Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.2585687 = product of:
  0.31028247 = sum of:
    0.021760186 = weight(_text_:und in 5448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021760186 = score(doc=5448,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.20778441 = fieldWeight in 5448, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5448)
    0.07342099 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 5448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07342099 = score(doc=5448,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22876309 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.3209477 = fieldWeight in 5448, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5448)
    0.02402186 = weight(_text_:des in 5448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02402186 = score(doc=5448,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.18358089 = fieldWeight in 5448, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5448)
    0.10259437 = weight(_text_:prinzips in 5448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10259437 = score(doc=5448,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27041927 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.37939 = fieldWeight in 5448, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5448)
    0.08848506 = product of:
      0.17697012 = sum of:
        0.17697012 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 5448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17697012 = score(doc=5448,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.81049186 = fieldWeight in 5448, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5448)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8333333 = coord(5/6)

Abstract

In this paper the possibility to develop a richer relational structure for thesauri is explored and described. The development of a new environmental thesaurus - EARTh (Environmental Applications Reference Thesaurus) - is serving as a case study for exploring the refinement of thesaurus relational structure by specialising standard relationships into different subtypes. Together with benefits and opportunities, implications and possible challenges that an expanded set of thesaurus relations may cause are evaluated.

Object

EARTh-Thesaurus

Source

Kompatibilität, Medien und Ethik in der Wissensorganisation - Compatibility, Media and Ethics in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings der 10. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Wien, 3.-5. Juli 2006 - Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the German Section of the International Society of Knowledge Organization Vienna, 3-5 July 2006. Ed.: H.P. Ohly, S. Netscher u. K. Mitgutsch

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.19605027 = product of:
  0.23526034 = sum of:
    0.012822312 = weight(_text_:und in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012822312 = score(doc=1462,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 1462, 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=1462)
    0.061184157 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061184157 = score(doc=1462,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22876309 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.2674564 = fieldWeight in 1462, 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=1462)
    0.020018218 = weight(_text_:des in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020018218 = score(doc=1462,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.15298408 = fieldWeight in 1462, 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=1462)
    0.08549531 = weight(_text_:prinzips in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08549531 = score(doc=1462,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27041927 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.723078 = idf(docFreq=392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.31615835 = fieldWeight in 1462, 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=1462)
    0.055740345 = product of:
      0.11148069 = sum of:
        0.11148069 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11148069 = score(doc=1462,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.5105618 = fieldWeight in 1462, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8333333 = coord(5/6)

Abstract

A thesaurus is a controlled vocabulary designed to allow for effective information retrieval. It con- sists of different kinds of semantic relationships, with the aim of guiding users to the choice of the most suitable index and search terms for expressing a certain concept. The relational semantics of a thesaurus deal with methods to connect terms with related meanings and arc intended to enhance information recall capabilities. In this paper, focused on hierarchical relations, different aspects of the relational semantics of thesauri, and among them the possibility of developing richer structures, are analyzed. Thesauri are viewed as semantic tools providing, for operational purposes, the representation of the meaning of the terms. The paper stresses how theories of semantics, holding different perspectives about the nature of meaning and how it is represented, affect the design of the relational semantics of thesauri. The need for tools capable of representing the complexity of knowledge and of the semantics of terms as it occurs in the literature of their respective subject fields is advocated. It is underlined how this would contribute to improving the retrieval of information. To achieve this goal, even though in a preliminary manner, we explore the possibility of setting against the framework of thesaurus design the notions of language games and hermeneutic horizon.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0037160232 = product of:
  0.022296138 = sum of:
    0.022296138 = product of:
      0.044592276 = sum of:
        0.044592276 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 78) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044592276 = score(doc=78,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.20422474 = fieldWeight in 78, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=78)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.