a single system, they make cooperation across different systems more difficult. The Internet and downloading accentuate this adverse outcome and the acceleration of data exchange aggravates the problem of compatibility. Defines this familiar concept and demonstrates that coherence is just as necessary as it was for indexing languages, the proliferation of which has created confusion in grouped data banks. Describes 2 types of potential solutions, similar to those applied to automatic translation of natural languages: - harmonizing the information languages themselves, both difficult and expensive, or, the more flexible solution involving automatic harmonization of indexing formulae based on pre established concordance tables. However, structural incompatibilities between post coordinated languages and classifications may lead any harmonization tools up a blind alley, while the paths of a universal concordance model are rare and narrow
- Date
- 1. 8.1996 22:01:00
- Footnote
- Übers. d. Titels: Integration of information data banks and compatibility of indexing languages
-
Khoo, S.G.; Na, J.-C.: Semantic relations in information science (2006)
0.01
0.006408911 = product of:
0.029908251 = sum of:
0.008674823 = weight(_text_:web in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008674823 = score(doc=1978,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.108171105 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
0.008324875 = weight(_text_:information in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008324875 = score(doc=1978,freq=22.0), product of:
0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.19298252 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
0.012908555 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012908555 = score(doc=1978,freq=6.0), product of:
0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.024573348 = queryNorm
0.17366013 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- 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
