Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

0.053051285 = product of:
  0.079576924 = sum of:
    0.040700868 = weight(_text_:based in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040700868 = score(doc=2943,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
    0.038876057 = product of:
      0.07775211 = sum of:
        0.07775211 = weight(_text_:22 in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07775211 = score(doc=2943,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Describes the developments of the Statistical System for Subject Designation (SSSD): a syntactical system for subject designation for libraries in Croatia, based on the construction of subject headings in agreement with the theory of the sentence nature of subject headings. The discussion is preceded by a brief summary of theories underlying basic principles and fundamental rules of the alphabetical subject catalogue

Date

31. 7.2006 14:22:21

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.1, S.77-93

0.034095198 = product of:
  0.051142793 = sum of:
    0.03052565 = weight(_text_:based in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03052565 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 2246, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2246)
    0.020617142 = product of:
      0.041234285 = sum of:
        0.041234285 = weight(_text_:22 in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041234285 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2246, 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=2246)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Discusses the apparently unattainable goal of compatibility of information languages. While controlled languages can improve retrieval performance within a single system, they make cooperation across different systems more difficult. The Internet and downloading accentuate this adverse outcome and the acceleration of data exchange aggravates the problem of compatibility. Defines this familiar concept and demonstrates that coherence is just as necessary as it was for indexing languages, the proliferation of which has created confusion in grouped data banks. Describes 2 types of potential solutions, similar to those applied to automatic translation of natural languages: - harmonizing the information languages themselves, both difficult and expensive, or, the more flexible solution involving automatic harmonization of indexing formulae based on pre established concordance tables. However, structural incompatibilities between post coordinated languages and classifications may lead any harmonization tools up a blind alley, while the paths of a universal concordance model are rare and narrow

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.029866494 = product of:
  0.04479974 = sum of:
    0.020350434 = weight(_text_:based in 3641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020350434 = score(doc=3641,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.13315678 = fieldWeight in 3641, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3641)
    0.024449307 = product of:
      0.048898615 = sum of:
        0.048898615 = weight(_text_:training in 3641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048898615 = score(doc=3641,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23690371 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.67046 = idf(docFreq=1125, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.20640713 = fieldWeight in 3641, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.67046 = idf(docFreq=1125, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3641)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The second Cranfield experiment (Cranfield II) in the mid-1960s challenged assumptions held by librarians for nearly a century, namely, that the objective of providing subject access was to bring together all materials an a given topic and that the achieving of this objective required vocabulary control in the form of an index language. The results of Cranfield II were replicated by other retrieval experiments quick to follow its lead and increasing support was given to the opinion that natural language information systems could perform at least as effectively, and certainly more economically, than those employing index languages. When the results of empirical research dramatically counter conventional wisdom, an obvious course is to question the validity of the research and, in the case of retrieval experiments, this eventually happened. Retrieval experiments were criticized for their artificiality, their unrepresentative sampies, and their problematic definitions-particularly the definition of relevance. In the minds of some, at least, the relative merits of natural languages vs. indexing languages continued to be an unresolved issue. As with many eitherlor options, a seemingly safe course to follow is to opt for "both," and indeed there seems to be an increasing amount of counsel advising a combination of natural language and index language search capabilities. One strong voice offering such counsel is that of Robert Fugmann, a chemist by training, a theoretician by predilection, and, currently, a practicing information scientist at Hoechst AG, Frankfurt/Main. This selection from his writings sheds light an the capabilities and limitations of both kinds of indexing. Its special significance lies in the fact that its arguments are based not an empirical but an rational grounds. Fugmann's major argument starts from the observation that in natural language there are essentially two different kinds of concepts: 1) individual concepts, repre sented by names of individual things (e.g., the name of the town Augsburg), and 2) general concepts represented by names of classes of things (e.g., pesticides). Individual concepts can be represented in language simply and succinctly, often by a single string of alphanumeric characters; general concepts, an the other hand, can be expressed in a multiplicity of ways. The word pesticides refers to the concept of pesticides, but also referring to this concept are numerous circumlocutions, such as "Substance X was effective against pests." Because natural language is capable of infinite variety, we cannot predict a priori the manifold ways a general concept, like pesticides, will be represented by any given author. It is this lack of predictability that limits natural language retrieval and causes poor precision and recall. Thus, the essential and defining characteristic of an index language ls that it is a tool for representational predictability.

0.022279873 = product of:
  0.06683962 = sum of:
    0.06683962 = sum of:
      0.04278629 = weight(_text_:training in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04278629 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23690371 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.67046 = idf(docFreq=1125, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050723847 = queryNorm
          0.18060625 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.67046 = idf(docFreq=1125, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
      0.024053333 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024053333 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050723847 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Calvin Mooers' work toward the resolution of the problem of ambiguity in indexing went unrecognized for years. At the time he introduced the "descriptor" - a term with a very distinct meaning-indexers were, for the most part, taking index terms directly from the document, without either rationalizing them with context or normalizing them with some kind of classification. It is ironic that Mooers' term came to be attached to the popular but unsophisticated indexing methods which he was trying to root out. Simply expressed, what Mooers did was to take the dictionary definitions of terms and redefine them so clearly that they could not be used in any context except that provided by the new definition. He did, at great pains, construct such meanings for over four hundred words; disambiguation and specificity were sought after and found for these words. He proposed that all indexers adopt this method so that when the index supplied a term, it also supplied the exact meaning for that term as used in the indexed document. The same term used differently in another document would be defined differently and possibly renamed to avoid ambiguity. The disambiguation was achieved by using unabridged dictionaries and other sources of defining terminology. In practice, this tends to produce circularity in definition, that is, word A refers to word B which refers to word C which refers to word A. It was necessary, therefore, to break this chain by creating a new, definitive meaning for each word. Eventually, means such as those used by Austin (q.v.) for PRECIS achieved the same purpose, but by much more complex means than just creating a unique definition of each term. Mooers, however, was probably the first to realize how confusing undefined terminology could be. Early automatic indexers dealt with distinct disciplines and, as long as they did not stray beyond disciplinary boundaries, a quick and dirty keyword approach was satisfactory. The trouble came when attempts were made to make a combined index for two or more distinct disciplines. A number of processes have since been developed, mostly involving tagging of some kind or use of strings. Mooers' solution has rarely been considered seriously and probably would be extremely difficult to apply now because of so much interdisciplinarity. But for a specific, weIl defined field, it is still weIl worth considering. Mooers received training in mathematics and physics from the University of Minnesota and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was the founder of Zator Company, which developed and marketed a coded card information retrieval system, and of Rockford Research, Inc., which engages in research in information science. He is the inventor of the TRAC computer language.

Footnote

Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.

0.020561326 = product of:
  0.061683975 = sum of:
    0.061683975 = weight(_text_:based in 1142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061683975 = score(doc=1142,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.40361002 = fieldWeight in 1142, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1142)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Relationships are specified by simultaneously identifying a semantic relationship and the set of participants involved in it, pairing each participant with its role in the relationship. Properties pertaining to the participant set and the nature of the relationship are explored. Relationships in the organization of knowledge are surveyed, encompassing relationships between units of recorded knowledge based an descriptions of those units; intratextual and intertextual relationships, including relationships based an text structure, citation relationships, and hypertext links; subject relationships in thesauri and other classificatory structures, including relationships for literature-based knowledge discovery; and relevance relationships.

0.017623993 = product of:
  0.052871976 = sum of:
    0.052871976 = weight(_text_:based in 1680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052871976 = score(doc=1680,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.34595144 = fieldWeight in 1680, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1680)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Last word ontological thought and practice is exemplified on an axiomatic framework [a model for an Integrative Cross-Language Ontology (ICLO), cf. Poli, R., Schmitz-Esser, W., forthcoming 2007] that is highly general, based on natural language, multilingual, can be implemented as topic maps and may be openly enhanced by software available for particular languages. Basics of ontological modelling, conditions for construction and maintenance, and the most salient points in application are addressed, such as cross-language text mining and knowledge generation. The rationale is to open the eyes for the tremendous potential of terminology-based ontologies for principled Knowledge Organization and the interchange and reuse of formalized knowledge.

0.016958695 = product of:
  0.050876085 = sum of:
    0.050876085 = weight(_text_:based in 927) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050876085 = score(doc=927,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.33289194 = fieldWeight in 927, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=927)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Extracting semantic relationships between entities from text documents is challenging in information extraction and important for deep information processing and management. This paper investigates the incorporation of diverse lexical, syntactic and semantic knowledge in feature-based relation extraction using support vector machines. Our study illustrates that the base phrase chunking information is very effective for relation extraction and contributes to most of the performance improvement from syntactic aspect while current commonly used features from full parsing give limited further enhancement. This suggests that most of useful information in full parse trees for relation extraction is shallow and can be captured by chunking. This indicates that a cheap and robust solution in relation extraction can be achieved without decreasing too much in performance. We also demonstrate how semantic information such as WordNet, can be used in feature-based relation extraction to further improve the performance. Evaluation on the ACE benchmark corpora shows that effective incorporation of diverse features enables our system outperform previously best-reported systems. It also shows that our feature-based system significantly outperforms tree kernel-based systems. This suggests that current tree kernels fail to effectively explore structured syntactic information in relation extraction.

0.016035557 = product of:
  0.048106667 = sum of:
    0.048106667 = product of:
      0.09621333 = sum of:
        0.09621333 = weight(_text_:22 in 4506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09621333 = score(doc=4506,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4506, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4506)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

8.10.2000 11:52:22

0.013566956 = product of:
  0.040700868 = sum of:
    0.040700868 = weight(_text_:based in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040700868 = score(doc=834,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 834, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=834)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Index language (the system of symbols for representing subject content after analysis) is considered as a separate component and a variable in an information retrieval system. It is suggested that for purposes of testing, comparing and evaluating index language, the techniques of structural linguistics may provide a descriptive methodology by which all such languages (hierarchical and faceted classification, analytico-synthetic indexing, traditional subject indexing, indexes and classifications based on automatic text analysis, etc.) could be described in term of a linguistic model, and compared on a common basis

0.011991608 = product of:
  0.035974823 = sum of:
    0.035974823 = weight(_text_:based in 1921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035974823 = score(doc=1921,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 1921, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1921)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Classification schemes, thesauri, taxonomies, and other controlled vocabularies play important roles in the organization and retrieval of information in many different environments. While the design and construction of controlled vocabularies have been prescribed at the technical level in great detail over the past decades, the methodological level has been somewhat neglected. However, classification research has in recent years focused on developing approaches to the analysis of users, domains, and activities that could produce requirements for the design of controlled vocabularies. Researchers have often argued that the design, construction, and use of controlled vocabularies need to be based on analyses and understandings of the contexts in which these controlled vocabularies function. While one would assume that the growing body of research on human information behavior might help guide the development of controlled vocabularies shed light on these contexts, unfortunately, much of the research in this area is descriptive in nature and of little use for systems design. This paper discusses these trends and outlines a holistic approach that demonstrates how the design of controlled vocabularies can be informed by investigations of people's interactions with information. This approach is based on the Cognitive Work Analysis framework and outlines several dimensions of human-information interactions. Application of this approach will result is a comprehensive understanding of the contexts in which the controlled vocabulary will function and which can be used for the development of for the development of controlled vocabularies.

0.011871087 = product of:
  0.03561326 = sum of:
    0.03561326 = weight(_text_:based in 4475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03561326 = score(doc=4475,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 4475, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4475)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The expression of conceptual syntagmatic relationships in document retrieval systems holds out hope for both increased discrimination generally and increased recall in certain contexts. Such relationships require both a structured inventory of relationships. Examines the means of expressing these. The expression of conceptual syntagmatic relationships must comply with criteria of systematicity, complexity, efficiency and naturalness. Unfortunately, the complex interaction of natural language expression based on lexicalization, word order, function words, and morphosyntactic cases causes failure regarding systematicity. Most methods of expressing conceptual syntagmatic relationships, e.g. term co occurrence techniques, links and role indicators, fail to comply with this and other of the criteria. Only gestalt structures simultaneously representing relationships, participants and roles conform fully to the critical checklist

0.011871087 = product of:
  0.03561326 = sum of:
    0.03561326 = weight(_text_:based in 3887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03561326 = score(doc=3887,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 3887, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3887)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In the 1960s and 1970s, a lot of work was done to develop indexing languages and models of indexing languages, in order to be able to produce the more specific indexing needed for highly specialized scientific papers. SYNTOL was a major contribution of the French to this activity. SYNTOL as a model was based on the linguistic distinction between paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations of words, and was intended to supply a complete and flexible platform for its own and other indexing languages.

0.011453969 = product of:
  0.034361906 = sum of:
    0.034361906 = product of:
      0.06872381 = sum of:
        0.06872381 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06872381 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, 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=6089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Pages

S.11-22

0.010175217 = product of:
  0.03052565 = sum of:
    0.03052565 = weight(_text_:based in 32) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03052565 = score(doc=32,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 32, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=32)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Information research consists of the comparison of 2 sources of information - that of formal description and content analysis and that based on the needs of the user. Information research filters identical elements from the sources by means of document and research cross-sections. Establishing such cross-sections for scientific documents and research questions is made possible by classification. Through the definition of the terms 'class' and 'classification' it becomes clear that the terms 'hierarchic classification' and 'classification' cannot be used synonymously. The basic types of information research languages are both hierarchic and non-hierarchic arising from the structure of lexicology and the paradigmatic relations of the lexicological units. The names for the lexicological units ('descriptor' and 'subject haedings') are synonymous, but it is necessary to differentiate between the terms 'descriptor language' and 'information research thesaurus'. The principles of precoordination and post-coordination as applied to word formation are unsuitable for the typification of information research languages

0.010175217 = product of:
  0.03052565 = sum of:
    0.03052565 = weight(_text_:based in 2241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03052565 = score(doc=2241,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 2241, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2241)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Intertextual semantics is a semiotics-based approach to the design of communication artefacts primarily aimed at modeling XML structured documents. SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System) is a specification currently under development at the W3C that allows expressing various types of controlled vocabularies in XML. In this article, we show through an example how intertextual semantics could be applied to controlled vocabularies expressed in SKOS, and argue that it could facilitate the communication of meaning among the various persons who interact with a controlled vocabulary.

0.009593287 = product of:
  0.028779859 = sum of:
    0.028779859 = weight(_text_:based in 78) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028779859 = score(doc=78,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.18831211 = fieldWeight in 78, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=78)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper, which increases and deepens what was expressed in a previous work (Mazzocchi et al., 2007), is to scrutinize the underlying assumptions of the types of relations included in thesauri, particularly the genus-species relation. Logicist approaches to information organization, which are still dominant, will be compared with hermeneutically oriented approaches. In the light of these approaches, the nature and features of the relations, and what the notion of a priori could possibly mean with regard to them, are examined, together with the implications for designing and implementing knowledge organizations systems (KOS). Design/methodology/approach The inquiry is based on how the relations are described in literature, engaging in particular a discussion with Hjørland (2015) and Svenonius (2004). The philosophical roots of today's leading views are briefly illustrated, in order to put them under perspective and deconstruct the uncritical reception of their authority. To corroborate the discussion a semantic analysis of specific terms and relations is provided too. Findings All relations should be seen as "perspectival" (not as a priori). On the other hand, different types of relations, depending on the conceptual features of the terms involved, can hold a different degree of "stability." On this basis, they could be used to address different information concerns (e.g. interoperability vs expressiveness). Research limitations/implications Some arguments that the paper puts forth at the conceptual level need to be tested in application contexts. Originality/value This paper considers that the standpoint of logic and of hermeneutic (usually seen as conflicting) are both significant for information organization, and could be pragmatically integrated. In accordance with this view, an extension of thesaurus relations' set is advised, meaning that perspective hierarchical relations (i.e. relations that are not logically based but function contingently) should be also included in such a set.

0.008479347 = product of:
  0.025438042 = sum of:
    0.025438042 = weight(_text_:based in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025438042 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Natural text phrasing is an indeterminate process and, thus, inherently lacks representational predictability. This holds true in particular in the Gase of general concepts and of their syntactical connectivity. Hence, natural language query phrasing and searching is an unending adventure of trial and error and, in most Gases, has an unsatisfactory outcome with respect to the recall and precision ratlos of the responses. Human indexing is based an knowledgeable document interpretation and aims - among other things - at introducing predictability into the representation of documents. Due to the indeterminacy of natural language text phrasing and image construction, any adequate indexing is also indeterminate in nature and therefore inherently defies any satisfactory algorithmization. But human indexing suffers from a different Set of deficiencies which are absent in the processing of non-interpreted natural language. An optimally effective information System combines both types of language in such a manner that their specific strengths are preserved and their weaknesses are avoided. lf the goal is a large and enduring information system for more than merely known-item searches, the expenditure for an advanced index language and its knowledgeable and careful employment is unavoidable.

0.008479347 = product of:
  0.025438042 = sum of:
    0.025438042 = weight(_text_:based in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025438042 = score(doc=2497,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 2497, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2497)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

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

0.008017778 = product of:
  0.024053333 = sum of:
    0.024053333 = product of:
      0.048106667 = sum of:
        0.048106667 = weight(_text_:22 in 2245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048106667 = score(doc=2245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2245, 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=2245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.008017778 = product of:
  0.024053333 = sum of:
    0.024053333 = product of:
      0.048106667 = sum of:
        0.048106667 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048106667 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17762627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:45:57