Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0076756445 = product of:
  0.053729508 = sum of:
    0.013536699 = weight(_text_:information in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013536699 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.04019281 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04019281 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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

0.001513105 = product of:
  0.021183468 = sum of:
    0.021183468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021183468 = score(doc=4335,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 4335, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4335)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Klassische bibliothekarische Indexierungswerkzeuge werden bis heute nur selten fürs Retrieval nutzbar gemacht; die Wichtigkeit, verschiedene dieser Vokabularien zu harmonisieren und integriert zu verwenden, ist noch immer keine Selbstverständlichkeit. Im Rahmen des DFG-Projektes "CrissCross" wird, ausgehend von der deutschen Ausgabe der Dewey-Dezimalklassifikation, eine Verknüpfung zwischen der DDC und der Schlagwortnormdatei (SWD) aufgebaut, um eine verbale Suche über klassifikatorisch erschlossene Bestände zu ermöglichen. Als Verbreiterung der Basis des verbalen Zugriffs wird außerdem das Mapping der amerikanischen LCSH und des französischen RAMEAU angestrebt. Nach einer kurzen Vorstellung von CrissCross und der Abgrenzung gegenüber ähnlichen Unterfangen werden Rückwirkungen semantischer Integration auf die verknüpften Vokabulare diskutiert. Wie müssen und können sich z.B. Thesauri verändern, wenn sie mit anderen (strukturheterologen) Systemen verknüpft sind? Dabei liegt ein Schwerpunkt der Analyse auf dem semantischen Verhältnis üblicher Mappingrelationen zu den verknüpften Begriffen (besonders im Hinblick auf Polysemie). Außerdem wird der Mehrwert fürs Retrieval auf der Basis solcher Wissensorganisationssysteme, z.B. durch automatisierten Zugriff über Ontologien, diskutiert.

8.64828E-4 = product of:
  0.012107591 = sum of:
    0.012107591 = weight(_text_:information in 1146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012107591 = score(doc=1146,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1146, 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=1146)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Mapping a multidimensional universe of subjects for linear representation, such as in class number, subject heading, and faset structure is problematic. Into this context is recalled the near-seminal and postulational approach suggested by S. R Ranganathan. The non-hierarchical associative relationship or lateral relationship (LR) is distinguished at different levels-among information sources, databases, records of databases, and among concepts (LR-0). Over thirty lateral relationships at the concept level (LR-0) are identified and enumerated with examples from spiritual and religious texts. Special issues relating to LR-0 in multicultural, multilingual databases intended to be used globally by peoples of different cultures and faith are discussed, using as example the multimedia OM Information Service. Vocabulary assistance for users is described.

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.2