Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.06287668 = product of:
  0.12575336 = sum of:
    0.02173171 = weight(_text_:und in 913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02173171 = score(doc=913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.14702731 = fieldWeight in 913, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=913)
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 913, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=913)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

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

0.02451814 = product of:
  0.09807256 = sum of:
    0.09807256 = weight(_text_:headings in 4963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09807256 = score(doc=4963,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.30327508 = fieldWeight in 4963, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4963)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"1. Introduction Multilingual and crosslingual access to information is receiving more and more attention. Maybe the most important reason for this development is the Internet. There are estimations that about half of its users are people with a mother tongue other than English and that this proportion is growing. Crosslingual access in this context means the possibility to get free text access to information using another (natural) language than the language of the information itself. This type of access is important for users with a good passive knowledge of a language but with only a small active vocabulary of the same language, e.g. a Englishman who can read Russian, but has difficulties in formulating adequate search request in that language. Crosslingual access can also be valuable for monolingual users who can automatically or manually have translations of foreign language documents. The search requests will be translated or converted into the language of the information. Multilingual access assumes that the instruments used for access, the controlled information languages, are available in more than one language. An classic example is the Englishman who uses his English edition of the Universal Decimal Classification to search the catalogue of a library in China, although the classification of the library is done using a Chinese edition. In this case the searching and the classifying results in a notation that is the same irrespective which language edition was used for indexing. Another possibility is the use of a multilingual thesaurus or subject headings list, such the trilingual edition of the Library of Congress Subject Headings built at the Royal Library in Brussels (Belgium) or the Macrothesaurus of the OECD. Here, words are the access points - in one language into which each search request will be converted, or, alternatively, into all the languages involved. Multilingual information languages and guidelines an how to build them are the subject of this paper. Particular attention will be paid to multilingual thesauri."

0.017743869 = product of:
  0.070975475 = sum of:
    0.070975475 = weight(_text_:und in 1556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070975475 = score(doc=1556,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.48018923 = fieldWeight in 1556, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1556)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.017336942 = product of:
  0.06934777 = sum of:
    0.06934777 = weight(_text_:headings in 3646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06934777 = score(doc=3646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.21444786 = fieldWeight in 3646, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3646)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

1. Introduction In this paper we address two questions: 1. What is the position of subject indexing in the thinking of the library world after the publication of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (1998)? 2. Is this position in accordance with the requirements of the users searching for documents about a given subject? Research Shows that searching an a topic (i.e. subject access) is an important, even predominant type of end-user searching of library catalogues and even more so of other bibliographic databases. Between one third and two thirds of all OPAC searches are probably subject searches (Large & Beheshti, 199%). Taking into account different ways in which searching an a topic is implemented in library catalogues (subject headings, classification, keywords only) the percentage may be even higher. For example title word searching may be a substitute for subject searching if no better tools are available. In the light of this it is not surprising that the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) (1998) pays attention to subject searching, as well as the Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR) (2003). Also the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles: Final draft of 19 December 2003, which is the result of the first First IFLA Meeting of Experts an an International Cataloguing Code mentiong subject access as a function of cataloguing (Statement, 2003). In this paper we discuss the ways these three documents deal with subjects.

0.0054329275 = product of:
  0.02173171 = sum of:
    0.02173171 = weight(_text_:und in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02173171 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.14702731 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus