Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Tudhope, D.; Alani, H.; Jones, C.: Augmenting thesaurus relationships : possibilities for retrieval (2001) 0.02 
    0.018584752 = product of:
  0.055754256 = sum of:
    0.055754256 = product of:
      0.08363138 = sum of:
        0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025961377 = score(doc=1520,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
        0.05767 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05767 = score(doc=1520,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.37365708 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses issues concerning the augmentation of thesaurus relationships, in light of new application possibilities for retrieval. We first discuss a case study that explored the retrieval potential of an augmented set of thesaurus relationships by specialising standard relationships into richer subtypes, in particular hierarchical geographical containment and the associative relationship. We then locate this work in a broader context by reviewing various attempts to build taxonomies of thesaurus relationships, and conclude by discussing the feasibility of hierarchically augmenting the core set of thesaurus relationships, particularly the associative relationship. We discuss the possibility of enriching the specification and semantics of Related Term (RT relationships), while maintaining compatibility with traditional thesauri via a limited hierarchical extension of the associative (and hierarchical) relationships. This would be facilitated by distinguishing the type of term from the (sub)type of relationship and explicitly specifying semantic categories for terms following a faceted approach. We first illustrate how hierarchical spatial relationships can be used to provide more flexible retrieval for queries incorporating place names in applications employing online gazetteers and geographical thesauri. We then employ a set of experimental scenarios to investigate key issues affecting use of the associative (RT) thesaurus relationships in semantic distance measures. Previous work has noted the potential of RTs in thesaurus search aids but also the problem of uncontrolled expansion of query term sets. Results presented in this paper suggest the potential for taking account of the hierarchical context of an RT link and specialisations of the RT relationship
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  2. Fischer, D.H.: Converting a thesaurus to OWL : Notes on the paper "The National Cancer Institute's Thesaurus and Ontology" (2004) 0.01 
    0.014522595 = product of:
  0.021783892 = sum of:
    0.015766038 = weight(_text_:im in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015766038 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.10931155 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
    0.0060178554 = product of:
      0.018053565 = sum of:
        0.018053565 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018053565 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.11697317 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The paper analysed here is a kind of position paper. In order to get a better under-standing of the reported work I used the retrieval interface of the thesaurus, the so-called NCI DTS Browser accessible via the Web3, and I perused the cited OWL file4 with numerous "Find" and "Find next" string searches. In addition the file was im-ported into Protégé 2000, Release 2.0, with OWL Plugin 1.0 and Racer Plugin 1.7.14. At the end of the paper's introduction the authors say: "In the following sections, this paper will describe the terminology development process at NCI, and the issues associated with converting a description logic based nomenclature to a semantically rich OWL ontology." While I will not deal with the first part, i.e. the terminology development process at NCI, I do not see the thesaurus as a description logic based nomenclature, or its cur-rent state and conversion already result in a "rich" OWL ontology. What does "rich" mean here? According to my view there is a great quantity of concepts and links but a very poor description logic structure which enables inferences. And what does the fol-lowing really mean, which is said a few lines previously: "Although editors have defined a number of named ontologic relations to support the description-logic based structure of the Thesaurus, additional relation-ships are considered for inclusion as required to support dependent applications."
  3. Cazan, C.: Medizinische Ontologien : das Ende des MeSH (2006) 0.01 
    0.01201222 = product of:
  0.03603666 = sum of:
    0.03603666 = weight(_text_:im in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03603666 = score(doc=132,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.24985497 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Die Komplexizität medizinischer Fragestellungen und des medizinischen Informationsmanagements war seit den Anfängen der Informatik immer ein besonders wichtiges Thema. Trotz des Scheiterns der Künstlichen Intelligenz in den 80er Jahren des vorigen Jahrhunderts haben deren Kernideen Früchte getragen. Durch kongruente Entwicklung einer Reihe anderer Wissenschaftsdisziplinen und der exponentiellen Entwicklung im Bereich Computerhardware konnten die gestellten, hohen Anforderungen bei der medizinischen Informationssuche doch noch erfüllt werden. Die programmatische Forderung von Tim Berners-Lee betreffend "Semantic Web" im Jahr 2000 hat dem Thema Ontologien für maschinenlesbare Repositorien in Allgemein- und Fachsprache breitere Aufmerksamkeit gewonnen. Da in der Medizin (PubMed) mit dem von NLM schon vor 20 Jahren entwickelten Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) eine funktionierende Ontologie in Form eines semantischen Netzes in Betrieb ist, ist es auch für Medizinbibliothekare und Medizindokumentare hoch an der Zeit, sich damit zu beschäftigen. Ontologien können im Wesen, trotz der informatisch vernebelnden Terminologie, als Werkzeuge der Klassifikation verstanden werden. Hier sind von seiten der Bibliotheks- und Dokumentationswissenschaft wesentliche Beiträge möglich. Der vorliegende Bericht bietet einen Einstieg in das Thema, erklärt wesentliche Elemente des UMLS und schließt mit einer kommentierten Anmerkungs- und Literaturliste für die weitere Beschäftigung mit Ontologien.
    Content
    Dieser Aufsatz ist kein Abgesang auf MeSH (= Medical Subject Headings in Medline/PubMed), wie man/frau vielleicht vermuten könnte. Vielmehr wird - ohne informatiklastiges Fachchinesisch - an Hand des von der National Library of Medicine entwickelten Unified Medical Language System erklärt, worin die Anforderungen an Ontologien bestehen, die im Zusammenhang mit dem Semantic Web allerorten eingefordert und herbeigewünscht werden. Eine Lektüre für Einsteigerinnen, die zum Vertiefen der gewonnenen Begriffssicherheit an Hand der weiterführenden Literaturhinweise anregt. Da das UMLS hier vor allem als Beispiel verwendet wird, werden auch Bibliothekarlnnen, Dokumentarlnnen und Informationsspezialistinnen anderer Fachbereiche den Aufsatz mit Gewinn lesen - und erfahren, dass unser Fachwissen aus der Sacherschließung und der Verwendung und Mitgestaltung von Normdateien und Thesauri bei der Entwicklung von Ontologien gefragt ist! (Eveline Pipp, Universitätsbibliothek Innsbruck). - Die elektronische Version dieses Artikels ist verfügbar unter: http://www.egms.de/en/journals/mbi/2006-6/mbi000049.shtml.
  4. Busch, D.: Organisation eines Thesaurus für die Unterstützung der mehrsprachigen Suche in einer bibliographischen Datenbank im Bereich Planen und Bauen (2016) 0.01 
    0.010617403 = product of:
  0.031852208 = sum of:
    0.031852208 = weight(_text_:im in 3308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031852208 = score(doc=3308,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.22084267 = fieldWeight in 3308, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3308)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Das Problem der mehrsprachigen Suche gewinnt in der letzten Zeit immer mehr an Bedeutung, da viele nützliche Fachinformationen in der Welt in verschiedenen Sprachen publiziert werden. RSWBPlus ist eine bibliographische Datenbank zum Nachweis der Fachliteratur im Bereich Planen und Bauen, welche deutsch- und englischsprachige Metadaten-Einträge enthält. Bis vor Kurzem war es problematisch Einträge zu finden, deren Sprache sich von der Anfragesprache unterschied. Zum Beispiel fand man auf deutschsprachige Anfragen nur deutschsprachige Einträge, obwohl die Datenbank auch potenziell nützliche englischsprachige Einträge enthielt. Um das Problem zu lösen, wurde nach einer Untersuchung bestehender Ansätze, die RSWBPlus weiterentwickelt, um eine mehrsprachige (sprachübergreifende) Suche zu unterstützen, welche unter Einbeziehung eines zweisprachigen begriffbasierten Thesaurus erfolgt. Der Thesaurus wurde aus bereits bestehenden Thesauri automatisch gebildet. Die Einträge der Quell-Thesauri wurden in SKOS-Format (Simple Knowledge Organisation System) umgewandelt, automatisch miteinander vereinigt und schließlich in einen Ziel-Thesaurus eingespielt, der ebenfalls in SKOS geführt wird. Für den Zugriff zum Ziel-Thesaurus werden Apache Jena und MS SQL Server verwendet. Bei der mehrsprachigen Suche werden Terme der Anfrage durch entsprechende Übersetzungen und Synonyme in Deutsch und Englisch erweitert. Die Erweiterung der Suchterme kann sowohl in der Laufzeit, als auch halbautomatisch erfolgen. Das verbesserte Recherchesystem kann insbesondere deutschsprachigen Benutzern helfen, relevante englischsprachige Einträge zu finden. Die Verwendung vom SKOS erhöht die Interoperabilität der Thesauri, vereinfacht das Bilden des Ziel-Thesaurus und den Zugriff zu seinen Einträgen.
  5. ALA / Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures: Final Report to the ALCTS/CCS Subject Analysis Committee (1997) 0.01 
    0.009712125 = product of:
  0.029136375 = sum of:
    0.029136375 = product of:
      0.043704562 = sum of:
        0.018172964 = weight(_text_:online in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018172964 = score(doc=1800,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.11735933 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
        0.025531596 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025531596 = score(doc=1800,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16542503 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The SAC Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures was authorized at the 1995 Midwinter Meeting and appointed shortly before Annual Conference. Its creation was one result of a discussion of how (and why) to promote the display and use of broader-term subject heading references, and its charge reads as follows: To investigate: (1) the kinds of relationships that exist between subjects, the display of which are likely to be useful to catalog users; (2) how these relationships are or could be recorded in authorities and classification formats; (3) options for how these relationships should be presented to users of online and print catalogs, indexes, lists, etc. By the summer 1996 Annual Conference, make some recommendations to SAC about how to disseminate the information and/or implement changes. At that time assess the need for additional time to investigate these issues. The Subcommittee's work on each of the imperatives in the charge was summarized in a report issued at the 1996 Annual Conference (Appendix A). Highlights of this work included the development of a taxonomy of 165 subject relationships; a demonstration that, using existing MARC coding, catalog systems could be programmed to generate references they do not currently support; and an examination of reference displays in several CD-ROM database products. Since that time, work has continued on identifying term relationships and display options; on tracking research, discussion, and implementation of subject relationships in information systems; and on compiling a list of further research needs.
    Content
    Enthält: Appendix A: Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures - REPORT TO THE ALCTS/CCS SUBJECT ANALYSIS COMMITTEE - July 1996 Appendix B (part 1): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (alphabetical display) (Separat in: http://web2.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/CCS/committees/subjectanalysis/subjectrelations/msrscu2.pdf) Appendix B (part 2): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (hierarchical display) Appendix C: Checklist of Candidate Subject Relationships for Information Retrieval. Compiled by Dee Michel, Pat Kuhr, and Jane Greenberg; edited by Greg Wool - June 1997 Appendix D: Review of Reference Displays in Selected CD-ROM Abstracts and Indexes by Harriette Hemmasi and Steven Riel Appendix E: Analysis of Relationships in Six LC Subject Authority Records by Harriette Hemmasi and Gary Strawn Appendix F: Report of a Preliminary Survey of Subject Referencing in OPACs by Gregory Wool Appendix G: LC Subject Referencing in OPACs--Why Bother? by Gregory Wool Appendix H: Research Needs on Subject Relationships and Reference Structures in Information Access compiled by Jane Greenberg and Steven Riel with contributions from Dee Michel and others edited by Gregory Wool Appendix I: Bibliography on Subject Relationships compiled mostly by Dee Michel with additional contributions from Jane Greenberg, Steven Riel, and Gregory Wool
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  6. Qin, J.; Paling, S.: Converting a controlled vocabulary into an ontology : the case of GEM (2001) 0.01 
    0.009217165 = product of:
  0.027651494 = sum of:
    0.027651494 = product of:
      0.08295448 = sum of:
        0.08295448 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08295448 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    24. 8.2005 19:20:22
  7. Jing, Y.; Croft, W.B.: ¬An association thesaurus for information retrieval (199?) 0.01 
    0.008023808 = product of:
  0.024071421 = sum of:
    0.024071421 = product of:
      0.07221426 = sum of:
        0.07221426 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07221426 = score(doc=4494,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 4494, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4494)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Although commonly used in both commercial and experimental information retrieval systems, thesauri have not demonstrated consistent benefits for retrieval performance, and it is difficult to construct a thesaurus automatically for large text databases. In this paper, an approach, called PhraseFinder, is proposed to construct collection-dependent association thesauri automatically using large full-text document collections. The association thesaurus can be accessed through natural language queries in INQUERY, an information retrieval system based on the probabilistic inference network. Experiments are conducted in INQUERY to evaluate different types of association thesauri, and thesauri constructed for a variety of collections
  8. Tudhope, D.; Hodge, G.: Terminology registries (2007) 0.01 
    0.007680971 = product of:
  0.023042914 = sum of:
    0.023042914 = product of:
      0.06912874 = sum of:
        0.06912874 = weight(_text_:22 in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06912874 = score(doc=539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:22:07
  9. Stein, R.; Saro, C.: Online-Plattform für kontrolliertes Vokabular (2006) 0.01 
    0.005769195 = product of:
  0.017307585 = sum of:
    0.017307585 = product of:
      0.051922753 = sum of:
        0.051922753 = weight(_text_:online in 3443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051922753 = score(doc=3443,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.33531237 = fieldWeight in 3443, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3443)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  10. Michel, D.: Taxonomy of Subject Relationships (1997) 0.01 
    0.005731291 = product of:
  0.017193872 = sum of:
    0.017193872 = product of:
      0.051581617 = sum of:
        0.051581617 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051581617 = score(doc=5346,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 5346, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5346)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  11. Gladun, A.; Rogushina, J.: Development of domain thesaurus as a set of ontology concepts with use of semantic similarity and elements of combinatorial optimization (2021) 0.00 
    0.004011904 = product of:
  0.012035711 = sum of:
    0.012035711 = product of:
      0.03610713 = sum of:
        0.03610713 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610713 = score(doc=572,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    We consider use of ontological background knowledge in intelligent information systems and analyze directions of their reduction in compliance with specifics of particular user task. Such reduction is aimed at simplification of knowledge processing without loss of significant information. We propose methods of generation of task thesauri based on domain ontology that contain such subset of ontological concepts and relations that can be used in task solving. Combinatorial optimization is used for minimization of task thesaurus. In this approach, semantic similarity estimates are used for determination of concept significance for user task. Some practical examples of optimized thesauri application for semantic retrieval and competence analysis demonstrate efficiency of proposed approach.
  12. Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Overview of ISO NP 25964 : structured vocabularies for information retrieval (2007) 0.00 
    0.0034387745 = product of:
  0.0103163235 = sum of:
    0.0103163235 = product of:
      0.03094897 = sum of:
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=535,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 535, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=535)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  13. Assem, M. van; Malaisé, V.; Miles, A.; Schreiber, G.: ¬A method to convert thesauri to SKOS (2006) 0.00 
    0.0034387745 = product of:
  0.0103163235 = sum of:
    0.0103163235 = product of:
      0.03094897 = sum of:
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=4642,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4642, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4642)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Thesauri can be useful resources for indexing and retrieval on the Semantic Web, but often they are not published in RDF/OWL. To convert thesauri to RDF for use in Semantic Web applications and to ensure the quality and utility of the conversion a structured method is required. Moreover, if different thesauri are to be interoperable without complicated mappings, a standard schema for thesauri is required. This paper presents a method for conversion of thesauri to the SKOS RDF/OWL schema, which is a proposal for such a standard under development by W3Cs Semantic Web Best Practices Working Group. We apply the method to three thesauri: IPSV, GTAA and MeSH. With these case studies we evaluate our method and the applicability of SKOS for representing thesauri.
  14. Doerr, M.: Semantic problems of thesaurus mapping (2001) 0.00 
    0.0028656456 = product of:
  0.008596936 = sum of:
    0.008596936 = product of:
      0.025790809 = sum of:
        0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025790809 = score(doc=5902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5902)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    With networked information access to heterogeneous data sources, the problem of terminology provision and interoperability of controlled vocabulary schemes such as thesauri becomes increasingly urgent. Solutions are needed to improve the performance of full-text retrieval systems and to guide the design of controlled terminology schemes for use in structured data, including metadata. Thesauri are created in different languages, with different scope and points of view and at different levels of abstraction and detail, to accomodate access to a specific group of collections. In any wider search accessing distributed collections, the user would like to start with familiar terminology and let the system find out the correspondences to other terminologies in order to retrieve equivalent results from all addressed collections. This paper investigates possible semantic differences that may hinder the unambiguous mapping and transition from one thesaurus to another. It focusses on the differences of meaning of terms and their relations as intended by their creators for indexing and querying a specific collection, in contrast to methods investigating the statistical relevance of terms for objects in a collection. It develops a notion of optimal mapping, paying particular attention to the intellectual quality of mappings between terms from different vocabularies and to problems of polysemy. Proposals are made to limit the vagueness introduced by the transition from one vocabulary to another. The paper shows ways in which thesaurus creators can improve their methodology to meet the challenges of networked access of distributed collections created under varying conditions. For system implementers, the discussion will lead to a better understanding of the complexity of the problem
  15. Hill, L.: New Protocols for Gazetteer and Thesaurus Services (2002) 0.00 
    0.002307678 = product of:
  0.006923034 = sum of:
    0.006923034 = product of:
      0.0207691 = sum of:
        0.0207691 = weight(_text_:online in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0207691 = score(doc=1206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.13412495 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The Alexandria Digital Library Project announces the online publication of two protocols to support querying and response interactions using distributed services: one for gazetteers and one for thesauri. These protocols have been developed for our own purposes and also to support the general interoperability of gazetteers and thesauri on the web. See <http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/~gjanee/gazetteer/> and <http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/~gjanee/thesaurus/>. For the gazetteer protocol, we have provided a page of test forms that can be used to experiment with the operational functions of the protocol in accessing two gazetteers: the ADL Gazetteer and the ESRI Gazetteer (ESRI has participated in the development of the gazetteer protocol). We are in the process of developing a thesaurus server and a simple client to demonstrate the use of the thesaurus protocol. We are soliciting comments on both protocols. Please remember that we are seeking protocols that are essentially "simple" and easy to implement and that support basic operations - they should not duplicate all of the functions of specialized gazetteer and thesaurus interfaces. We continue to discuss ways of handling various issues and to further develop the protocols. For the thesaurus protocol, outstanding issues include the treatment of multilingual thesauri and the degree to which the language attribute should be supported; whether the Scope Note element should be changed to a repeatable Note element; the best way to handle the hierarchical report for multi-hierarchies where portions of the hierarchy are repeated; and whether support for searching by term identifiers is redundant and unnecessary given that the terms themselves are unique within a thesaurus. For the gazetteer protocol, we continue to work on validation of query and report XML documents and on implementing the part of the protocol designed to support the submission of new entries to a gazetteer. We would like to encourage open discussion of these protocols through the NKOS discussion list (see the NKOS webpage at <http://nkos.slis.kent.edu/>) and the CGGR-L discussion list that focuses on gazetteer development (see ADL Gazetteer Development page at <http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/gazetteer>).

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 12
  • d 2

Types

Themes