-
Khoo, S.G.; Na, J.-C.: Semantic relations in information science (2006)
0.04
0.038127463 = product of:
0.07625493 = sum of:
0.03587941 = weight(_text_:world in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03587941 = score(doc=1978,freq=6.0), product of:
0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.22066483 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
0.014933523 = weight(_text_:web in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014933523 = score(doc=1978,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.014331094 = weight(_text_:information in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014331094 = score(doc=1978,freq=22.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.011110902 = product of:
0.022221804 = sum of:
0.022221804 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022221804 = score(doc=1978,freq=6.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(4/8)
- 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
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Thesaural relationships (2001)
0.02
0.020034563 = product of:
0.08013825 = sum of:
0.010082305 = weight(_text_:information in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010082305 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.07005595 = sum of:
0.029936114 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029936114 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.04011983 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04011983 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- 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
-
Boteram, F.: Semantische Relationen in Dokumentationssprachen : vom Thesaurus zum semantischen Netz (2010)
0.02
0.020034563 = product of:
0.08013825 = sum of:
0.010082305 = weight(_text_:information in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010082305 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.07005595 = sum of:
0.029936114 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029936114 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.04011983 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04011983 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- 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
-
Dextre Clarke, S.G.; Gilchrist, A.; Will, L.: Revision and extension of thesaurus standards (2004)
0.02
0.019214489 = product of:
0.051238634 = sum of:
0.027619982 = weight(_text_:world in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027619982 = score(doc=2615,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.16986786 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
0.011522634 = weight(_text_:information in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011522634 = score(doc=2615,freq=8.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
0.012096017 = product of:
0.024192033 = sum of:
0.024192033 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024192033 = score(doc=2615,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- The current standards for monolingual and multilingual thesauri are long overdue for an update. This applies to the international standards ISO 2788 and ISO 5964, as well as the corresponding national standards in several countries and the American standard ANSI/NISO Z39.19. Work is now under way in the UK and in the USA to revise and extend the standards, with particular emphasis on interoperability needs in our world of vast electronic networks. Work in the UK is starting with the British Standards, in the hope of leading on to one international standard to serve all. Some of the issues still under discussion include the treatment of facet analysis, coverage of additional types of controlled vocabulary such as classification schemes, taxonomies and ontologies, and mapping from one vocabulary to another. 1. Are thesaurus standards still needed? Since the 1960s, even before the renowned Cranfield experiments (Cleverdon et al., 1966; Cleverdon, 1967) arguments have raged over the usefulness or otherwise of controlled vocabularies. The case has never been proved definitively one way or the other. At the same time, a recognition has become widespread that no one search method can answer all retrieval requirements. In today's environment of very large networks of resources, the skilled information professional uses a range of techniques. Among these, controlled vocabularies are valued alongside others. The first international standard for monolingual thesauri was issued in 1974. In those days, the main application was for postcoordinate indexing and retrieval from document collections or bibliographic databases. For many information professionals the only practicable alternative to a thesaurus was a classification scheme. And so the thesaurus developed a strong following. After computer systems with full text search capability became widely available, however, the arguments against controlled vocabularies gained more followers. The cost of building and maintaining a thesaurus or a classification scheme was a strong disincentive. Today's databases are typically immense compared with those three decades ago. Full text searching is taken for granted, not just in discrete databases but across all the resources in an intranet or even the Internet. But intranets have brought particular frustration as users discover that despite all the computer power, they cannot find items which they know to be present an the network. So the trend against controlled vocabularies is now being reversed, as many information professionals are turning to them for help. Standards to guide them are still in demand.
- 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
-
Maniez, J.: Fusion de banques de donnees documentaires at compatibilite des languages d'indexation (1997)
0.02
0.018754074 = product of:
0.0750163 = sum of:
0.014968341 = weight(_text_:information in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014968341 = score(doc=2246,freq=6.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.060047954 = sum of:
0.025659526 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025659526 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.034388427 = weight(_text_:22 in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034388427 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- 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
-
Farradane, J.: Concept organization for information retrieval (1967)
0.02
0.01771328 = product of:
0.07085312 = sum of:
0.028517064 = weight(_text_:information in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028517064 = score(doc=35,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.042336058 = product of:
0.084672116 = sum of:
0.084672116 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084672116 = score(doc=35,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Source
- Information storage and retrieval. 3(1967) S.297-314
-
Khoo, C.; Chan, S.; Niu, Y.: ¬The many facets of the cause-effect relation (2002)
0.02
0.015923662 = product of:
0.06369465 = sum of:
0.05505267 = weight(_text_:wide in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05505267 = score(doc=1192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18743214 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
0.008641975 = weight(_text_:information in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008641975 = score(doc=1192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- 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.
- Series
- Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
-
Fox, E.A.: Lexical relations : enhancing effectiveness of information retrieval systems (1980)
0.01
0.014314492 = product of:
0.05725797 = sum of:
0.023045268 = weight(_text_:information in 5310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023045268 = score(doc=5310,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.0342127 = product of:
0.0684254 = sum of:
0.0684254 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0684254 = score(doc=5310,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
-
Mooers, C.N.: ¬The indexing language of an information retrieval system (1985)
0.01
0.014016913 = product of:
0.056067653 = sum of:
0.010082305 = weight(_text_:information in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010082305 = score(doc=3644,freq=8.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3644, 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=3644)
0.04598535 = sum of:
0.025925435 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025925435 = score(doc=3644,freq=6.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.20260347 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
0.020059915 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020059915 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- Calvin Mooers' work toward the resolution of the problem of ambiguity in indexing went unrecognized for years. At the time he introduced the "descriptor" - a term with a very distinct meaning-indexers were, for the most part, taking index terms directly from the document, without either rationalizing them with context or normalizing them with some kind of classification. It is ironic that Mooers' term came to be attached to the popular but unsophisticated indexing methods which he was trying to root out. Simply expressed, what Mooers did was to take the dictionary definitions of terms and redefine them so clearly that they could not be used in any context except that provided by the new definition. He did, at great pains, construct such meanings for over four hundred words; disambiguation and specificity were sought after and found for these words. He proposed that all indexers adopt this method so that when the index supplied a term, it also supplied the exact meaning for that term as used in the indexed document. The same term used differently in another document would be defined differently and possibly renamed to avoid ambiguity. The disambiguation was achieved by using unabridged dictionaries and other sources of defining terminology. In practice, this tends to produce circularity in definition, that is, word A refers to word B which refers to word C which refers to word A. It was necessary, therefore, to break this chain by creating a new, definitive meaning for each word. Eventually, means such as those used by Austin (q.v.) for PRECIS achieved the same purpose, but by much more complex means than just creating a unique definition of each term. Mooers, however, was probably the first to realize how confusing undefined terminology could be. Early automatic indexers dealt with distinct disciplines and, as long as they did not stray beyond disciplinary boundaries, a quick and dirty keyword approach was satisfactory. The trouble came when attempts were made to make a combined index for two or more distinct disciplines. A number of processes have since been developed, mostly involving tagging of some kind or use of strings. Mooers' solution has rarely been considered seriously and probably would be extremely difficult to apply now because of so much interdisciplinarity. But for a specific, weIl defined field, it is still weIl worth considering. Mooers received training in mathematics and physics from the University of Minnesota and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was the founder of Zator Company, which developed and marketed a coded card information retrieval system, and of Rockford Research, Inc., which engages in research in information science. He is the inventor of the TRAC computer language.
- Footnote
- Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.
-
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
0.013848616 = product of:
0.055394463 = sum of:
0.025765393 = weight(_text_:information in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025765393 = score(doc=215,freq=10.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.02962907 = product of:
0.05925814 = sum of:
0.05925814 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05925814 = score(doc=215,freq=6.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- LCSH
- Information retrieval
- RSWK
- Information und Dokumentation / Systemgrundlage (BVB)
- Subject
- Information und Dokumentation / Systemgrundlage (BVB)
Information retrieval
-
Maniez, J.: Actualité des langages documentaires : fondements théoriques de la recherche d'information (2002)
0.01
0.012525681 = product of:
0.050102726 = sum of:
0.024443198 = weight(_text_:information in 887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024443198 = score(doc=887,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 887, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=887)
0.025659526 = product of:
0.05131905 = sum of:
0.05131905 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05131905 = score(doc=887,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 887, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=887)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Footnote
- Übers. d. Titels: Actuality of information languages: theoretical foundation of information retrieval
-
Kobrin, R.Y.: On the principles of terminological work in the creation of thesauri for information retrieval systems (1979)
0.01
0.012525181 = product of:
0.050100725 = sum of:
0.02016461 = weight(_text_:information in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02016461 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.029936114 = product of:
0.05987223 = sum of:
0.05987223 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05987223 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
-
Salton, G.: Experiments in automatic thesaurus construction for information retrieval (1972)
0.01
0.012525181 = product of:
0.050100725 = sum of:
0.02016461 = weight(_text_:information in 5314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02016461 = score(doc=5314,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.029936114 = product of:
0.05987223 = sum of:
0.05987223 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05987223 = score(doc=5314,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
-
Evens, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval (2002)
0.01
0.012003068 = product of:
0.04801227 = sum of:
0.019324046 = weight(_text_:information in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019324046 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.028688224 = product of:
0.057376448 = sum of:
0.057376448 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057376448 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- 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
-
Miller, U.; Teitelbaum, R.: Pre-coordination and post-coordination : past and future (2002)
0.01
0.011522511 = product of:
0.046090044 = sum of:
0.02016461 = weight(_text_:information in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02016461 = score(doc=1395,freq=8.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
0.025925435 = product of:
0.05185087 = sum of:
0.05185087 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05185087 = score(doc=1395,freq=6.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- This article deals with the meaningful processing of information in relation to two systems of Information processing: pre-coordination and post-coordination. The different approaches are discussed, with emphasis an the need for a controlled vocabulary in information retrieval. Assigned indexing, which employs a controlled vocabulary, is described in detail. Types of indexing language can be divided into two broad groups - those using pre-coordinated terms and those depending an post-coordination. They represent two different basic approaches in processing and Information retrieval. The historical development of these two approaches is described, as well as the two tools that apply to these approaches: thesauri and subject headings.
- Theme
- Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval
-
Takeda, N.: Problems in hierarchical structures in thesauri : their influences on the results of information retrieval (1994)
0.01
0.010287926 = product of:
0.041151702 = sum of:
0.011522634 = weight(_text_:information in 2642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011522634 = score(doc=2642,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 2642, 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=2642)
0.02962907 = product of:
0.05925814 = sum of:
0.05925814 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05925814 = score(doc=2642,freq=6.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.46309367 = fieldWeight in 2642, 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=2642)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- In online retrieval search results do not always match the intent in spite of using correct keywords (descriptors). One of the causes of this problem is found in the hierarchical structures of the thesaurus, which often contains relations between broader and narrower concepts, the opposite of which is not necessarily true. Some examples are described from 2 thesauri, MeSH and JICST. In these cases searchers need to make an effort to increase precision
- Theme
- Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval
-
Engerer, V.: Control and syntagmatization : vocabulary requirements in information retrieval thesauri and natural language lexicons (2017)
0.01
0.009876438 = product of:
0.039505754 = sum of:
0.01728395 = weight(_text_:information in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01728395 = score(doc=3678,freq=8.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
0.022221804 = product of:
0.044443607 = sum of:
0.044443607 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044443607 = score(doc=3678,freq=6.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- This paper explores the relationships between natural language lexicons in lexical semantics and thesauri in information retrieval research. These different areas of knowledge have different restrictions on use of vocabulary; thesauri are used only in information search and retrieval contexts, whereas lexicons are mental systems and generally applicable in all domains of life. A set of vocabulary requirements that defines the more concrete characteristics of vocabulary items in the 2 contexts can be derived from this framework: lexicon items have to be learnable, complex, transparent, etc., whereas thesaurus terms must be effective, current and relevant, searchable, etc. The differences in vocabulary properties correlate with 2 other factors, the well-known dimension of Control (deliberate, social activities of building and maintaining vocabularies), and Syntagmatization, which is less known and describes vocabulary items' varying formal preparedness to exit the thesaurus/lexicon, enter into linear syntactic constructions, and, finally, acquire communicative functionality. It is proposed that there is an inverse relationship between Control and Syntagmatization.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.6, S.1480-1490
-
Jia, J.: From data to knowledge : the relationships between vocabularies, linked data and knowledge graphs (2021)
0.01
0.0098044295 = product of:
0.039217718 = sum of:
0.024889207 = weight(_text_:web in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024889207 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
0.014328511 = product of:
0.028657023 = sum of:
0.028657023 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028657023 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify the concepts, component parts and relationships between vocabularies, linked data and knowledge graphs (KGs) from the perspectives of data and knowledge transitions. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses conceptual analysis methods. This study focuses on distinguishing concepts and analyzing composition and intercorrelations to explore data and knowledge transitions. Findings Vocabularies are the cornerstone for accurately building understanding of the meaning of data. Vocabularies provide for a data-sharing model and play an important role in supporting the semantic expression of linked data and defining the schema layer; they are also used for entity recognition, alignment and linkage for KGs. KGs, which consist of a schema layer and a data layer, are presented as cubes that organically combine vocabularies, linked data and big data. Originality/value This paper first describes the composition of vocabularies, linked data and KGs. More importantly, this paper innovatively analyzes and summarizes the interrelatedness of these factors, which comes from frequent interactions between data and knowledge. The three factors empower each other and can ultimately empower the Semantic Web.
- Date
- 22. 1.2021 14:24:32
-
Vickery, B.B.: Structure and function in retrieval languages (2006)
0.01
0.009470281 = product of:
0.037881125 = sum of:
0.012221599 = weight(_text_:information in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012221599 = score(doc=5584,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
0.025659526 = product of:
0.05131905 = sum of:
0.05131905 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05131905 = score(doc=5584,freq=8.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- 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.
-
¬The LCSH century : One hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system (2000)
0.01
0.009043289 = product of:
0.036173157 = sum of:
0.027619982 = weight(_text_:world in 1224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027619982 = score(doc=1224,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.16986786 = fieldWeight in 1224, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1224)
0.008553175 = product of:
0.01710635 = sum of:
0.01710635 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01710635 = score(doc=1224,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042302497 = queryNorm
0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 1224, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1224)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Content
- Enthält die Beiträge: BACKGROUND: Alva T STONE: The LCSH Century: A Brief History of the Library of Congress Subject Headings, and Introduction to the Centennial Essays - THEORY AND PRINCIPLES: Elaine SVENONIUS: LCSH: Semantics, Syntax and Specificity; Heidi Lee HOERMAN u. Kevin A. FURNISS: 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; Hope A. OLSON: Difference, Culture and Change:The Untapped Potential of LCSH - ONLINE ENVIRONMENT: Pauline Atherton COCHRANE: Improving LCSH for Use in Online Catalogs Revisited-What Progress Has Been Made? What Issues Still Remain?; Gregory WOOL: Filing and Precoordination: How Subject Headings Are Displayed in Online Catalogs and Why It Matters; Stephen HEARN: Machine-Assisted Validation of LC Subject Headings: Implications for Authority File Structure - SPECIFIC PERSPECTIVES: Thomas MANN: Teaching Library of Congress Subject Headings; Louisa J. KREIDER: LCSH Works! Subject Searching Effectiveness at the Cleveland Public Library and the Growth of Library of Congress Subject Headings Through Cooperation; Harriette HEMMASI u J. Bradford YOUNG: LCSH for Music: Historical and Empirical Perspectives; Joseph MILLER u. Patricia KUHR: LCSH and Periodical Indexing: Adoption vs. Adaptation; David P MILLER: Out from Under: Form/Genre Access in LCSH - WORLD VIEW: Magda HEINER-FREILING: Survey on Subject Heading Languages Used in National Libraries and Bibliographies; Andrew MacEWAN: Crossing Language Barriers in Europe: Linking LCSH to Other Subject Heading Languages; Alvaro QUIJANO-SOLIS u.a.: Automated Authority Files of Spanish-Language Subject Headings - FUTURE PROSPECTS: Lois Mai CHAN u. Theodora HODGES: Entering the Millennium: a new century for LCSH
- Theme
- Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval
