Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.031849682 = product of:
  0.09554905 = sum of:
    0.050252996 = weight(_text_:und in 1557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050252996 = score(doc=1557,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.47985753 = fieldWeight in 1557, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1557)
    0.045296054 = weight(_text_:des in 1557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045296054 = score(doc=1557,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.34616345 = fieldWeight in 1557, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1557)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Anhand von 2 alphabetischen Sachregistern der Zeitschrift für Buch- und Druckgeschichte "Het Boek" wird dargestellt, welche Rolle die Klassifikation in Sachregistern spielt bei der Wahl der Erschließungseinheiten und bei der Bestimmung der Indexierungstiefe. Als Hauptfunktion der Klassifikation bei Registern erweist sich jedoch die Erleichterung und Verbesserung des Suchvorganges. Erklärt wird, wie die Methode des ersten Registers, Klassifizierung spezifischer Begriffe unter hierarchisch höhere Begriffe, nicht zum Ziel führt und wie die Kontextmethode einen besseren Zugriff gewährleistet

Source

Die Klassifikation und ihr Umfeld: Proc. 10. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Münster, 18.-21.6.1986. Hrsg.: P.O. Degens

0.011173959 = product of:
  0.033521876 = sum of:
    0.014012752 = weight(_text_:des in 3638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014012752 = score(doc=3638,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13085164 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.10708885 = fieldWeight in 3638, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3638)
    0.019509122 = product of:
      0.039018244 = sum of:
        0.039018244 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 3638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039018244 = score(doc=3638,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21834905 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04725067 = queryNorm
            0.17869665 = fieldWeight in 3638, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3638)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

In the optimistic 1960s the potential of the computer seemed limitless. The realization of this potential in the area of information retrieval and dissemination owes much to the creative mind of Hans Peter Luhn. A pioneer of information science, he had a mind and an imagination that could transcend the state of the art. Luhn was born in Germany, where he studied technology, physics, and accounting. He came to the United States in 1924 and in 1941, at the age of 45, he joined IBM. In the course of his twenty-year tenure at IBM, he was issued over eighty patents; at one time he held more than any other IBM employee. Luhn is credited with originating KWIC indexes, computer selective dissemination systems (SDI), computer coding schemes, and statistical techniques for automatic indexing and abstracting. Also attributed to him is the first modern use of the word "thesaurus." The selection that follows modestly presents the idea of a Keyword in Context (KWIC) index. This is the idea of automatically identifying significant or "key" words and highlighting them in context. The context in question was normally a title. Though title term or catchword indexing had been practiced for over one hundred years, the implementation of the idea in mechanized systems in the 1960s was not trivial. It required programming the computer to recognize word boundaries and then developing a means for automatically differentiating significant from nonsignificant words. Spaces were used to demarcate word boundaries and a stop list, consisting of articles, conjunctions, prepositions, auxiliary verbs, some adjectives, and some very common words, was used to differentiate significant from nonsignificant words. A difficulty with any automatic indexing limited to extracting single words from texts is the semantic indeterminancy of the extracted character strings. To disambiguate these, Luhn adopted the concordance idea, proposing to display them in the context of their titles. Specifying the meaning of an index term by couching it in "context," anticipated the later development of string index languages such as PRECIS (PREserved Context Index System). Although the selection that follows is quite short, it presents, in addition to the idea of KWIC, what at the time were two innovative ideas. One is the distinction between the dissemination and the retrieval of information, in regard to which Luhn makes a point sometimes overlooked by modern critics of KWIC. This is that different purposes require different kinds of indexes; an index that is used to disseminate information for current awareness need not be as "perfect" as one used for retrospective information retrieval. The need to alert researchers to current information quickly, and the somewhat transitory character of this information, make KWIC, albeit quick and dirty, a costeffective alternative for dissemination indexes. The second harbinger idea is a method of uniquely identifying documents for retrieval using an identification code comprising the initial characters from a document's author, title, and - interestingly - year of publication. Luhn's mind was fertile indeed and he is aptly called a pioneer of information science.

Footnote

Nachdruck des Originalartikels mit Kommentierung durch die Herausgeber

0.006838567 = product of:
  0.0410314 = sum of:
    0.0410314 = weight(_text_:und in 2389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0410314 = score(doc=2389,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.39180204 = fieldWeight in 2389, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2389)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.005922373 = product of:
  0.035534237 = sum of:
    0.035534237 = weight(_text_:und in 5185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035534237 = score(doc=5185,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 5185, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5185)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Die PDS - Pressedatenbank Retrieval Software - ist eine neue Informationsdatenbank-Software. Sie ist einsatzfähig für Literaturhinweise und Volltextspeicherung. Sie läuft auf IBM-kompatiblem Rechnern. Sie wurde auf dem Hintergrund zehnjähriger Erfahrung im Umgang mit Datenbanken entworfen. PDS verfügt über eine einzigartige phonetische Abfragemöglichkeit, über ein Programm zur Herstellung gedruckter Register und eine Schnittstelle zu dem elektronischen Massenspeicher MEGADOC von Philips. In der G+J Pressedatenbank sind derzeit mehr als 1,4 Mio Datensätze gespeichert. Die G+J Dokumentation versorgt mehr als 800 Redakteure mit Textinformation und Bildern

0.0034192835 = product of:
  0.0205157 = sum of:
    0.0205157 = weight(_text_:und in 5184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0205157 = score(doc=5184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.104724824 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04725067 = queryNorm
        0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 5184, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5184)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)