Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

0.06364013 = product of:
  0.10606688 = sum of:
    0.06342807 = weight(_text_:index in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06342807 = score(doc=1412,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
    0.032950602 = weight(_text_:system in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032950602 = score(doc=1412,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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.

Source

Knowledge organization. 29(2002) nos.3/4, S.217-230

0.04856749 = product of:
  0.12141872 = sum of:
    0.08879929 = weight(_text_:index in 8756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08879929 = score(doc=8756,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.4779429 = fieldWeight in 8756, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8756)
    0.03261943 = weight(_text_:system in 8756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03261943 = score(doc=8756,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 8756, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8756)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

Enthält folgende Kapitel: Information and information systems; Information system survival power; Theoretical considerations on information storage and retrieval; Indexing (representation of the essence of documents; extractive, assignment, consistent indexing, indexing and abstracting, book indexing, index language vocabulary, syntax, concept analysis, evaluation of indexing quality); Technology of information supply; Glossary of terms used; Systematic and 'basic index'

0.035095815 = product of:
  0.087739535 = sum of:
    0.07611368 = weight(_text_:index in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07611368 = score(doc=6920,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
    0.011625858 = product of:
      0.034877572 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The contents of scientific and technical handbooks often needs fast, reliable and precise subject access, even if the searcher is not familiar with the terminology of the book and has not read it beforehand. This requires careful and expert subject indexing in a highly specific indexing vocabulary, as well as the presentation of the resulting index in a lucid, conceptually transparent manner in print and on disk. Index users, when looking up a general subject heading, often ignore the necessity of looking up the appertaining hierarchically subordinate, more specific subject headings, too. They are either not made aware of these subject headings or their use is felt to be too cumbersome. A classifies approach to computerized subject indexing is described which resembles Ranganathan's Classified Catalogue. Through a variety of peculiarities it leads the searcher rapidly and easily to all subject headings related to a primarily chosen one, and to the postings under all these headings

Source

Knowledge organization. 21(1994) no.1, S.29-31

0.0340826 = product of:
  0.085206494 = sum of:
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=1210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
    0.04035608 = weight(_text_:system in 1210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04035608 = score(doc=1210,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 1210, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1210)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Traditionally, database indexing and book indexing have been looked upon as being quite distinct and have been kept apart in textbooks and teaching. The traditional borderline between both variations of indexing, however, should not conceal fundamental commonalities of the two approaches. For example, theausurus construction and usage, quite common in databases, has hardly been encountered in book indexing so far. Database indexing, on the other hand, has hardly made use of subheadings of the syntax-displaying type, quite common in book indexing. Most database users also prefer precombining vocabulary units and reject concept analysis. However, insisting on precombining descriptors in a large database vocabulary may, in the long run, well be destructive to the quality, of indexing and of the searches. A complementary approach is conceivable which provides both precombinations and analyzed subjects, both index language syntax and subheadings, and provides access to an information system via precombinations, without jeopardizing the manageability of the vocabulary. Such an approach causes considerable costs in input because it involves a great deal of intellectual work. On the other hand, much time and costs will be saved in the use of the system. In addition, such an approach would endow an information system with survival power

0.021815453 = product of:
  0.05453863 = sum of:
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 1836) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=1836,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 1836, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1836)
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 1836) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=1836,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1836, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1836)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In ihrer "Mathematical Theory of Communication" beschrieben Shannon und Weaver zur Mitte des vergangenen Jahrhunderts die Technik einer möglichst ungestörten und wirtschaftlichen Nachrichten-Übertragung. Die Einbeziehung der Deutung (Interpretation und Semantik) und der Nutzung der Nachrichten (Pragmatik) blieben der späteren Entwicklung überlassen. Ohne dass es zu dieser Fortentwicklung gekommen wäre, wurde der Geltungsbereich der Theorie jedoch bald auf den gesamten Kommunikationsprozess ausgedehnt. Dies geschah dadurch, dass diese Theorie in "Information Theory" umbenannt wurde, mancherlei Widersprüchen aus der Fachwelt zum Trotz. Noch immer wurde kein Unterschied zwischen Nachricht und Information gemacht, und einer jeglichen Nachricht und jeglichem Signal wurde eine neu definierte Art von "Informationsmenge" zugewiesen. Dieser rein statistische Begriff ist weit entfernt von der ureigentlichen Bedeutung des Wortes "Information". Was eine Nachricht bedeutet und ob sie für den Empfänger verständlich, interessant und nützlich ist, bleibt in dieser Theorie außer Betracht. Die Ursachen, der Verlauf und die Folgen dieser Verirrung werden untersucht und kritisiert. Wenn und so lange auch die Informatik einen solchen "Informations"-Begriff zu ihrer Grundlage hat, entbehrt sie jeglicher Kompetenz auf dem Gebiet dessen, was traditionell und umgangsprachig unter Information verstanden wird. Durch die ungerechtfertigte Beanspruchung und Durchsetzung von Zuständigkeit für das Gesamtgebiet der Information hat die "Informations"-Theorie weitverbreitet großen Schaden verursacht. Dies gilt bei aller Anerkennung der großen Fortschritte in der Informatik bei der reinen Technik der Datenverarbeitung, die aufgrund dieser Theorie ebenfalls erzielt worden sind. Teil 1 behandelt die index-relevanten Aspekte der "Informationstheorie".

Date

12. 5.2008 16:29:20

0.01491174 = product of:
  0.0745587 = sum of:
    0.0745587 = weight(_text_:system in 1672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0745587 = score(doc=1672,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5567675 = fieldWeight in 1672, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1672)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.01491174 = product of:
  0.0745587 = sum of:
    0.0745587 = weight(_text_:system in 1680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0745587 = score(doc=1680,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5567675 = fieldWeight in 1680, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1680)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.01491174 = product of:
  0.0745587 = sum of:
    0.0745587 = weight(_text_:system in 4766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0745587 = score(doc=4766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5567675 = fieldWeight in 4766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4766)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.01491174 = product of:
  0.0745587 = sum of:
    0.0745587 = weight(_text_:system in 4771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0745587 = score(doc=4771,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5567675 = fieldWeight in 4771, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4771)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.01491174 = product of:
  0.0745587 = sum of:
    0.0745587 = weight(_text_:system in 4772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0745587 = score(doc=4772,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5567675 = fieldWeight in 4772, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4772)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.014352133 = product of:
  0.07176066 = sum of:
    0.07176066 = weight(_text_:index in 2222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07176066 = score(doc=2222,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 2222, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2222)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Both classification systems and thesauri have their specific strengths and weaknesses. Through properly combining both approaches one can eliminate the latter and largely preserve the strenghts. 'Classauri' which originate in this well-known way are most effective if they are constructed and applied during computer-aided indexing. A special variety of classaurus is described which is characterized by the employment of simple bur highly effective conceptual and technical devices and by the renunciation of attempts to generate the wording of index entries algorithmically

0.014352133 = product of:
  0.07176066 = sum of:
    0.07176066 = weight(_text_:index in 3641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07176066 = score(doc=3641,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 3641, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3641)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.013047772 = product of:
  0.06523886 = sum of:
    0.06523886 = weight(_text_:system in 1648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06523886 = score(doc=1648,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.4871716 = fieldWeight in 1648, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1648)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.011183805 = product of:
  0.055919025 = sum of:
    0.055919025 = weight(_text_:system in 1674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055919025 = score(doc=1674,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.41757566 = fieldWeight in 1674, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1674)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.011183805 = product of:
  0.055919025 = sum of:
    0.055919025 = weight(_text_:system in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055919025 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.41757566 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.006342807 = product of:
  0.031714033 = sum of:
    0.031714033 = weight(_text_:index in 665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031714033 = score(doc=665,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.1706939 = fieldWeight in 665, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=665)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Weitere Rez. in: Knowledge organization 34(2007) no.1, S.60-61 (I. Dahlberg): "... In conclusion, I would like to congratulate Robert Fugmann for having written this book in such a short time and - may I disclose it too? - just before his 80th birthday. And I know it is his desire to show that by improving the science of book indexing in the way demonstrated in this book, the readers will be offered an instrument for making book indexing and index reading a joy for the index readers and an adventure in an enticing world thus entered into via an intelligent presentation of knowledge!"

0.0062004575 = product of:
  0.031002287 = sum of:
    0.031002287 = product of:
      0.09300686 = sum of:
        0.09300686 = weight(_text_:29 in 4768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09300686 = score(doc=4768,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.6218451 = fieldWeight in 4768, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4768)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 29(1978), S.121-126

0.0038404248 = product of:
  0.019202124 = sum of:
    0.019202124 = product of:
      0.057606373 = sum of:
        0.057606373 = weight(_text_:22 in 1085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057606373 = score(doc=1085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1085, 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=1085)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

18. 8.2022 19:22:57

0.003727935 = product of:
  0.018639674 = sum of:
    0.018639674 = weight(_text_:system in 5867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018639674 = score(doc=5867,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 5867, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5867)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Unter den verschiedenen Möglichkeiten, das Wissen der Menschen zu ordnen, um sich den Überblick darüber zu erhalten, haben die Kategorien schon seit dem Altertum eine wichtige Rolle gespielt. Speziell auf dem Gebiet des Bibliothekswesens und der Informationsbereitstellung hat Ranganathan (1967) mit der Einführung von "Fundamental Categories" (Personality, Matter, Energy, Space, Time) schon in den 30-er Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts neue Wege beschritten, ohne damit allerdings große Resonanz in der Fachwelt auszulösen zu können. Im traditionellen Bibliothekswesen hätte der Übergang auf ein kategoriengestütztes Informationssystem dieser Art wohl eine allzu große Umstellung bewirkt. Bei einem Neubeginn, wie er in der jüngeren Vergangenheit zu vielen Malen stattgefunden hat, hat man sich in Unkenntnis oder Abneigung dem Einsatz dieses ordnungschaffenden Werkzeuge verschlossen. Dabei lassen sich gerade bei der Verfügbarkeit von Computertechnologie große Fortschritte erzielen, wenn sich die Indexsprachen auf eine Gruppe von semantischen Kategorien stützen. Die Gestaltung und Fortentwicklung solcher Sprachen zu hoher Effizienz ist sogar ohne ein Fundament von semantischen Kategorien noch nicht gelungen und auch nicht denkbar. Bei den semantischen Kategorien handelt es sich um Begriffstypen, welche auf dem betreffenden Gebiet in den dortigen Publikationen und Fragestellungen eine besonders große Rolle spielen und deswegen besondere Aufmerksamkeit erfordern. In Ergänzung der Ausführungen von Bauer (2004) zu den Einsatzmöglichkeiten von Kategorien in der Wissensorganisation allgemein werden nachfolgend sieben Anwendungen eines Konzepts von semantischen Kategorien kurz erörtert. Sie haben in einem Großsystem zum Patentwesen in der Chemie zu einem Informationssystem von bisher noch immer unübertroffen großer Leistungsfähigkeit geführt. Das ursprüngliche ranganathansche Kategorienkonzept für das Bibliothekswesen ist dort dem Bedarf auf dem Gebiet der reinen und angewandten Chemie angepasst worden (vgl. Fugmann 1999, S. 23, 49-64). Es umfasst: STOFF, LEBEWESEN, Vorrichtung, VORGANG, ATTRIBUT von den vorgenannten kategorialen Gegenständen, d.h. Eigenschaft und Verwendung von Stoff, Lebewesen, Vorrichtung, Vorgang. Nachfolgend werden sieben solcher Einsatzmöglichkeiten in einem System zur gezielten Informationsbereitstellung aufgezählt: 1. Die Definition von schlagwörtern oder Deskriptoren 2. Der Inhalt der Indexsprache 3. Das Ordnen des Wortschatzes der Indexsprache 4. Der Unterteilungsgesichtspunkt 5. Die Begriffsanalyse 6. Die Begriffssynthese 7. Die Vermeidung unerfüllbarer Suchbedingungen

0.0019202124 = product of:
  0.009601062 = sum of:
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=1182,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1182, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1182)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05