Search (27 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Theorie verbaler Dokumentationssprachen"
  1. Boteram, F.: Semantische Relationen in Dokumentationssprachen : vom Thesaurus zum semantischen Netz (2010) 0.04 
    0.039048996 = product of:
  0.13667148 = sum of:
    0.09217771 = weight(_text_:gestaltung in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09217771 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20432045 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8332562 = idf(docFreq=351, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035026826 = queryNorm
        0.45114288 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8332562 = idf(docFreq=351, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
    0.044493776 = product of:
      0.06674066 = sum of:
        0.033521105 = weight(_text_:29 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033521105 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.123213425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035026826 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
        0.03321956 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03321956 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12265798 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035026826 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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.
    Date
    2. 3.2013 12:29:05
    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
  2. Boteram, F.: Semantische Relationen in Dokumentationssprachen : vom Thesaurus zum semantischen Netz (2008) 0.01 
    0.013168245 = product of:
  0.09217771 = sum of:
    0.09217771 = weight(_text_:gestaltung in 2461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09217771 = score(doc=2461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20432045 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8332562 = idf(docFreq=351, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035026826 = queryNorm
        0.45114288 = fieldWeight in 2461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8332562 = idf(docFreq=351, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2461)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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. Am Beispiel des Gegenstandsbereichs "Theater" der Schlagwortnormdatei wird ein hierarchisch strukturiertes Relationeninventar definiert, welches sowohl hinreichend allgemeine als auch zahlreiche spezifische Relationstypen enthält, welche eine detaillierte und damit funktionale Relationierung des Vokabulars ermöglichen. Die Relationierung des Gegenstandsbereichs wird als Ontologie im OWL-Format modelliert. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Ansätzen und Überlegungen zur Schaffung von Relationeninventaren entwickelt der vorgestellte Vorschlag das Relationeninventar aus der Begriffsmenge eines vorgegebenen Gegenstandsbereichs heraus. Das entwickelte Inventar wird als eine hierarchisch strukturierte Taxonomie gestaltet, was einen Zugewinn an Übersichtlichkeit und Funktionalität bringt.
  3. Fugmann, R.: ¬Die Funktion von semantischen Kategorien in Indexierungssprachen und bei der Indexierung (1986) 0.01 
    0.011287067 = product of:
  0.079009466 = sum of:
    0.079009466 = weight(_text_:gestaltung in 1554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079009466 = score(doc=1554,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20432045 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8332562 = idf(docFreq=351, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035026826 = queryNorm
        0.3866939 = fieldWeight in 1554, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8332562 = idf(docFreq=351, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1554)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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
  4. Boteram, F.: Semantische Relationen in Dokumentationssprachen : vom Thesaurus zum semantischen Netz (2008) 0.01 
    0.011287067 = product of:
  0.079009466 = sum of:
    0.079009466 = weight(_text_:gestaltung in 1837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079009466 = score(doc=1837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20432045 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8332562 = idf(docFreq=351, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035026826 = queryNorm
        0.3866939 = fieldWeight in 1837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8332562 = idf(docFreq=351, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1837)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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. Am Beispiel des Gegenstandsbereichs "Theater" der Schlagwortnormdatei wird ein hierarchisch strukturiertes Relationeninventar definiert, welches sowohl hinreichend allgemeine als auch zahlreiche spezifische Relationstypen enthält, welche eine detaillierte und damit funktionale Relationierung des Vokabulars ermöglichen. Die Relationierung des Gegenstandsbereichs wird als Ontologie im OWL-Format modelliert. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Ansätzen und Überlegungen zur Schaffung von Relationeninventaren entwickelt der vorgestellte Vorschlag das Relationeninventar aus der Begriffsmenge eines vorgegebenen Gegenstandsbereichs heraus. Das entwickelte Inventar wird als eine hierarchisch strukturierte Taxonomie gestaltet, was einen Zugewinn an Übersichtlichkeit und Funktionalität bringt.
  5. Maniez, J.: Fusion de banques de donnees documentaires at compatibilite des languages d'indexation (1997) 0.01 
    0.00849399 = product of:
  0.029728964 = sum of:
    0.020237662 = weight(_text_:internet in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020237662 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10340759 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035026826 = queryNorm
        0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 2246, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2246)
    0.009491303 = product of:
      0.028473908 = sum of:
        0.028473908 = weight(_text_:22 in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028473908 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12265798 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035026826 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
  6. Bhattacharyya, G.: ¬A general theory of subject headings (1974) 0.00 
    0.0036485558 = product of:
  0.02553989 = sum of:
    0.02553989 = product of:
      0.07661967 = sum of:
        0.07661967 = weight(_text_:29 in 1592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07661967 = score(doc=1592,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.123213425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035026826 = queryNorm
            0.6218451 = fieldWeight in 1592, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1592)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Source
    Library science with a slant to documentation. 11(1974), S.23-29
  7. Ruge, G.: ¬A spreading activation network for automatic generation of thesaurus relationships (1991) 0.00 
    0.0031637677 = product of:
  0.022146374 = sum of:
    0.022146374 = product of:
      0.06643912 = sum of:
        0.06643912 = weight(_text_:22 in 4506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06643912 = score(doc=4506,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12265798 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035026826 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4506, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4506)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    8.10.2000 11:52:22
  8. Mikacic, M.: Statistical system for subject designation (SSSD) for libraries in Croatia (1996) 0.00 
    0.0025567105 = product of:
  0.017896973 = sum of:
    0.017896973 = product of:
      0.053690918 = sum of:
        0.053690918 = weight(_text_:22 in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053690918 = score(doc=2943,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12265798 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035026826 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    31. 7.2006 14:22:21
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.1, S.77-93
  9. Krömmelbein, U.: linguistische und fachwissenschaftliche Gesichtspunkte. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung der Regeln für die Schlagwortvergabe der Deutschen Bibliothek, RSWK, Voll-PRECIS und Kurz-PRECIS : Schlagwort-Syntax (1983) 0.00 
    0.0022803477 = product of:
  0.015962433 = sum of:
    0.015962433 = product of:
      0.047887295 = sum of:
        0.047887295 = weight(_text_:29 in 2566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047887295 = score(doc=2566,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.123213425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035026826 = queryNorm
            0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 2566, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2566)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    6. 1.1999 9:29:10
  10. Francu, V.: ¬A linguistic approach to information languages (2003) 0.00 
    0.0022803477 = product of:
  0.015962433 = sum of:
    0.015962433 = product of:
      0.047887295 = sum of:
        0.047887295 = weight(_text_:29 in 3538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047887295 = score(doc=3538,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.123213425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035026826 = queryNorm
            0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 3538, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3538)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    11. 6.2005 19:38:29
  11. Schmitz-Esser, W.: Language of general communication and concept compatibility (1996) 0.00 
    0.0022598342 = product of:
  0.015818838 = sum of:
    0.015818838 = product of:
      0.047456514 = sum of:
        0.047456514 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047456514 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12265798 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035026826 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Pages
    S.11-22
  12. Dextre Clarke, S.G.; Gilchrist, A.; Will, L.: Revision and extension of thesaurus standards (2004) 0.00 
    0.0019273964 = product of:
  0.013491774 = sum of:
    0.013491774 = weight(_text_:internet in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013491774 = score(doc=2615,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10340759 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035026826 = queryNorm
        0.1304718 = fieldWeight in 2615, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2615)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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.
  13. Green, R.; Bean, C.A.: Aligning systems of relationships (2006) 0.00 
    0.0018242779 = product of:
  0.012769945 = sum of:
    0.012769945 = product of:
      0.038309835 = sum of:
        0.038309835 = weight(_text_:29 in 4949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038309835 = score(doc=4949,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.123213425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035026826 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 4949, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4949)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    29. 2.2008 19:20:53
  14. Green, R.; Fraser, L.: Patterns in verbal polysemy (2004) 0.00 
    0.0018242779 = product of:
  0.012769945 = sum of:
    0.012769945 = product of:
      0.038309835 = sum of:
        0.038309835 = weight(_text_:29 in 2621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038309835 = score(doc=2621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.123213425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035026826 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2621, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2621)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Pages
    S.29-34
  15. Miller, U.; Teitelbaum, R.: Pre-coordination and post-coordination : past and future (2002) 0.00 
    0.0015962432 = product of:
  0.011173702 = sum of:
    0.011173702 = product of:
      0.033521105 = sum of:
        0.033521105 = weight(_text_:29 in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033521105 = score(doc=1395,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.123213425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035026826 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 29(2002) no.2, S.87-93
  16. Degez, D.: Compatibilité des langages d'indexation mariage, cohabitation ou fusion? : Quelques examples concrèts (1998) 0.00 
    0.0015818839 = product of:
  0.011073187 = sum of:
    0.011073187 = product of:
      0.03321956 = sum of:
        0.03321956 = weight(_text_:22 in 2245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03321956 = score(doc=2245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12265798 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035026826 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2245, 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=2245)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
  17. Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Thesaural relationships (2001) 0.00 
    0.0015818839 = product of:
  0.011073187 = sum of:
    0.011073187 = product of:
      0.03321956 = sum of:
        0.03321956 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03321956 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12265798 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035026826 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:45:57
  18. Svenonius, E.: LCSH: semantics, syntax and specifity (2000) 0.00 
    0.0013682084 = product of:
  0.009577459 = sum of:
    0.009577459 = product of:
      0.028732376 = sum of:
        0.028732376 = weight(_text_:29 in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028732376 = score(doc=5599,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.123213425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035026826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Series
    Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.29, nos.1/2
  19. Svenonius, E.: LCSH: semantics, syntax and specifity (2000) 0.00 
    0.0013682084 = product of:
  0.009577459 = sum of:
    0.009577459 = product of:
      0.028732376 = sum of:
        0.028732376 = weight(_text_:29 in 5602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028732376 = score(doc=5602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.123213425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035026826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5602, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5602)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Series
    Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.29, nos.1/2
  20. Hoerman, H.L.; Furniss, K.A.: Turning practice into principles : a comparison of the IFLA Principles underlying Subject Heading Languages (SHLs) and the principles underlying the Library of Congress Subject Headings system (2000) 0.00 
    0.0013682084 = product of:
  0.009577459 = sum of:
    0.009577459 = product of:
      0.028732376 = sum of:
        0.028732376 = weight(_text_:29 in 5611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028732376 = score(doc=5611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.123213425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035026826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5611, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5611)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Series
    Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.29, nos.1/2

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 22
  • s 2
  • x 2
  • m 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Classifications