Search (59 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Lacasta, J.; Falquet, G.; Nogueras Iso, J.N.; Zarazaga-Soria, J.: ¬A software processing chain for evaluating thesaurus quality (2017) 0.07
    0.06728925 = product of:
      0.11214875 = sum of:
        0.0100103095 = weight(_text_:a in 3485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0100103095 = score(doc=3485,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 3485, 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=3485)
        0.095440306 = weight(_text_:91 in 3485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095440306 = score(doc=3485,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25837386 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3693884 = fieldWeight in 3485, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3485)
        0.0066981306 = product of:
          0.013396261 = sum of:
            0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 3485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013396261 = score(doc=3485,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3485, 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=3485)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6 = coord(3/5)
    
    Abstract
    Thesauri are knowledge models commonly used for information classication and retrieval whose structure is dened by standards that describe the main features the concepts and relations must have. However, following these standards requires a deep knowledge of the field the thesaurus is going to cover and experience in their creation. To help in this task, this paper describes a software processing chain that provides dierent validation components that evaluates the quality of the main thesaurus features.
    Pages
    S.91-99
    Series
    Information Systems and Applications, incl. Internet/Web, and HCI; 10151
    Source
    Semantic keyword-based search on structured data sources: COST Action IC1302. Second International KEYSTONE Conference, IKC 2016, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, September 8-9, 2016, Revised Selected Papers. Eds.: A. Calì, A. et al
    Type
    a
  2. Berti, Jr., D.W.; Lima, G.; Maculan, B.; Soergel, D.: Computer-assisted checking of conceptual relationships in a large thesaurus (2018) 0.03
    0.02823769 = product of:
      0.07059422 = sum of:
        0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00770594 = score(doc=4721,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
        0.06288828 = sum of:
          0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.012630116 = score(doc=4721,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4721, 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=4721)
          0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.050258167 = score(doc=4721,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Date
    17. 1.2019 19:04:22
    Source
    Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira
    Type
    a
  3. Boteram, F.: Semantische Relationen in Dokumentationssprachen : vom Thesaurus zum semantischen Netz (2010) 0.02
    0.023918023 = product of:
      0.05979506 = sum of:
        0.004767807 = weight(_text_:a in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004767807 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
        0.05502725 = sum of:
          0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.011051352 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
          0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043975897 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4792)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Moderne Verfahren des Information Retrieval verlangen nach aussagekräftigen und detailliert relationierten Dokumentationssprachen. Der selektive Transfer einzelner Modellierungsstrategien aus dem Bereich semantischer Technologien für die Gestaltung und Relationierung bestehender Dokumentationssprachen wird diskutiert. In Form einer Taxonomie wird ein hierarchisch strukturiertes Relationeninventar definiert, welches sowohl hinreichend allgemeine als auch zahlreiche spezifische Relationstypen enthält, die eine detaillierte und damit aussagekräftige Relationierung des Vokabulars ermöglichen. Das bringt einen Zugewinn an Übersichtlichkeit und Funktionalität. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Ansätzen und Überlegungen zur Schaffung von Relationeninventaren entwickelt der vorgestellte Vorschlag das Relationeninventar aus der Begriffsmenge eines bestehenden Gegenstandsbereichs heraus.
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
    Type
    a
  4. Keyser, P. de: Indexing : from thesauri to the Semantic Web (2012) 0.02
    0.023274926 = product of:
      0.058187317 = sum of:
        0.004086692 = weight(_text_:a in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004086692 = score(doc=3197,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3197, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3197)
        0.054100625 = sum of:
          0.016407004 = weight(_text_:information in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.016407004 = score(doc=3197,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 3197, 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=3197)
          0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.037693623 = score(doc=3197,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3197, 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=3197)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Indexing consists of both novel and more traditional techniques. Cutting-edge indexing techniques, such as automatic indexing, ontologies, and topic maps, were developed independently of older techniques such as thesauri, but it is now recognized that these older methods also hold expertise. Indexing describes various traditional and novel indexing techniques, giving information professionals and students of library and information sciences a broad and comprehensible introduction to indexing. This title consists of twelve chapters: an Introduction to subject readings and theasauri; Automatic indexing versus manual indexing; Techniques applied in automatic indexing of text material; Automatic indexing of images; The black art of indexing moving images; Automatic indexing of music; Taxonomies and ontologies; Metadata formats and indexing; Tagging; Topic maps; Indexing the web; and The Semantic Web.
    Date
    24. 8.2016 14:03:22
    Series
    Chandos information professional series
  5. Youlin, Z.; Baptista Nunes, J.M.; Zhonghua, D.: Construction and evolution of a Chinese Information Science and Information Service (CIS&IS) onto-thesaurus (2014) 0.01
    0.009362629 = product of:
      0.02340657 = sum of:
        0.0100103095 = weight(_text_:a in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0100103095 = score(doc=1376,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 1376, 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=1376)
        0.013396261 = product of:
          0.026792523 = sum of:
            0.026792523 = weight(_text_:information in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026792523 = score(doc=1376,freq=16.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 1376, product of:
                  4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                    16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1376)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Thesauri are the most important tools for information and knowledge organization, and they undergo regular improvements according to the rapid development of new requirements and affordances of emerging information techniques. This paper attempts to integrate ontology into the conceptual organization scheme of thesauri and proposes a new solution to extend the functionality of thesauri based on ontological features, which is termed here as an onto-thesaurus. In this study, a prototype system named the Chinese Information Science and Information Service onto-thesaurus system (CIS&IS), was developed to analyze ontothesaurus with the category of information science and information service in the Chinese Topic Classification Dictionary with a two-stage approach. The first stage aims to define and construct the onto-thesaurus. The second stage aims to realize the evolution function of onto-thesaurus. The main purpose of this system was to achieve the function of self-learning and auto-evolution and to enable a much more effective conceptual retrieval by the newly proposed onto-thesaurus.
    Type
    a
  6. Eckert, K: ¬The ICE-map visualization (2011) 0.01
    0.009248867 = product of:
      0.023122165 = sum of:
        0.012184162 = weight(_text_:a in 4743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012184162 = score(doc=4743,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 4743, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4743)
        0.010938003 = product of:
          0.021876005 = sum of:
            0.021876005 = weight(_text_:information in 4743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.021876005 = score(doc=4743,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 4743, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4743)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    In this paper, we describe in detail the Information Content Evaluation Map (ICE-Map Visualization, formerly referred to as IC Difference Analysis). The ICE-Map Visualization is a visual data mining approach for all kinds of concept hierarchies that uses statistics about the concept usage to help a user in the evaluation and maintenance of the hierarchy. It consists of a statistical framework that employs the the notion of information content from information theory, as well as a visualization of the hierarchy and the result of the statistical analysis by means of a treemap.
  7. Siebenkäs, A.; Markscheffel, B.: Conception of a workflow for the semi-automatic construction of a thesaurus for the German printing industry (2015) 0.01
    0.009222459 = product of:
      0.023056148 = sum of:
        0.013485395 = weight(_text_:a in 2091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013485395 = score(doc=2091,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 2091, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2091)
        0.009570752 = product of:
          0.019141505 = sum of:
            0.019141505 = weight(_text_:information in 2091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019141505 = score(doc=2091,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 2091, 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=2091)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    During the BMWI granted project "Print-IT", the need of a thesaurus based uniform and consistent language for the German printing industry became evident. In this paper we introduce a semi-automatic construction approach for such a thesaurus and present a workflow which supports users to generate thesaurus typical information structures from relevant digitalized resources with the help of common IT-tools.
    Source
    Re:inventing information science in the networked society: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science, Zadar/Croatia, 19th-21st May 2015. Eds.: F. Pehar, C. Schloegl u. C. Wolff
    Type
    a
  8. Shiri, A.: Powering search : the role of thesauri in new information environments (2012) 0.01
    0.008514896 = product of:
      0.02128724 = sum of:
        0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 1322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007078358 = score(doc=1322,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1322, 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=1322)
        0.014208881 = product of:
          0.028417762 = sum of:
            0.028417762 = weight(_text_:information in 1322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.028417762 = score(doc=1322,freq=18.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.34911853 = fieldWeight in 1322, product of:
                  4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                    18.0 = termFreq=18.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1322)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Powering search offers a clear and comprehensive treatment of the role of thesauri in search user interfaces across a range of information search and retrieval systems - from bibliographic and full-text databases to digital libraries, portals, open archives, and content management systems.
    Content
    Thesauri : introduction and recent developments -- Thesauri in interactive information retrieval -- User-centered approach to the evaluation of thesauri : query formulation and expansion -- Thesauri in web-based search systems -- Thesaurus-based search and browsing functionalities in new thesaurus construction standards -- Design of search user interfaces for thesauri -- Design of user interfaces for multilingual and meta-thesauri -- User-centered evaluation of thesaurus-enhanced search user interfaces -- Guidelines for the design of thesaurus-enhanced search user interfaces -- Current trends and developments.
    LCSH
    Information storage and retrieval systems
    Information retrieval
    RSWK
    Information Retrieval
    Subject
    Information Retrieval
    Information storage and retrieval systems
    Information retrieval
  9. Hjoerland, B.: Does the traditional thesaurus have a place in modern information retrieval? (2016) 0.01
    0.0076460927 = product of:
      0.019115232 = sum of:
        0.012278981 = weight(_text_:a in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012278981 = score(doc=2915,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.22966442 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
        0.006836252 = product of:
          0.013672504 = sum of:
            0.013672504 = weight(_text_:information in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013672504 = score(doc=2915,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2915, 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=2915)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    The introduction (1.0) of this article considers the status of the thesaurus within LIS and asks about the future prospect for thesauri. The main following points are: (2.0) Any knowledge organization system (KOS) is today threatened by Google-like systems, and it is therefore important to consider if there still is a need for knowledge organization (KO) in the traditional sense. (3.0) A thesaurus is a somewhat reduced form of KOS compared to, for example, an ontology, and its "bundling" and restricted number of semantic relations has never been justified theoretically or empirically. Which semantic relations are most fruitful for a given task is thus an open question, and different domains may need different kinds of KOS including different sets of relations between terms. (4.0) A KOS is a controlled vocabulary (CV) and should not be considered a "perfect language" (Eco 1995) that is simply able to remove the ambiguity of natural language; rather much ambiguity in language represents a battle between many "voices" (Bakhtin 1981) or "paradigms" (Kuhn 1962). In this perspective, a specific KOS, e.g. a specific thesaurus, is just one "voice" among many voices, and that voice has to demonstrate its authority and utility. It is concluded (5.0) that the traditional thesaurus does not have a place in modern information retrieval, but that more flexible semantic tools based on proper studies of domains will always be important.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].
    Type
    a
  10. Curras, E.: Ontologies, taxonomy and thesauri in information organisation and retrieval (2010) 0.01
    0.0074607544 = product of:
      0.018651886 = sum of:
        0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0068111527 = score(doc=3276,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
        0.011840734 = product of:
          0.023681467 = sum of:
            0.023681467 = weight(_text_:information in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.023681467 = score(doc=3276,freq=18.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.2909321 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
                  4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                    18.0 = termFreq=18.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    The originality of this book, which deals with such a new subject matter, lies in the application of methods and concepts never used before - such as Ontologies and Taxonomies, as well as Thesauri - to the ordering of knowledge based on primary information. Chapters in the book also examine the study of Ontologies, Taxonomies and Thesauri from the perspective of Systematics and General Systems Theory. "Ontologies, Taxonomy and Thesauri in Information Organisation and Retrieval" will be extremely useful to those operating within the network of related fields, which includes Documentation and Information Science.
    Content
    Inhalt: 1. From classifications to ontologies Knowledge - A new concept of knowledge - Knowledge and information - Knowledge organisation - Knowledge organisation and representation - Cognitive sciences - Talent management - Learning systematisation - Historical evolution - From classification to knowledge organisation - Why ontologies exist - Ontologies - The structure of ontologies 2. Taxonomies and thesauri From ordering to taxonomy - The origins of taxonomy - Hierarchical and horizontal order - Correlation with classifications - Taxonomy in computer science - Computing taxonomy - Definitions - Virtual taxonomy, cybernetic taxonomy - Taxonomy in Information Science - Similarities between taxonomies and thesauri - ifferences between taxonomies and thesauri 3. Thesauri Terminology in classification systems - Terminological languages - Thesauri - Thesauri definitions - Conditions that a thesaurus must fulfil - Historical evolution - Classes of thesauri 4. Thesauri in (cladist) systematics Systematics - Systematics as a noun - Definitions and historic evolution over time - Differences between taxonomy and systematics - Systematics in thesaurus construction theory - Classic, numerical and cladist systematics - Classic systematics in information science - Numerical systematics in information science - Thesauri in cladist systematics - Systematics in information technology - Some examples 5. Thesauri in systems theory Historical evolution - Approach to systems - Systems theory applied to the construction of thesauri - Components - Classes of system - Peculiarities of these systems - Working methods - Systems theory applied to ontologies and taxonomies
  11. Welhouse, Z.; Lee, J.H.; Bancroft, J.: "What am I fighting for?" : creating a controlled vocabulary for video game plot metadata (2015) 0.01
    0.007004201 = product of:
      0.017510502 = sum of:
        0.010812371 = weight(_text_:a in 2015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010812371 = score(doc=2015,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 2015, 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=2015)
        0.0066981306 = product of:
          0.013396261 = sum of:
            0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 2015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013396261 = score(doc=2015,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2015, 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=2015)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    A video game's plot is one of its defining features, and prior research confirms the importance of plot metadata to users through persona analysis, interviews, and surveys. However, existing organizational systems, including library catalogs, game-related websites, and traditional plot classification systems, do not adequately describe the plot information of video games, in other words, what the game is really about. We attempt to address the issue by creating a controlled vocabulary based on a domain analysis involving a review of relevant literature and existing data structures. The controlled vocabulary is constructed in a pair structure for maximizing flexibility and extensibility. Adopting this controlled vocabulary for describing plot information of games will allow for useful search and collocation of video games.
    Type
    a
  12. Mu, X.; Lu, K.; Ryu, H.: Explicitly integrating MeSH thesaurus help into health information retrieval systems : an empirical user study (2014) 0.01
    0.006866995 = product of:
      0.017167486 = sum of:
        0.008341924 = weight(_text_:a in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008341924 = score(doc=2703,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2703, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2703)
        0.008825562 = product of:
          0.017651124 = sum of:
            0.017651124 = weight(_text_:information in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017651124 = score(doc=2703,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 2703, 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=2703)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    When consumers search for health information, a major obstacle is their unfamiliarity with the medical terminology. Even though medical thesauri such as the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and related tools (e.g., the MeSH Browser) were created to help consumers find medical term definitions, the lack of direct and explicit integration of these help tools into a health retrieval system prevented them from effectively achieving their objectives. To explore this issue, we conducted an empirical study with two systems: One is a simple interface system supporting query-based searching; the other is an augmented system with two new components supporting MeSH term searching and MeSH tree browsing. A total of 45 subjects were recruited to participate in the study. The results indicated that the augmented system is more effective than the simple system in terms of improving user-perceived topic familiarity and question-answer performance, even though we did not find users spend more time on the augmented system. The two new MeSH help components played a critical role in participants' health information retrieval and were found to allow them to develop new search strategies. The findings of the study enhanced our understanding of consumers' search behaviors and shed light on the design of future health information retrieval systems.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 50(2014) no.1, S.24-40
    Type
    a
  13. Will, L.: ¬The ISO 25964 data model for the structure of an information retrieval thesaurus (2012) 0.01
    0.0066833766 = product of:
      0.016708441 = sum of:
        0.0100103095 = weight(_text_:a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0100103095 = score(doc=862,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
        0.0066981306 = product of:
          0.013396261 = sum of:
            0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013396261 = score(doc=862,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    International standard ISO 25964-1:2011 - Thesauri for information retrieval, includes a detailed data model for thesaurus structure. It is intended to provide a rigorous presentation of the elements and relationships which will not only clarify and standardise the varying and conflicting interpretations which exist but which can also be implemented consistently in automated systems. It makes a clear distinction between concepts and the terms which are used to label them, and includes other features that may be present in a thesaurus, such as compound equivalence, arrays and node labels, concept groups, notes and version history.
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
    Type
    a
  14. Losee, R.: Thesaurus structure, descriptive parameters, and scale (2016) 0.01
    0.0065874713 = product of:
      0.016468678 = sum of:
        0.009632425 = weight(_text_:a in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009632425 = score(doc=3087,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3087, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3087)
        0.006836252 = product of:
          0.013672504 = sum of:
            0.013672504 = weight(_text_:information in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013672504 = score(doc=3087,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3087, 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=3087)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    A thesaurus contains a set of terms or features that may be used to represent recorded information, including prose documents or scientific data sets. The focus of this work is on the basic structural nature of a thesaurus itself, not on how people develop a thesaurus or how a thesaurus effects retrieval performance. Thesauri in this research are automatically developed in a simulation from sets of randomly or exhaustively generated documents. Each thesaurus is generated by the Thesaurus Generator software from a set of several hundred documents, and thousands of different document sets are used as input to the Thesaurus Generator, producing thousands of thesauri. Thus, thousands of thesauri are generated for each data point in accompanying graphs. The characteristics of this large number of thesauri are studied so that the relationships between thesaurus parameters can be determined. Some rules governing these relationships are suggested, addressing factors such as tree height and width, number of tree roots in thesauri, and number of terms available for the vocabulary. How these parameters scale as vocabularies grow is addressed. These results apply to various information systems that contain features with hierarchical relationships, including many thesauri and ontologies.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.9, S.2156-2165
    Type
    a
  15. Tudhope, D.; Binding, C.: Still quite popular after all those years : the continued relevance of the information retrieval thesaurus (2016) 0.01
    0.006550755 = product of:
      0.016376887 = sum of:
        0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 2908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008173384 = score(doc=2908,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2908, 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=2908)
        0.008203502 = product of:
          0.016407004 = sum of:
            0.016407004 = weight(_text_:information in 2908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.016407004 = score(doc=2908,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2908, 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=2908)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    The recent ISKO-UK conference considered the question of whether the traditional thesaurus has any place in modern information retrieval. This note is intended to continue in the spirit of that good-natured debate, arguing that there is indeed a role today and highlighting some recent work showing the continued relevance of the thesaurus, particularly in the linked data area. Key functionality that a thesaurus makes possible is discussed. A brief outline is provided of prominent work hat employs thesauri in three key areas of infrastructure underpinning advanced retrieval functionality today: metadata enrichment,vocabulary mapping and web services.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].
    Type
    a
  16. Kempf, A.O.; Neubert, J.: ¬The role of thesauri in an Open Web : a case study of the STW Thesaurus for economics (2016) 0.01
    0.006550755 = product of:
      0.016376887 = sum of:
        0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 2912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008173384 = score(doc=2912,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2912, 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=2912)
        0.008203502 = product of:
          0.016407004 = sum of:
            0.016407004 = weight(_text_:information in 2912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.016407004 = score(doc=2912,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2912, 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=2912)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    This paper illustrates the changing role of thesauri interlinked with overall changes of modern information infrastructure services, referring to "STW Thesaurus for Economics" as a case study. It starts with an overview of the history and development of the STW and describes the far-reaching changes brought about by its publication on the Web, with regard to subject indexing, retrieval and new uses for Linked Open Data. It argues that only the most recent technological developments help thesauri to exploit their full potential which is why they more than ever have a place in current information retrieval and infrastructure.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].
    Type
    a
  17. Hjoerland, B.: Are relations in thesauri "context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds"? (2015) 0.01
    0.0064942986 = product of:
      0.016235746 = sum of:
        0.008341924 = weight(_text_:a in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008341924 = score(doc=2033,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
        0.007893822 = product of:
          0.015787644 = sum of:
            0.015787644 = weight(_text_:information in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015787644 = score(doc=2033,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2033, 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=2033)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Much of the literature of information science and knowledge organization has accepted and built upon Elaine Svenonius's (2004) claim that "paradigmatic relationships are those that are context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds" (p. 583). At the same time, the literature demonstrates a common understanding that paradigmatic relations are the kinds of semantic relations used in thesauri and other knowledge organization systems (including equivalence relations, hierarchical relations, and associative relations). This understanding is problematic and harmful because it directs attention away from the empirical and contextual basis for knowledge-organizing systems. Whether A is a kind of X is certainly not context-free and definitional in empirical sciences or in much everyday information. Semantic relations are theory-dependent and, in biology, for example, a scientific revolution has taken place in which many relations have changed following the new taxonomic paradigm named "cladism." This biological example is not an exception, but the norm. Semantic relations including paradigmatic relations are not a priori but are dependent on subject knowledge, scientific findings, and paradigms. As long as information scientists and knowledge organizers isolate themselves from subject knowledge, knowledge organization cannot possibly progress.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.7, S.1367-1373
    Type
    a
  18. Hedden, H.: ¬The accidental taxonomist (2012) 0.01
    0.0064556347 = product of:
      0.016139086 = sum of:
        0.0072082467 = weight(_text_:a in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0072082467 = score(doc=2915,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
        0.0089308405 = product of:
          0.017861681 = sum of:
            0.017861681 = weight(_text_:information in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017861681 = score(doc=2915,freq=16.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
                  4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                    16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    "Clearly details the conceptual and practical notions of controlled vocabularies. . provides a crash course for newcomers and offers experienced practitioners a common frame of reference. A valuable book." - Christine Connors, TriviumRLG LLC The Accidental Taxonomist is the most comprehensive guide available to the art and science of building information taxonomies. Heather Hedden-one of today's leading writers, instructors, and consultants on indexing and taxonomy topics-walks readers through the process, displaying her trademark ability to present highly technical information in straightforward, comprehensible English. Drawing on numerous real-world examples, Hedden explains how to create terms and relationships, select taxonomy management software, design taxonomies for human versus automated indexing, manage enterprise taxonomy projects, and adapt taxonomies to various user interfaces. The result is a practical and essential guide for information professionals who need to effectively create or manage taxonomies, controlled vocabularies, and thesauri. "A wealth of descriptive reference content is balanced with expert guidance. . Open The Accidental Taxonomist to begin the learning process or to refresh your understanding of the depth and breadth of this demanding discipline." - Lynda Moulton, Principal Consultant, LWM Technology Services "From the novice taxonomist to the experienced professional, all will find helpful, practical advice in The Accidental Taxonomist." - Trish Yancey, TCOO, Synaptica, LLC "This book squarely addresses the growing demand for and interest in taxonomy. ...Hedden brings a variety of background experience, including not only taxonomy construction but also abstracting and content categorization and creating back-of-the-book indexes. These experiences serve her well by building a broad perspective on the similarities as well as real differences between often overlapping types of work." - Marjorie M. K. Hlava, President and Chairman, Access Innovations, Inc., and Chair, SLA Taxonomy Division
    Imprint
    Medford, NJ : Information Today
    LCSH
    Information organization
    Cross References (Information Retrieval)
    Subject
    Information organization
    Cross References (Information Retrieval)
  19. ¬The Great Debate, 19 February 2015, ISKO UK (2015) 0.01
    0.0063194023 = product of:
      0.015798505 = sum of:
        0.01021673 = weight(_text_:a in 2105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01021673 = score(doc=2105,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 2105, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2105)
        0.0055817757 = product of:
          0.011163551 = sum of:
            0.011163551 = weight(_text_:information in 2105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011163551 = score(doc=2105,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2105, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2105)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Once upon a time, the thesaurus was venerated. It marked a breakthrough in the retrieval of very specific needles of information hidden in large haystacks. Some of the veneration rubbed off on to the trained information professionals, who alone mastered the occult art of using it to concoct effective search strategies. All this was in the time before we had a computer on every desk, when a collection of 10,000 articles was considered large, and long before the Google era. But now, who has the patience to consult a complicated thesaurus? Only a dedicated few. Has the thesaurus passed its sell-by date? And even its use-by date? These questions, and more, were tossed around at the Great Debate by a community of enthusiasts. While some limitations of the old-fashioned (?) thesaurus were noted, it still received a happy vote of confidence at the end. - Judi Vernau (2015) First speaker for the proposition - Vanda Broughton (2015) First speaker for the opposition - Helen Lippell (2015) Second speaker for the proposition - Leonard Will (2015) Second speaker for the opposition - Cross-examination of expert witnesses - Martin White (2015) Questions and discussion from the floor
    Type
    a
  20. Engerer, V.: Control and syntagmatization : vocabulary requirements in information retrieval thesauri and natural language lexicons (2017) 0.01
    0.006100817 = product of:
      0.015252043 = sum of:
        0.005779455 = weight(_text_:a in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005779455 = score(doc=3678,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
        0.009472587 = product of:
          0.018945174 = sum of:
            0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.018945174 = score(doc=3678,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3678, 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=3678)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    This paper explores the relationships between natural language lexicons in lexical semantics and thesauri in information retrieval research. These different areas of knowledge have different restrictions on use of vocabulary; thesauri are used only in information search and retrieval contexts, whereas lexicons are mental systems and generally applicable in all domains of life. A set of vocabulary requirements that defines the more concrete characteristics of vocabulary items in the 2 contexts can be derived from this framework: lexicon items have to be learnable, complex, transparent, etc., whereas thesaurus terms must be effective, current and relevant, searchable, etc. The differences in vocabulary properties correlate with 2 other factors, the well-known dimension of Control (deliberate, social activities of building and maintaining vocabularies), and Syntagmatization, which is less known and describes vocabulary items' varying formal preparedness to exit the thesaurus/lexicon, enter into linear syntactic constructions, and, finally, acquire communicative functionality. It is proposed that there is an inverse relationship between Control and Syntagmatization.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.6, S.1480-1490
    Type
    a

Languages

  • e 45
  • d 14

Types

  • a 53
  • el 5
  • m 4
  • n 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…