Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.016506828 = product of:
  0.06602731 = sum of:
    0.041903697 = weight(_text_:web in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041903697 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
    0.024123615 = product of:
      0.04824723 = sum of:
        0.04824723 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04824723 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103918076 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029675366 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

Theme

Semantic Web

0.012410732 = product of:
  0.049642928 = sum of:
    0.03218305 = weight(_text_:wide in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03218305 = score(doc=96,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13148437 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
    0.017459875 = weight(_text_:web in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017459875 = score(doc=96,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 96, 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=96)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The paper looks at ways in which traditional classification and indexing tools have dealt with the relationships between constituent terms; variations in these are examined and compared with the methods used in machine searching, particularly of the Internet and World Wide Web. Apparent correspondences with features of index languages are identified, and further methods of applying classification and indexing theory to machine retrieval are proposed. There are various ways in which indexing and retrieval systems, both conventional and electronic, deal with the problem of searching for documents on a subject basis, and various approaches to the analysis and processing of a query. There appear to be three basic models; the taxonomic or structural system, in which the user is offered a map of the `universe of knowledge'; the language based system, which offers a vocabulary of the subject and a grammar for dealing with compound statements; and the mathematical model using the language of symbolic logic or the algebra of set theory

0.012324934 = product of:
  0.049299736 = sum of:
    0.029630389 = weight(_text_:web in 3532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029630389 = score(doc=3532,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 3532, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3532)
    0.019669347 = weight(_text_:data in 3532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019669347 = score(doc=3532,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 3532, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3532)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The Bliss Bibliographic Classification is the only example of a fully faceted general classification scheme in the Western world. Although it is the object of much interest as a model for other tools it suffers from the lack of a web presence, and remedying this is an immediate objective for its editors. Understanding how this might be done presents some challenges, as the scheme is semantically very rich and complex in the range and nature of the relationships it contains. The automatic management of these is already in place using local software, but exporting this to a common data format needs careful thought and planning. Various encoding schemes, both for traditional classifications, and for digital materials, represent variously: the concepts; their functional roles; and the relationships between them. Integrating these aspects in a coherent and interchangeable manner appears to be achievable, but the most appropriate format is as yet unclear.

0.010270778 = product of:
  0.041083112 = sum of:
    0.024691992 = weight(_text_:web in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024691992 = score(doc=4826,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4826, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4826)
    0.016391123 = weight(_text_:data in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016391123 = score(doc=4826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 4826, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4826)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Facet analysis is proposed as a general theory of knowledge organization, with an associated methodology that may be applied to the development of terminology tools in a variety of contexts and formats. Faceted classifications originated as a means of representing complexity in semantic content that facilitates logical organization and effective retrieval in a physical environment. This is achieved through meticulous analysis of concepts, their structural and functional status (based on fundamental categories), and their inter-relationships. These features provide an excellent basis for the general conceptual modelling of domains, and for the generation of KOS other than systematic classifications. This is demonstrated by the adoption of a faceted approach to many web search and visualization tools, and by the emergence of a facet based methodology for the construction of thesauri. Current work on the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (Second Edition) is investigating the ways in which the full complexity of faceted structures may be represented through encoded data, capable of generating intellectually and mechanically compatible forms of indexing tools from a single source. It is suggested that a number of research questions relating to the Semantic Web could be tackled through the medium of facet analysis.

0.004964293 = product of:
  0.019857172 = sum of:
    0.012873221 = weight(_text_:wide in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012873221 = score(doc=2824,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13148437 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.09790685 = fieldWeight in 2824, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2824)
    0.00698395 = weight(_text_:web in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00698395 = score(doc=2824,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.07211407 = fieldWeight in 2824, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2824)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Footnote

Essential Classification is also an exercise book. Indeed, it contains a number of practical exercises and activities in every chapter, along with suggested answers. Unfortunately, the answers are too often provided without the justifications and explanations that students would no doubt demand. The author has taken great care to explain all technical terms in her text, but formal definitions are also gathered in an extensive 172-term Glossary; appropriately, these terms appear in bold type the first time they are used in the text. A short, very short, annotated bibliography of standard classification textbooks and of manuals for the use of major classification schemes is provided. A detailed 11-page index completes the set of learning aids which will be useful to an audience of students in their effort to grasp the basic concepts of the theory and the practice of document classification in a traditional environment. Essential Classification is a fine textbook. However, this reviewer deplores the fact that it presents only a very "traditional" view of classification, without much reference to newer environments such as the Internet where classification also manifests itself in various forms. In Essential Classification, books are always used as examples, and we have to take the author's word that traditional classification practices and tools can also be applied to other types of documents and elsewhere than in the traditional library. Vanda Broughton writes, for example, that "Subject headings can't be used for physical arrangement" (p. 101), but this is not entirely true. Subject headings can be used for physical arrangement of vertical files, for example, with each folder bearing a simple or complex heading which is then used for internal organization. And if it is true that subject headings cannot be reproduced an the spine of [physical] books (p. 93), the situation is certainly different an the World Wide Web where subject headings as metadata can be most useful in ordering a collection of hot links. The emphasis is also an the traditional paperbased, rather than an the electronic version of classification schemes, with excellent justifications of course. The reality is, however, that supporting organizations (LC, OCLC, etc.) are now providing great quality services online, and that updates are now available only in an electronic format and not anymore on paper. E-based versions of classification schemes could be safely ignored in a theoretical text, but they have to be described and explained in a textbook published in 2005. One last comment: Professor Broughton tends to use the same term, "classification" to represent the process (as in classification is grouping) and the tool (as in constructing a classification, using a classification, etc.). Even in the Glossary where classification is first well-defined as a process, and classification scheme as "a set of classes ...", the definition of classification scheme continues: "the classification consists of a vocabulary (...) and syntax..." (p. 296-297). Such an ambiguous use of the term classification seems unfortunate and unnecessarily confusing in an otherwise very good basic textbook an categorization of concepts and subjects, document organization and subject representation."

0.003086499 = product of:
  0.024691992 = sum of:
    0.024691992 = weight(_text_:web in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024691992 = score(doc=2476,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

A short discussion of using classification systems to organize the web, one of many such. The authors are both involved with BC2 and naturally think it is the best system for organizing information online. They list reasons why faceted classifications are best (e.g. no theoretical limits to specificity or exhaustivity; easier to handle complex subjects; flexible enough to accommodate different user needs) and take a brief look at how BC2 works. They conclude with a discussion of how and why it should be applied to online resources, and a plea for recognition of the importance of classification and subject analysis skills, even when full-text searching is available and databases respond instantly.

0.003086499 = product of:
  0.024691992 = sum of:
    0.024691992 = weight(_text_:web in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024691992 = score(doc=2874,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this article is to estimate the impact of faceted classification and the faceted analytical method on the development of various information retrieval tools over the latter part of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Design/methodology/approach - The article presents an examination of various subject access tools intended for retrieval of both print and digital materials to determine whether they exhibit features of faceted systems. Some attention is paid to use of the faceted approach as a means of structuring information on commercial web sites. The secondary and research literature is also surveyed for commentary on and evaluation of facet analysis as a basis for the building of vocabulary and conceptual tools. Findings - The study finds that faceted systems are now very common, with a major increase in their use over the last 15 years. Most LIS subject indexing tools (classifications, subject heading lists and thesauri) now demonstrate features of facet analysis to a greater or lesser degree. A faceted approach is frequently taken to the presentation of product information on commercial web sites, and there is an independent strand of theory and documentation related to this application. There is some significant research on semi-automatic indexing and retrieval (query expansion and query formulation) using facet analytical techniques. Originality/value - This article provides an overview of an important conceptual approach to information retrieval, and compares different understandings and applications of this methodology.

0.0024586683 = product of:
  0.019669347 = sum of:
    0.019669347 = weight(_text_:data in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019669347 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The paper examines the way in which classification schemes can be applied to the organization of digital resources. The case is argued for the particular suitability of schemes based an faceted principles for the organization of complex digital objects. Details are given of a co-operative project between the School of Library Archive & Information Studies, University College London, and the United Kingdom Higher Education gateways Arts and Humanities Data Service and Humbul, in which a faceted knowledge structure is being developed for the indexing and display of digital materials within a new combined humanities portal.

0.002318055 = product of:
  0.01854444 = sum of:
    0.01854444 = weight(_text_:data in 2875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01854444 = score(doc=2875,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.093835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.19762816 = fieldWeight in 2875, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2875)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to provide an overview of principles and procedures involved in creating a faceted classification scheme for use in resource discovery in an online environment. Design/methodology/approach - Facet analysis provides an established rigorous methodology for the conceptual organization of a subject field, and the structuring of an associated classification or controlled vocabulary. This paper explains how that methodology was applied to the humanities in the FATKS project, where the objective was to explore the potential of facet analytical theory for creating a controlled vocabulary for the humanities, and to establish the requirements of a faceted classification appropriate to an online environment. A detailed faceted vocabulary was developed for two areas of the humanities within a broader facet framework for the whole of knowledge. Research issues included how to create a data model which made the faceted structure explicit and machine-readable and provided for its further development and use. Findings - In order to support easy facet combination in indexing, and facet searching and browsing on the interface, faceted classification requires a formalized data structure and an appropriate tool for its management. The conceptual framework of a faceted system proper can be applied satisfactorily to humanities, and fully integrated within a vocabulary management system. Research limitations/implications - The procedures described in this paper are concerned only with the structuring of the classification, and do not extend to indexing, retrieval and application issues. Practical implications - Many stakeholders in the domain of resource discovery consider developing their own classification system and supporting tools. The methods described in this paper may clarify the process of building a faceted classification and may provide some useful ideas with respect to the vocabulary maintenance tool. Originality/value - As far as the authors are aware there is no comparable research in this area.

0.0020488903 = product of:
  0.016391123 = sum of:
    0.016391123 = weight(_text_:data in 2633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016391123 = score(doc=2633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 2633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2633)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper examines the differences in the functional requirements of a faceted classification system when used in a conventional print-based environment (where the emphasis is on the browse function of the classification) as compared to its application to digital collections (where the retrieval function is paramount). The use of the second edition of Bliss's Bibliographic Classification (BC2) as a general classification for the physical organization of undergraduate collections in the University of Cambridge is described. The development of an online tool for indexing of digital resources using the Bliss terminologies is also described, and the advantages of facet analysis for data structuring and system syntax within the prototype tool are discussed. The move from the print-based environment to the digital makes different demands an both the content and the syntax of the classification, and while the conceptual structure remains similar, manipulation of the scheme and the process of content description can be markedly different.

0.0020488903 = product of:
  0.016391123 = sum of:
    0.016391123 = weight(_text_:data in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016391123 = score(doc=2497,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 2497, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2497)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

The paper describes current work on the generation of a thesaurus format from the schedules of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition (BC2). The practical problems that occur in moving from a concept based approach to a terminological approach cluster around issues of vocabulary control that are not fully addressed in a systematic structure. These difficulties can be exacerbated within domains in the humanities because large numbers of culture specific terms may need to be accommodated in any thesaurus. The ways in which these problems can be resolved within the context of a semi-automated approach to the thesaurus generation have consequences for the management of classification data in the source vocabulary. The way in which the vocabulary is marked up for the purpose of machine manipulation is described, and some of the implications for editorial policy are discussed and examples given. The value of the classification notation as a language independent representation and mapping tool should not be sacrificed in such an exercise.

0.0020488903 = product of:
  0.016391123 = sum of:
    0.016391123 = weight(_text_:data in 5728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016391123 = score(doc=5728,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 5728, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5728)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The paper traces the development of the discussion around ethical issues in artificial intelligence, and considers the way in which humans have affected the knowledge bases used in machine learning. The phenomenon of bias or discrimination in machine ethics is seen as inherited from humans, either through the use of biased data or through the semantics inherent in intellectually- built tools sourced by intelligent agents. The kind of biases observed in AI are compared with those identified in the field of knowledge organization, using religious adherents as an example of a community potentially marginalized by bias. A practical demonstration is given of apparent religious prejudice inherited from source material in a large database deployed widely in computational linguistics and automatic indexing. Methods to address the problem of bias are discussed, including the modelling of the moral process on neuroscientific understanding of brain function. The question is posed whether it is possible to model religious belief in a similar way, so that robots of the future may have both an ethical and a religious sense and themselves address the problem of prejudice.

0.0017590135 = product of:
  0.014072108 = sum of:
    0.014072108 = product of:
      0.028144216 = sum of:
        0.028144216 = weight(_text_:22 in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028144216 = score(doc=2550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103918076 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029675366 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2550, 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=2550)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.0015077259 = product of:
  0.012061807 = sum of:
    0.012061807 = product of:
      0.024123615 = sum of:
        0.024123615 = weight(_text_:22 in 6392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024123615 = score(doc=6392,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103918076 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029675366 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6392, 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=6392)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

10. 8.2001 13:22:14

8.729937E-4 = product of:
  0.00698395 = sum of:
    0.00698395 = weight(_text_:web in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00698395 = score(doc=2924,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.07211407 = fieldWeight in 2924, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2924)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitt. VÖB 60(2007) H.1, S.98-101 (O. Oberhauser): "Die Autorin von Essential thesaurus construction (and essential taxonomy construction, so der implizite Untertitel, vgl. S. 1) ist durch ihre Lehrtätigkeit an der bekannten School of Library, Archive and Information Studies des University College London und durch ihre bisherigen Publikationen auf den Gebieten (Facetten-)Klassifikation und Thesaurus fachlich einschlägig ausgewiesen. Nach Essential classification liegt nun ihr Thesaurus-Lehrbuch vor, mit rund 200 Seiten Text und knapp 100 Seiten Anhang ein handliches Werk, das seine Genese zum Grossteil dem Lehrbetrieb verdankt, wie auch dem kurzen Einleitungskapitel zu entnehmen ist. Das Buch ist der Schule von Jean Aitchison et al. verpflichtet und wendet sich an "the indexer" im weitesten Sinn, d.h. an alle Personen, die ein strukturiertes, kontrolliertes Fachvokabular für die Zwecke der sachlichen Erschliessung und Suche erstellen wollen bzw. müssen. Es möchte dieser Zielgruppe das nötige methodische Rüstzeug für eine solche Aufgabe vermitteln, was einschliesslich der Einleitung und der Schlussbemerkungen in zwanzig Kapiteln geschieht - eine ansprechende Strukturierung, die ein wohldosiertes Durcharbeiten möglich macht. Zu letzterem tragen auch die von der Autorin immer wieder gestellten Übungsaufgaben bei (Lösungen jeweils am Kapitelende). Zu Beginn der Darstellung wird der "information retrieval thesaurus" von dem (zumindest im angelsächsischen Raum) weit öfter mit dem Thesaurusbegriff assoziierten "reference thesaurus" abgegrenzt, einem nach begrifflicher Ähnlichkeit angeordneten Synonymenwörterbuch, das gerne als Mittel zur stilistischen Verbesserung beim Abfassen von (wissenschaftlichen) Arbeiten verwendet wird. Ohne noch ins Detail zu gehen, werden optische Erscheinungsform und Anwendungsgebiete von Thesauren vorgestellt, der Thesaurus als postkoordinierte Indexierungssprache erläutert und seine Nähe zu facettierten Klassifikationssystemen erwähnt. In der Folge stellt Broughton die systematisch organisierten Systeme (Klassifikation/ Taxonomie, Begriffs-/Themendiagramme, Ontologien) den alphabetisch angeordneten, wortbasierten (Schlagwortlisten, thesaurusartige Schlagwortsysteme und Thesauren im eigentlichen Sinn) gegenüber, was dem Leser weitere Einordnungshilfen schafft. Die Anwendungsmöglichkeiten von Thesauren als Mittel der Erschliessung (auch als Quelle für Metadatenangaben bei elektronischen bzw. Web-Dokumenten) und der Recherche (Suchformulierung, Anfrageerweiterung, Browsing und Navigieren) kommen ebenso zur Sprache wie die bei der Verwendung natürlichsprachiger Indexierungssysteme auftretenden Probleme. Mit Beispielen wird ausdrücklich auf die mehr oder weniger starke fachliche Spezialisierung der meisten dieser Vokabularien hingewiesen, wobei auch Informationsquellen über Thesauren (z.B. www.taxonomywarehouse.com) sowie Thesauren für nicht-textuelle Ressourcen kurz angerissen werden.