Search (107 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Qin, J.; Paling, S.: Converting a controlled vocabulary into an ontology : the case of GEM (2001) 0.04 
    0.042356532 = product of:
  0.10589133 = sum of:
    0.01155891 = weight(_text_:a in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01155891 = score(doc=3895,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
    0.09433242 = sum of:
      0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018945174 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
      0.07538725 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07538725 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3895, 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=3895)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    24. 8.2005 19:20:22
    Source
    Information Research. 6(2001), no.2
    Type
    a
  2. Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Thesaural relationships (2001) 0.03 
    0.025825147 = product of:
  0.064562865 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=1149,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
    0.05502725 = sum of:
      0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011051352 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043975897 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    A thesaurus in the controlled vocabulary environment is a tool designed to support effective infonnation retrieval (IR) by guiding indexers and searchers consistently to choose the same terms for expressing a given concept or combination of concepts. Terms in the thesaurus are linked by relationships of three well-known types: equivalence, hierarchical, and associative. The functions and properties of these three basic types and some subcategories are described, as well as some additional relationship types conunonly found in thesauri. Progressive automation of IR processes and the capability for simultaneous searching of vast networked resources are creating some pressures for change in the categorization and consistency of relationships.
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:45:57
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.2
    Type
    a
  3. Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Evolution towards ISO 25964 : an international standard with guidelines for thesauri and other types of controlled vocabulary (2007) 0.03 
    0.02574907 = product of:
  0.06437267 = sum of:
    0.004767807 = weight(_text_:a in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004767807 = score(doc=749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 749, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=749)
    0.05960487 = sum of:
      0.015628971 = weight(_text_:information in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015628971 = score(doc=749,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 749, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=749)
      0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043975897 = score(doc=749,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 749, 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=749)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Die geschichtliche Entwicklung von ISO 2788: Documentation - Guidelines for the establishment and development of monolingual thesauri und ISO 5964: Documentation - Guidelines for the establishment and development of multilingual thesauri wird kurz beschrieben. 2001 begann die Arbeit an der Entwicklung von BS 8723: Structured Vocabularies for Information Retrieval - Guide, einer fünfteiligen Norm, die konzipiert wurde, um die internationalen Normen zu aktualisieren, insbesondere mit Hinblick auf Interoperabilität. Der Verfahrensablauf zur Übernahme von BS 8723 als internationale Norm hat begonnen.
    Date
    8.12.2007 19:25:22
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 58(2007) H.8, S.441-444
    Type
    a
  4. Schneider, J.W.; Borlund, P.: ¬A bibliometric-based semiautomatic approach to identification of candidate thesaurus terms : parsing and filtering of noun phrases from citation contexts (2005) 0.03 
    0.025314135 = product of:
  0.063285336 = sum of:
    0.008258085 = weight(_text_:a in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008258085 = score(doc=156,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
    0.05502725 = sum of:
      0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011051352 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 156, 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=156)
      0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043975897 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 156, 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=156)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The present study investigates the ability of a bibliometric based semi-automatic method to select candidate thesaurus terms from citation contexts. The method consists of document co-citation analysis, citation context analysis, and noun phrase parsing. The investigation is carried out within the specialty area of periodontology. The results clearly demonstrate that the method is able to select important candidate thesaurus terms within the chosen specialty area.
    Date
    8. 3.2007 19:55:22
    Source
    Context: nature, impact and role. 5th International Conference an Conceptions of Library and Information Sciences, CoLIS 2005 Glasgow, UK, June 2005. Ed. by F. Crestani u. I. Ruthven
    Type
    a
  5. Burkart, M.: Thesaurus (2004) 0.02 
    0.015968023 = product of:
  0.039920058 = sum of:
    0.00385297 = weight(_text_:a in 2913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00385297 = score(doc=2913,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.072065435 = fieldWeight in 2913, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2913)
    0.036067087 = sum of:
      0.010938003 = weight(_text_:information in 2913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010938003 = score(doc=2913,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 2913, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2913)
      0.025129084 = weight(_text_:22 in 2913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025129084 = score(doc=2913,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2913, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2913)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Der Thesaurus als Dokumentationssprache wird in der DIN 1463-1in seinen wesentlichen Merkmalen beschrieben. Dort wird der Thesaurus im informationswissenschaftlichen Sinne so definiert: "Ein Thesaurus im Bereich der Information und Dokumentation ist eine geordnete Zusammenstellung von Begriffen und ihren (vorwiegend natürlichsprachigen) Bezeichnungen, die in einem Dokumentationsgebiet zum Indexieren, Speichern und Wiederauffinden dient. Er ist durch folgende Merkmale gekennzeichnet: a) Begriffe und Bezeichnungen werden eindeutig aufeinander bezogen ("terminologische Kontrolle"), indem - Synonyme möglichst vollständig erfasst werden, - Homonyme und Polyseme besonders gekennzeichnet werden, - für jeden Begriff eine Bezeichnung (Vorzugsbenennung, Begriffsnummer oder Notation) festgelegt wird, die den Begriff eindeutig vertritt, b) Beziehungen zwischen Begriffen (repräsentiert durch ihre Bezeichnungen) werden dargestellt." Diese Definition wäre zu ergänzen um folgende: c) Der Thesaurus ist präskriptiv, indem er für seinen Geltungsbereich festlegt, welche begrifflichen Einheiten zur Verfügung gestellt werden und durch welche Bezeichnungen diese repräsentiert werden. Im Folgenden sollen die wichtigsten Elemente und Prinzipien von Thesauri und die Thesaurusmethodik vorgestellt werden. Dies kann in diesem Rahmen nur auf eine sehr kursorische und allgemeine Art und Weise geschehen. Außerdem beschränkt sich die Darstellung auf den Thesauruseinsatz im klassischen Bereich von Information und Dokumentation. Auf die Behandlung von Spezialproblemen oder auf besondere Thesaurusformen (z.B. mehrsprachige Thesauri) kann hier nicht eingegangen werden, ebenso auf die erweiterten Anforderungen, die an Thesauri im Kontext von Wissensrepräsentation oder Hypertext zu stellen sind. Allerdings überschneidet sich der klassische IuD-Bereich zunehmend mit erweiterten Formen (etwa im Rahmen von Internetanwendungen). Da der Thesaurus im dokumentarischen Sinn alle Grundelemente des Thesaurusprinzips in klarer Form aufweist, wird dieser Bereich für eine Einführung gewählt. Für eine intensivere Auseinandersetzung mit der Thematik wird die Lektüre von Wersig empfohlen, auf den sich auch die folgenden Ausführungen in weiten Teilen stützen. Eine weitere grundsätzliche Einführung in diesen Bereich, allerdings eher ausgerichtet auf die Spezifika des englischen Sprachraums, findet sich bei Lancaster.
    Date
    5. 4.2013 10:18:22
    Source
    Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. 5., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. 2 Bde. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, Th. Seeger u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried. Bd.1: Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis
    Type
    a
  6. Tudhope, D.; Hodge, G.: Terminology registries (2007) 0.02 
    0.015289003 = product of:
  0.038222507 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
    0.031411353 = product of:
      0.06282271 = sum of:
        0.06282271 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06282271 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 539, 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=539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    A discussion on current initiatives regarding terminology registries.
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:22:07
  7. Aitchison, J.; Dextre Clarke, S.G.: ¬The Thesaurus : a historical viewpoint, with a look to the future (2004) 0.01 
    0.011863673 = product of:
  0.029659182 = sum of:
    0.010812371 = weight(_text_:a in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010812371 = score(doc=5005,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 5005, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5005)
    0.018846812 = product of:
      0.037693623 = sum of:
        0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037693623 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5005, 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=5005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    After a period of experiment and evolution in the 1950s and 1960s, a fairly standard format for thesauri was established with the publication of the influential Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) in 1967. This and other early thesauri relied primarily an the presentation of terms in alphabetical order. The value of a classified presentation was subsequently realised, and in particular the technique of facet analysis has profoundly influenced thesaurus evolution. Thesaurofacet and the Art & Architecture Thesaurus have acted as models for two distinct breeds of thesaurus using faceted displays of terms. As of the 1990s, the expansion of end-user access to vast networked resources is imposing further requirements an the style and structure of controlled vocabularies. The international standards for thesauri, first conceived in a print-based era, are badly in need of updating. Work is in hand in the UK and the USA to revise and develop standards in support of electronic thesauri.
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:46:13
    Type
    a
  8. Nielsen, M.L.: Thesaurus construction : key issues and selected readings (2004) 0.01 
    0.011492259 = product of:
  0.028730646 = sum of:
    0.0067426977 = weight(_text_:a in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067426977 = score(doc=5006,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 5006, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5006)
    0.021987949 = product of:
      0.043975897 = sum of:
        0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043975897 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5006, 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=5006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this selected bibliography is to introduce issues and problems in relation to thesaurus construction and to present a set of readings that may be used in practical thesaurus design. The concept of thesaurus is discussed, the purpose of the thesaurus and how the concept has evolved over the years according to new IR technologies. Different approaches to thesaurus construction are introduced, and readings dealing with specific problems and developments in the collection, formation and organisation of thesaurus concepts and terms are presented. Primarily manual construction methods are discussed, but the bibliography also refers to research about techniques for automatic thesaurus construction.
    Date
    18. 5.2006 20:06:22
    Type
    a
  9. Bagheri, M.: Development of thesauri in Iran (2006) 0.01 
    0.010808079 = product of:
  0.027020195 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=260,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
    0.018846812 = product of:
      0.037693623 = sum of:
        0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037693623 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 260, 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=260)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The need for Persian thesauri became apparent during the late 1960s with the advent of documentation centres in Iran. The first Persian controlled vocabulary was published by IRANDOC in 1977. Other centres worked on translations of existing thesauri, but it was soon realised that these efforts did not meet the needs of the centres. After the Islamic revolution in 1979, the foundation of new centres intensified the need for Persian thesauri, especially in the fields of history and government documents. Also, during the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian research centres produced reports in scientific and technical fields, both to support military requirements and to meet society's needs. In order to provide a comprehensive thesaurus, the Council of Scientific Research of Iran approved a project for the compilation of such a work. Nowadays, 12 Persian thesauri are available and others are being prepared, based on the literary corpus and conformity with characteristics of Iranian culture.
    Source
    Indexer. 25(2006) no.1, S.19-22
    Type
    a
  10. Miller, U.: Thesaurus construction (2000) 0.01 
    0.008234787 = product of:
  0.020586967 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.011051352 = product of:
      0.022102704 = sum of:
        0.022102704 = weight(_text_:information in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022102704 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.68, [=Suppl.31]
    Type
    a
  11. Schwartz, C.: Thesauri and facets and tags, Oh my! : a look at three decades in subject analysis (2008) 0.01 
    0.008234787 = product of:
  0.020586967 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 5566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=5566,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5566, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5566)
    0.011051352 = product of:
      0.022102704 = sum of:
        0.022102704 = weight(_text_:information in 5566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022102704 = score(doc=5566,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 5566, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5566)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The field of subject analysis enjoyed a flurry of interest in the 1970s, and has recently become a focus of attention again. The scholarly community doing work in this area has become more diffuse, and has grown to include new groups, such as information architects. Changes in information services and information seeking have led to reexamination of the nature and role of subject analysis tools and practices. This selective review looks at thesauri, guided navigation, and folksonomy as three activity areas in which subject analysis researchers have been attempting to address rapidly changing new environments.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft 'The Influence of F. W. Lancaster on Information Science and on Libraries', das als Festschrift für F.W. Lancaster deklariert ist.
    Type
    a
  12. Gilchrist, A.: Thesauri, taxonomies and ontologies : an etymological note (2003) 0.01 
    0.008092757 = product of:
  0.020231893 = sum of:
    0.010661141 = weight(_text_:a in 4455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010661141 = score(doc=4455,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 4455, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4455)
    0.009570752 = product of:
      0.019141505 = sum of:
        0.019141505 = weight(_text_:information in 4455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019141505 = score(doc=4455,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 4455, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4455)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The amount of work to be done in rendering the digital information space more efficient and effective has attracted a wide range of disciplines which, in turn, has given rise to a degree of confusion in the terminology applied to information problems. This note seeks to shed some light on the three terms thesauri, taxonomies and ontologies as they are currently being used by, among others, information scientists, AI practitioners, and those working on the foundations of the semantic Web. The paper is not a review of the techniques themselves.
    Type
    a
  13. Brühl, B.: Thesauri und Klassifikationen : Naturwissenschaften - Technik - Wirtschaft (2005) 0.01 
    0.007849997 = product of:
  0.039249983 = sum of:
    0.039249983 = sum of:
      0.014120899 = weight(_text_:information in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014120899 = score(doc=3487,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.1734784 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
      0.025129084 = weight(_text_:22 in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025129084 = score(doc=3487,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Das Buch gibt einen umfassenden Überblick über vorhandene Thesauri und Klassifikationen. Es liefert detaillierte Beschreibungen zu mehr als 150 Klassifikationen und Thesauri aus Naturwissenschaften, Technik, Wirtschaft und Patentwesen. Da gegenwärtig eine aktuelle Zusammenstellung international verfügbarer Thesauri und Klassifikationen fehlt, schließt das vorliegende Buch diese Lücke und kann somit dazu beitragen, Doppelarbeit bei der Erstellung von Thesauri und Klassifikationen zu verhindern und den intellektuellen wie kostenintensiven Aufwand zu minimieren. Zusätzlich bietet dieses Nachschlagewerk mit einem umfangreichen Index den Informationsspezialisten Unterstützung bei der Formulierung präziser Rechercheanfragen, indem es Informationen über Vorhandensein, Aufbau und Verfügbarkeit der Thesauri und Klassifikationen bereitstellt, die für die Recherche genutzt werden können. Das Buch wendet sich an alle Information Professionals, die Dokumentationssprachen aufbauen und nutzen.
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Information: Wissenschaft & Praxis 56(2005) H.5/6, S.337 (W. Ratzek): "Bettina Brühl legt mit "Thesauri und Klassifikationen" ein Fleißarbeit vor. Das Buch mit seiner Auswahl von über 150 Klassifikationen und Thesauri aus Naturwissenschaft, Technik, Wirtschaft und Patenwesen macht es zu einem brauchbaren Nachschlagewerk, zumal auch ein umfassender Index nach Sachgebieten, nach Datenbanken und nach Klassifikationen und Thesauri angeboten wird. Nach einer 13-seitigen Einführung (Kapitel 1 und 2) folgt mit dem 3. Kapitel die "Darstellung von Klassifikationen und Thesauri", im wesentlichen aus den Beschreibungen der Hersteller zusammengestellt. Hier werden Dokumentationssprachen der Fachgebiete - Naturwissenschaften (3.1) und deren Spezialisierungen wie zum Beispiel "Biowissenschaften und Biotechnologie", "Chemie" oder "Umwelt und Ökonomie", aber auch "Mathematik und Informatik" (?) auf 189 Seiten vorgestellt, - Technik mit zum Beispiel "Fachordnung Technik", "Subject Categories (INIS/ ETDE) mit 17 Seiten verhältnismäßig knapp abgehandelt, - Wirtschaft mit "Branchen-Codes", "Product-Codes", "Länder-Codes"",Fachklas-sifikationen" und "Thesauri" ausführlich auf 57 Seiten präsentiert, - Patente und Normen mit zum Beispiel "Europäische Patentklassifikation" oder "International Patent Classification" auf 33 Seiten umrissen. Jedes Teilgebiet wird mit einer kurzen Beschreibung eingeleitet. Danach folgen die jeweiligen Beschreibungen mit den Merkmalen: "Anschrift des Erstellers", "Themen-gebiet(e)", "Sprache", "Verfügbarkeit", "An-wendung" und "Ouelle(n)". "Das Buch wendet sich an alle Information Professionals, die Dokumentationssprachen aufbauen und nutzen" heißt es in der Verlagsinformation. Zwar ist es nicht notwendig, die informationswissenschaftlichen Aspekte der Klassifikationen und Thesauri abzuhandeln, aber ein Hinweis auf die Bedeutung der Information und Dokumentation und/oder der Informationswissenschaft wäre schon angebracht, um in der Welt der Informations- und Wissenswirtschaft zu demonstrieren, welchen Beitrag unsere Profession leistet. Andernfalls bleibt das Blickfeld eingeschränkt und der Anschluss an neuere Entwicklungen ausgeblendet. Dieser Anknüpfungspunkt wäre beispielsweise durch einen Exkurs über Topic Map/Semantic Web gegeben. Der Verlag liefert mit der Herausgabe die ses Kompendiums einen nützlichen ersten Baustein zu einem umfassenden Verzeichnis von Thesauri und Klassifikationen."
    Series
    Materialien zur Information und Dokumentation; Bd.22
  14. Naumis Pena, C.: Evaluation of educational thesauri (2006) 0.01 
    0.007797272 = product of:
  0.01949318 = sum of:
    0.011678694 = weight(_text_:a in 2257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011678694 = score(doc=2257,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 2257, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2257)
    0.007814486 = product of:
      0.015628971 = sum of:
        0.015628971 = weight(_text_:information in 2257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015628971 = score(doc=2257,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 2257, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2257)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    For years, Mexico has had a distance learning system backed by television-signal-transmitted videos. The change to digital and computer transmission demands organizing the information system and its subject contents through a thesaurus. To prepare the thesaurus, an evaluation of existing thesauri and standards for data exchange was carried out, aimed at retrieving subject contents and scheduling broadcasting. Methodology for evaluating thesauri was proposed, compared with a virtual educational platform and a basic structure for setting up the information system was recommended.
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
    Type
    a
  15. Greenberg, J.: User comprehension and application of information retrieval thesauri (2004) 0.01 
    0.0077931583 = product of:
  0.019482896 = sum of:
    0.0100103095 = weight(_text_:a in 5008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0100103095 = score(doc=5008,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 5008, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5008)
    0.009472587 = product of:
      0.018945174 = sum of:
        0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 5008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018945174 = score(doc=5008,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5008, 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=5008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    While information retrieval thesauri may improve search results, there is little research documenting whether general information system users employ these vocabulary tools. This article explores user comprehension and searching with thesauri. Data was gathered as part of a larger empirical query-expansion study involving the ProQuest Controlled Vocabulary. The results suggest that users' knowledge of thesauri is extremely limited. After receiving a basic thesaurus introduction, however, users indicate a desire to employ these tools. The most significant result was that users expressed a preference for thesauri employment through interactive processing or a combination of automatic and interactive processing, compared to exclusively automatic processing. This article defines information retrieval thesauri, summarizes research results, considers circumstances underlying users' knowledge and searching with thesauri, and highlights future research needs.
    Type
    a
  16. Lee, M.; Baillie, S.; Dell'Oro, J.: TML: a Thesaural Markpup Language (200?) 0.01 
    0.007583283 = product of:
  0.018958207 = sum of:
    0.012260076 = weight(_text_:a in 1622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012260076 = score(doc=1622,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 1622, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1622)
    0.0066981306 = product of:
      0.013396261 = sum of:
        0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 1622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013396261 = score(doc=1622,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1622, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Thesauri are used to provide controlled vocabularies for resource classification. Their use can greatly assist document discovery because thesauri man date a consistent shared terminology for describing documents. A particular thesauras classifies documents according to an information community's needs. As a result, there are many different thesaural schemas. This has led to a proliferation of schema-specific thesaural systems. In our research, we exploit schematic regularities to design a generic thesaural ontology and specfiy it as a markup language. The language provides a common representational framework in which to encode the idiosyncrasies of specific thesauri. This approach has several advantages: it offers consistent syntax and semantics in which to express thesauri; it allows general purpose thesaural applications to leverage many thesauri; and it supports a single thesaural user interface by which information communities can consistently organise, score and retrieve electronic documents.
  17. Garshol, L.M.: Metadata? Thesauri? Taxonomies? Topic Maps! : making sense of it all (2005) 0.01 
    0.0074719447 = product of:
  0.018679861 = sum of:
    0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 4729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007078358 = score(doc=4729,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4729, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4729)
    0.011601503 = product of:
      0.023203006 = sum of:
        0.023203006 = weight(_text_:information in 4729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023203006 = score(doc=4729,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 4729, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4729)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The task of an information architect is to create web sites where users can actually find the information they are looking for. As the ocean of information rises and leaves what we seek ever more deeply buried in what we don't seek, this discipline becomes ever more relevant. Information architecture involves many different aspects of web site creation and organization, but its principal tools are information organization techniques developed in other disciplines. Most of these techniques come from library science, such as thesauri, taxonomies, and faceted classification. Topic maps are a relative newcomer to this area and bring with them the promise of better-organized web sites, compared to what is possible with existing techniques. However, it is not generally understood how topic maps relate to the traditional techniques, and what advantages and disadvantages they have, compared to these techniques. The aim of this paper is to help build a better understanding of these issues.
    Source
    Journal of information science. 30(2005) no.4, S.378-391
    Type
    a
  18. Moreira, A.; Alvarenga, L.; Paiva Oliveira, A. de: "Thesaurus" and "Ontology" : a study of the definitions found in the computer and information science literature (2004) 0.01 
    0.007089811 = product of:
  0.017724527 = sum of:
    0.012429189 = weight(_text_:a in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012429189 = score(doc=3726,freq=74.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.23247388 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
          8.602325 = tf(freq=74.0), with freq of:
            74.0 = termFreq=74.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
    0.0052953376 = product of:
      0.010590675 = sum of:
        0.010590675 = weight(_text_:information in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010590675 = score(doc=3726,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1301088 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This is a comparative analysis of the term ontology, used in the computer science domain, with the term thesaurus, used in the information science domain. The aim of the study is to establish the main convergence points of these two knowledge representation instruments and to point out their differences. In order to fulfill this goal an analytical-Synthetic method was applied to extract the meaning underlying each of the selected definitions of the instruments. The definitions were obtained from texts weIl accepted by the research community from both areas. The definitions were applied to a KWIC system in order to rotate the terms that were examined qualitatively and quantitatively. We concluded that thesauri and ontologies operate at the same knowledge level, the epistemological level, in spite of different origins and purposes.
    Content
    "Thesaurus" definitions taken from the information science literature "A thesaurus is a controlled vocabulary arranged in a known order and structured so that equivalence, homographic, hierarchical, and associative relationships among terms are displayed clearly and identified by standardized relationship indicators that are employed reciprocally." (ANSI/NISO Z39-19-1993) "Thesaurus is a specialized, normalized, postcoordinate language used for documentaries means, where the linguistic elements that composes it - single or composed terms - are related among themselves syntactically and semantically." (Translated into English by the authors from the original in Portuguese: Currás 1995, 88.) "[...] an authority file, which can lead the user from one concept to another via various heuristic or intuitive paths." (Howerton 1965 apud Gilchrist 1971, 5) " [...] is a lexical authority list, without notation, which differs from an alphabetical subject heading list in that the lexical units, being smaller, are more amenable to post-coordinate indexing." (Gilchrist 1971,2) [...] "a dynamic controlled vocabulary of terms related semantically and by generic relation covering a specific knowledge domain." (Translated into English by the authors from the original in Portuguese: UNESCO 1973, 6.) [...] "a terminological control device used in the translation of the natural language of the documents, from the indexers or from the users in a more restricted system language (documentation language, information language)." (Translated into English by the authors from the original in Portuguese: UNESCO 1973,6.)
    "Ontologies" definitions taken from the computer science literature "[...] ontology is a representation vocabulary, often specialized to some domain or subject matter." (Chandrasekaran et al. 1999, 1) "[...] ontology is sometimes used to refer to a body of knowledge describing some domain, typically a commonsense knowledge domain, using a representation vocabulary." (Chandrasekaran et al. 1999, 1) "An ontology is a declarative model of the terms and relationships in a domain." (Eriksson et al. 1994, 1) " [...] an ontology is the (unspecified) conceptual system which we may assume to underlie a particular knowledge base." (Guarino and Giaretta 1995, 1) Ontology as a representation of a conceptual system via a logical theory". (Guarino and Giaretta 1995, 1) "An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization." (Gruber 1993, 1) "[...] An ontology is a formal description of entities and their properties, relationships, constraints, behaviors." (Gruninger and Fox 1995, 1) "An ontology is set of terms, associated with definitions in natural language and, if possible, using formal relations and constraints, about some domain of interest ..." (Hovy 1998, 2) "Fach Ontology is a set of terms of interest in a particular information domain, expressed using DL ..." (Mena et al. 1996, 3) "[...] An ontology is a hierarchically structured set of terms for describing a domain that can be used as a skeletal foundation for a knowledge base." (Swartout et al. 1996, 1) "An ontology may take a variety of forms, but necessarily it will include a vocabulary of terms and some specification of their meaning." (Uschold 1996,3) "Ontologies are agreements about shared conceptualizations." (Uschold and Grunninger 1996, 6) "[...] a vocabulary of terms and a specification of their relationships." (Wiederhold 1994, 6)
    Type
    a
  19. Li, K.W.; Yang, C.C.: Automatic crosslingual thesaurus generated from the Hong Kong SAR Police Department Web Corpus for Crime Analysis (2005) 0.01 
    0.007058388 = product of:
  0.01764597 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 3391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=3391,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3391, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3391)
    0.009472587 = product of:
      0.018945174 = sum of:
        0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 3391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018945174 = score(doc=3391,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23274568 = fieldWeight in 3391, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3391)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    For the sake of national security, very large volumes of data and information are generated and gathered daily. Much of this data and information is written in different languages, stored in different locations, and may be seemingly unconnected. Crosslingual semantic interoperability is a major challenge to generate an overview of this disparate data and information so that it can be analyzed, shared, searched, and summarized. The recent terrorist attacks and the tragic events of September 11, 2001 have prompted increased attention an national security and criminal analysis. Many Asian countries and cities, such as Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore, have been advised that they may become the next targets of terrorist attacks. Semantic interoperability has been a focus in digital library research. Traditional information retrieval (IR) approaches normally require a document to share some common keywords with the query. Generating the associations for the related terms between the two term spaces of users and documents is an important issue. The problem can be viewed as the creation of a thesaurus. Apart from this, terrorists and criminals may communicate through letters, e-mails, and faxes in languages other than English. The translation ambiguity significantly exacerbates the retrieval problem. The problem is expanded to crosslingual semantic interoperability. In this paper, we focus an the English/Chinese crosslingual semantic interoperability problem. However, the developed techniques are not limited to English and Chinese languages but can be applied to many other languages. English and Chinese are popular languages in the Asian region. Much information about national security or crime is communicated in these languages. An efficient automatically generated thesaurus between these languages is important to crosslingual information retrieval between English and Chinese languages. To facilitate crosslingual information retrieval, a corpus-based approach uses the term co-occurrence statistics in parallel or comparable corpora to construct a statistical translation model to cross the language boundary. In this paper, the text based approach to align English/Chinese Hong Kong Police press release documents from the Web is first presented. We also introduce an algorithmic approach to generate a robust knowledge base based an statistical correlation analysis of the semantics (knowledge) embedded in the bilingual press release corpus. The research output consisted of a thesaurus-like, semantic network knowledge base, which can aid in semanticsbased crosslingual information management and retrieval.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.3, S.272-281
    Type
    a
  20. Shiri, A.A.; Revie, C.; Chowdhury, G.: Thesaurus-enhanced search interfaces (2002) 0.01 
    0.007058388 = product of:
  0.01764597 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=3807,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
    0.009472587 = product of:
      0.018945174 = sum of:
        0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018945174 = score(doc=3807,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Journal of information science. 28(2002) no.2, S.111-122
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 83
  • d 18
  • es 2
  • ru 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 82
  • el 19
  • x 5
  • m 4
  • n 3
  • s 2
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications