Kless, D.; Milton, S.; Kazmierczak, E.; Lindenthal, J.: Thesaurus and ontology structure : formal and pragmatic differences and similarities (2015)
0.21
0.20648976 = product of:
0.24778771 = sum of:
0.012822312 = weight(_text_:und in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012822312 = score(doc=2036,freq=2.0), product of:
0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.04725067 = queryNorm
0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 2036, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2036)
0.061184157 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061184157 = score(doc=2036,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22876309 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
0.04725067 = queryNorm
0.2674564 = fieldWeight in 2036, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2036)
0.020018218 = weight(_text_:des in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020018218 = score(doc=2036,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.04725067 = queryNorm
0.15298408 = fieldWeight in 2036, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2036)
0.08549531 = weight(_text_:prinzips in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08549531 = score(doc=2036,freq=2.0), product of:
0.27041927 = queryWeight, product of:
5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
0.04725067 = queryNorm
0.31615835 = fieldWeight in 2036, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2036)
0.06826771 = product of:
0.13653542 = sum of:
0.13653542 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13653542 = score(doc=2036,freq=12.0), product of:
0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
0.04725067 = queryNorm
0.62530804 = fieldWeight in 2036, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2036)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.8333333 = coord(5/6)
- Abstract
- Thesauri and other types of controlled vocabularies are increasingly re-engineered into ontologies described using the Web Ontology Language (OWL), particularly in the life sciences. This has led to the perception by some that thesauri are ontologies once they are described by using the syntax of OWL while others have emphasized the need to re-engineer a vocabulary to use it as ontology. This confusion is rooted in different perceptions of what ontologies are and how they differ from other types of vocabularies. In this article, we rigorously examine the structural differences and similarities between thesauri and meaning-defining ontologies described in OWL. Specifically, we conduct (a) a conceptual comparison of thesauri and ontologies, and (b) a comparison of a specific thesaurus and a specific ontology in the same subject field. Our results show that thesauri and ontologies need to be treated as 2 orthogonal kinds of models with superficially similar structures. An ontology is not a good thesaurus, nor is a thesaurus a good ontology. A thesaurus requires significant structural and other content changes to become an ontology, and vice versa.
- Theme
- Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
Spree, U.; Lindenthal, J.; Knaack, A.: Wortnetz Kultur : ein Thesaurusprojekt zur kollaborativen Erschließung von Fachinformationen des kulturellen Erbes (2012)
0.03
0.027868476 = product of:
0.08360542 = sum of:
0.04397137 = weight(_text_:und in 173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04397137 = score(doc=173,freq=12.0), product of:
0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.04725067 = queryNorm
0.41987535 = fieldWeight in 173, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=173)
0.03963405 = weight(_text_:des in 173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03963405 = score(doc=173,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.04725067 = queryNorm
0.302893 = fieldWeight in 173, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=173)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Am Beispiel der Kooperation zwischen dem Department Information der HAW Hamburg und dem Landschaftsverband Rheinland in einem Thesaurusprojekt zur kollaborativen Erschließung von Fachinformationen des kulturellen Erbes wird gezeigt, wie unter den begrenzten Möglichkeiten der informations- und bibliothekswissenschaftlichen Fachbereiche an Fachhochschulen Forschungs- und Entwicklungsvorhaben in enger Kooperation mit der Praxis umgesetzt werden können. Es wird dargestellt, wie Domänenexperten und Informationsspezialisten beim Aufbau und der Pflege eines kontrollierten Fachvokabulars erfolgreich kooperieren können, aber auch welche Schwierigkeiten eine solche Zusammenarbeit zu überwinden hat.
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.1, S.23-36
