Search (84 results, page 2 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Theorie verbaler Dokumentationssprachen"
  1. 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) 0.01 
    0.005574568 = product of:
  0.07804395 = sum of:
    0.07804395 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 2566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07804395 = score(doc=2566,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.6414891 = fieldWeight in 2566, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2566)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Footnote
    Examensarbeit Höherer Dienst an der FHBD in Köln. - Auch veröffentlicht in: Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis 8(1984) S.159-203
  2. Tudhope, D.; Alani, H.; Jones, C.: Augmenting thesaurus relationships : possibilities for retrieval (2001) 0.01 
    0.005505548 = product of:
  0.038538832 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=1520,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.033494003 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033494003 = score(doc=1520,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
  3. ¬The semantics of relationships : an interdisciplinary perspective (2002) 0.01 
    0.005317847 = product of:
  0.037224926 = sum of:
    0.011280581 = weight(_text_:information in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011280581 = score(doc=1430,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
    0.025944345 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025944345 = score(doc=1430,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Work on relationships takes place in many communities, including, among others, data modeling, knowledge representation, natural language processing, linguistics, and information retrieval. Unfortunately, continued disciplinary splintering and specialization keeps any one person from being familiar with the full expanse of that work. By including contributions form experts in a variety of disciplines and backgrounds, this volume demonstrates both the parallels that inform work on relationships across a number of fields and the singular emphases that have yet to be fully embraced, The volume is organized into 3 parts: (1) Types of relationships (2) Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning (3) Applications of relationships
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: Pt.1: Types of relationships: CRUDE, D.A.: Hyponymy and its varieties; FELLBAUM, C.: On the semantics of troponymy; PRIBBENOW, S.: Meronymic relationships: from classical mereology to complex part-whole relations; KHOO, C. u.a.: The many facets of cause-effect relation - Pt.2: Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning: GREEN, R.: Internally-structured conceptual models in cognitive semantics; HOVY, E.: Comparing sets of semantic relations in ontologies; GUARINO, N., C. WELTY: Identity and subsumption; JOUIS; C.: Logic of relationships - Pt.3: Applications of relationships: EVENS, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval; KHOO, C., S.H. MYAENG: Identifying semantic relations in text for information retrieval and information extraction; McCRAY, A.T., O. BODENREICHER: A conceptual framework for the biiomedical domain; HETZLER, B.: Visual analysis and exploration of relationships
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
  4. Green, R.: Syntagmatic relationships in index languages : a reassessment (1995) 0.01 
    0.00524566 = product of:
  0.036719617 = sum of:
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=3144,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3144, 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=3144)
    0.029656855 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029656855 = score(doc=3144,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Effective use of syntagmatic relationships in index languages has suffered from inaccurate or incomplete characterization in both linguistics and information science. A number of 'myths' about syntagmatic relationships are debunked: the exclusivity of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships, linearity as a defining characteristic of syntagmatic relationships, the restriction of syntagmatic relationships to surface linguistic units, the limitation of syntagmatic relationship benefits in document retrieval to precision, and the general irrelevance of syntagmatic relationships for document retrieval. None of the mechanisms currently used with index languages is powerful enough to achieve the levels of precision and recall that the expression of conceptual syntagmatic relationships is in theory capable of. New designs for expressing these relationships in index languages will need to take into account such characteristics as their semantic nature, systematicity, generalizability and constituent nature
  5. Engerer, V.: Thesauri, Terminologien, Lexika, Fachsprachen : Kontrolle, physische Verortung und das Prinzip der Syntagmatisierung von Vokabularen (2014) 0.01 
    0.005129378 = product of:
  0.035905644 = sum of:
    0.0104854815 = weight(_text_:information in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0104854815 = score(doc=3644,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 3644, 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=3644)
    0.025420163 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025420163 = score(doc=3644,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Ich unternehme in diesem Beitrag den Versuch, die Informationswissenschaft - hier gedeutet als 'Information Retrieval'- Disziplin - einer synchronen Querschnittsanalyse zu unterziehen, welche die aktuelle Position dieser Disziplin im Feld anderer zeichen- und wortschatzorientierter Disziplinen (neben der Linguistik die Terminologielehre und die Fachsprachenforschung) näher bestimmen soll. Im Rahmen der Analyse wird von einem Information Retrieval-Kern der Informationswissenschaft ausgegangen, welcher den Informationssuchkontext sowie die Konzepte des Informationsbedarfs und der Relevanz als für diese Disziplin zentrale Komponenten ansieht. Synchron wird das Verhältnis der Informationswissenschaft zu benachbarten Disziplinen durch eine Reihe disziplinspezifischer Zeichenanforderungen erklärt, wodurch ein systemischer Zusammenhang entsteht, der die Informationswissenschaft mit den drei anderen zeichenbezogenen und vokabularorientierten Disziplinen in Beziehung setzt. Das Verhältnis zwischen diesen Disziplinen wird anhand der Dimensionen Kontrolle/Verbindlichkeit sowie Verortung des Vokabulars ("im Kopf" vs. in externen Dokumenten) aufgezeigt, und es wird ein übergeordnetes Prinzip der Syntagmatisierung, welches die beiden Dimensionen vereint, vorgeschlagen.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 65(2014) H.2, S.99-108
  6. 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) 0.00 
    0.004730178 = product of:
  0.06622249 = sum of:
    0.06622249 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06622249 = score(doc=984,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.54432154 = fieldWeight in 984, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=984)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    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.
    Source
    Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 8(1984), S.159-202
  7. Melton, J.S.: ¬A use for the techniques of structural linguistics in documentation research (1965) 0.00 
    0.0045768693 = product of:
  0.032038085 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=834,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 834, 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=834)
    0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023966359 = score(doc=834,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 834, 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=834)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Index language (the system of symbols for representing subject content after analysis) is considered as a separate component and a variable in an information retrieval system. It is suggested that for purposes of testing, comparing and evaluating index language, the techniques of structural linguistics may provide a descriptive methodology by which all such languages (hierarchical and faceted classification, analytico-synthetic indexing, traditional subject indexing, indexes and classifications based on automatic text analysis, etc.) could be described in term of a linguistic model, and compared on a common basis
  8. Fugmann, R.: Unusual possibilities in indexing and classification (1990) 0.00 
    0.0045768693 = product of:
  0.032038085 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=4781,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023966359 = score(doc=4781,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
  9. Vickery, B.C.: Structure and function in retrieval languages (1997) 0.00 
    0.0045768693 = product of:
  0.032038085 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=572,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 572, 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=572)
    0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023966359 = score(doc=572,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 572, 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=572)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Imprint
    The Hague : International Federation for Information and Documentation (FID)
  10. Svenonius, E.: Unanswered questions in the design of controlled vocabularies (1986) 0.00 
    0.0045768693 = product of:
  0.032038085 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=584,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 584, 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=584)
    0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023966359 = score(doc=584,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 584, 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=584)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    The issue of free-text versus controlled vocabulary is examined in this article. The history of the issue, which is seen as beginning with the debate over title term indexing in the last century, is reviewed and the attention is turned to questions which have not been satisfactorily addressed by previous research. The point is made that these questions need to be answered if we are to design retrieval tools, such as thesauri, upon a national basis
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 37(1986) no.5, S.331-340
  11. Mazzocchi, F.; Tiberi, M.; De Santis, B.; Plini, P.: Relational semantics in thesauri : an overview and some remarks at theoretical and practical levels (2007) 0.00 
    0.004274482 = product of:
  0.029921371 = sum of:
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=1462,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1462, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1462)
    0.021183468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021183468 = score(doc=1462,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 1462, 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=1462)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    A thesaurus is a controlled vocabulary designed to allow for effective information retrieval. It con- sists of different kinds of semantic relationships, with the aim of guiding users to the choice of the most suitable index and search terms for expressing a certain concept. The relational semantics of a thesaurus deal with methods to connect terms with related meanings and arc intended to enhance information recall capabilities. In this paper, focused on hierarchical relations, different aspects of the relational semantics of thesauri, and among them the possibility of developing richer structures, are analyzed. Thesauri are viewed as semantic tools providing, for operational purposes, the representation of the meaning of the terms. The paper stresses how theories of semantics, holding different perspectives about the nature of meaning and how it is represented, affect the design of the relational semantics of thesauri. The need for tools capable of representing the complexity of knowledge and of the semantics of terms as it occurs in the literature of their respective subject fields is advocated. It is underlined how this would contribute to improving the retrieval of information. To achieve this goal, even though in a preliminary manner, we explore the possibility of setting against the framework of thesaurus design the notions of language games and hermeneutic horizon.
  12. Fugmann, R.: ¬The complementarity of natural and indexing languages (1985) 0.00 
    0.0042391336 = product of:
  0.029673932 = sum of:
    0.005707573 = weight(_text_:information in 3641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005707573 = score(doc=3641,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023966359 = score(doc=3641,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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.
  13. Boteram, F.: Semantische Relationen in Dokumentationssprachen : vom Thesaurus zum semantischen Netz (2008) 0.00 
    0.004004761 = product of:
  0.028033325 = sum of:
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 2461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=2461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2461, 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=2461)
    0.020970564 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020970564 = score(doc=2461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 2461, 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=2461)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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. 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.
  14. Mai, J.-E.: Actors, domains, and constraints in the design and construction of controlled vocabularies (2008) 0.00 
    0.0035812336 = product of:
  0.025068633 = sum of:
    0.010089659 = weight(_text_:information in 1921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010089659 = score(doc=1921,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1921, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1921)
    0.014978974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014978974 = score(doc=1921,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1921, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1921)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Classification schemes, thesauri, taxonomies, and other controlled vocabularies play important roles in the organization and retrieval of information in many different environments. While the design and construction of controlled vocabularies have been prescribed at the technical level in great detail over the past decades, the methodological level has been somewhat neglected. However, classification research has in recent years focused on developing approaches to the analysis of users, domains, and activities that could produce requirements for the design of controlled vocabularies. Researchers have often argued that the design, construction, and use of controlled vocabularies need to be based on analyses and understandings of the contexts in which these controlled vocabularies function. While one would assume that the growing body of research on human information behavior might help guide the development of controlled vocabularies shed light on these contexts, unfortunately, much of the research in this area is descriptive in nature and of little use for systems design. This paper discusses these trends and outlines a holistic approach that demonstrates how the design of controlled vocabularies can be informed by investigations of people's interactions with information. This approach is based on the Cognitive Work Analysis framework and outlines several dimensions of human-information interactions. Application of this approach will result is a comprehensive understanding of the contexts in which the controlled vocabulary will function and which can be used for the development of for the development of controlled vocabularies.
  15. Hjoerland, B.: Semantics and knowledge organization (2007) 0.00 
    0.0035812336 = product of:
  0.025068633 = sum of:
    0.010089659 = weight(_text_:information in 1980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010089659 = score(doc=1980,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1980, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1980)
    0.014978974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014978974 = score(doc=1980,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1980, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1980)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate that semantic issues underlie all research questions within Library and Information Science (LIS, or, as hereafter, IS) and, in particular, the subfield known as Knowledge Organization (KO). Further, it seeks to show that semantics is a field influenced by conflicting views and discusses why it is important to argue for the most fruitful one of these. Moreover, the chapter demonstrates that IS has not yet addressed semantic problems in systematic fashion and examines why the field is very fragmented and without a proper theoretical basis. The focus here is on broad interdisciplinary issues and the long-term perspective. The theoretical problems involving semantics and concepts are very complicated. Therefore, this chapter starts by considering tools developed in KO for information retrieval (IR) as basically semantic tools. In this way, it establishes a specific IS focus on the relation between KO and semantics. It is well known that thesauri consist of a selection of concepts supplemented with information about their semantic relations (such as generic relations or "associative relations"). Some words in thesauri are "preferred terms" (descriptors), whereas others are "lead-in terms." The descriptors represent concepts. The difference between "a word" and "a concept" is that different words may have the same meaning and similar words may have different meanings, whereas one concept expresses one meaning.
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.367-405
  16. Dextre Clarke, S.G.; Gilchrist, A.; Will, L.: Revision and extension of thesaurus standards (2004) 0.00 
    0.003574072 = product of:
  0.025018502 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=2615,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.016946774 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016946774 = score(doc=2615,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
  17. Jia, J.: From data to knowledge : the relationships between vocabularies, linked data and knowledge graphs (2021) 0.00 
    0.003446667 = product of:
  0.024126668 = sum of:
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
  18. Svenonius, E.: Unanswered questions in the design of controlled vocabularies (1997) 0.00 
    0.0034326524 = product of:
  0.024028566 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=583,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 583, 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=583)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=583,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 583, 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=583)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    The issue of free-text versus controlled vocabulary is examined in this article. The history of the issue, which is seen as beginning with the debate over title term indexing in the last century, is reviewed and the attention is turned to questions which have not been satisfactorily addressed by previous research. The point is made that these questions need to be answered if we are to design retrieval tools, such as thesauri, upon a national basis
    Imprint
    The Hague : International Federation for Information and Documentation (FID)
  19. Milstead, J.L.: Standards for relationships between subject indexing terms (2001) 0.00 
    0.0034326524 = product of:
  0.024028566 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=1148,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1148, 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=1148)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=1148,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1148, 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=1148)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Relationships between the terms in thesauri and Indexes are the subject of national and international standards. The standards for thesauri enumerate and provide criteria for three basic types of relationship: equivalence, hierarchical, and associative. Standards and guidelines for indexes draw an the thesaurus standards to provide less detailed guidance for showing relationships between the terms used in an Index. The international standard for multilingual thesauri adds recommendations for assuring equal treatment of the languages of a thesaurus. The present standards were developed when lookup and search were essentially manual, and the value of the kinds of relationships has never been determined. It is not clear whether users understand or can use the distinctions between kinds of relationships. On the other hand, sophisticated text analysis systems may be able both to assist with development of more powerful term relationship schemes and to use the relationships to improve retrieval.
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.2
  20. Boteram, F.: Semantische Relationen in Dokumentationssprachen : vom Thesaurus zum semantischen Netz (2008) 0.00 
    0.0034326524 = product of:
  0.024028566 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 1837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=1837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1837, 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=1837)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=1837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1837, 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=1837)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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. 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.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 68
  • d 11
  • f 3
  • ja 1
  • nl 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 67
  • m 9
  • s 7
  • el 3
  • r 3
  • x 2
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications