The systematic structure of a thesaurus: indicators for quality assessment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2011.1.765Keywords:
Indicators, quality, systematic structure, thesauriAbstract
Four indicators are proposed to assess the quality of a thesaurus’ systematic structure. This proposal considers that the specifications included in thesauri design and development standards, together with the principles of classification theory, represent the quality requirements to be met by the inherent characteristics of a thesaurus. The characteristics that do not meet the requirements are considered nonconformities. Four indicators are proposed to measure nonconformities, and were tested in three thesauri in Spanish. The results (i.e., nonconformities) were: 1) Percentage of preferred terms designating more than one concept: 10,8 % for DeCS, 7,3 % Spines and 10,9 % Unesco. 2) Percentage of preferred terms without a hierarchical relation: 0 DeCS, 1,4 % Spines and 1,1 % Unesco. 3) Percentage of preferred terms with more than one broader term: 53,8 % DeCS, 14,9 % Spines, 0 Unesco. 4) Percentage of preferred terms with only one narrower term: 13,5 % DeCS, 3,5 % Spines, 10,3 % Unesco. We conclude that the proposed indicators can be useful for assessing the quality of a thesaurus’ systematic structure during the design and development processes.
Downloads
References
Aitchison, J.; Gilchrist, A., y Bowen, D. (2000). Thesaurus construction and use: a practical manual (4.ª ed). London: Aslib, 47-80.
Alvaro Bermejo, C.; Villagra Rubio, A., y Sorli Rojo A. (1989). Desarrollo de lenguajes documentales formalizados en lengua española: II. Evaluación de los tesauros disponibles en lengua española. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, vol. 12 (4), 283-305.
Bireme: Centro Latinoamericano y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud. (2008). Descriptores en ciencias de la salud [en línea]. São Paulo: El Centro, http://decs.bvs.br/Ehomepagee.htm [consulta: 23-12-2010].
BSI Group. (2005a). Structured vocabularies for information retrieval: guide. Part 2: thesauri. London: The Group (BS 8723-2:2005).
BSI Group. (2005b). Structured vocabularies for information retrieval: guide. Part 1. Definitions, symbols and abbreviations. London: The Group (BS 8723-1:2005).
BSI Group. (2007). Structured vocabularies for information retrieval: guide. Part 4. Interoperability between vocabularies. London: The Group, (BS 8723-4:2007).
Chung, Y. M., y Lee, J. Y. (2004). Optimization of some factors affecting the performance of query expansion. Information Processing and Management, vol. 40 (6), 891-917. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2003.11.003
Claverdon, C. W. y Mills, J. (1985). The testing of index language devices. En: Chan, L. M.;
Richmond P. A., y Svenonius, E. (eds.). Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Littleton: Libraries Unlimited, 221-246.
Commission des Communautés Européennes. (1976). Défi nition des charactéristiques essentielles des thesauri: Rapport final. Bruxelles: Bureau Marcel van Dijk, vol. 1.
Dahlberg, I. (1995). Current trends in knowledge organization. En: García Marco, F. J. (ed.). Actas del I Encuentro ISKO-España. Organización del Conocimiento en Sistemas de Información y Documentación, vol. 1, 7-25.
Farradane, J. E. L. (1952). A scientific theory of classification and indexing: further considerations. Journal of Documentation, vol. 8 (2), 73-92.
Foskett, A. C. (1996). Subject approach to information (5.ª ed). London: Library Association, 12-32.
Gil Leiva, I. 2008. Manual de indización: teoría y práctica. Gijón: Trea, 213-217.
Gil Urdiciain, B. (1998). Evaluación semántica y estructural de tesauros. Revista General de Información y Documentación, vol. 8 (2), 193-199.
Gnoli, C. (2007). Progress in synthetic classification: towards unique definitions of concepts [en línea]. En: UDC Seminar 4 -5 June 2007: The Hague: UDC Consortium. International Organization for Standardization. 1986. Documentation: guidelines for the establishment and development of monolingual thesauri (2.ª ed.). Geneva: The Organization. (ISO 2788:1986).
International Organization for Standardization. (2000). Quality management systems: fundamentals and vocabulary (2.ª ed.). Geneva: The Organization. Geneva: The Organization. (ISO 9000:2000).
International Organization for Standardization. (2008). Information and documentation: library performance indicators. Geneva: The Organization. (ISO 11620:2008).
International Organization for Standardization. (2010). Information and documentation: Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies: Part 1. Thesauri for information retrieval [standard under development]. Geneva: The Organization. (ISO/DIS 25964-1:2010).
Lancaster, F. W. (2002). Control del vocabulario para la recuperación de información (2.ª ed). Valencia: Università de Valencia. 31-37, 55-62.
Miller, U. (1997). Thesaurus construction: problems and their roots. Information Processing and Management, vol. 33 (4), 481-493. doi:10.1016/S0306-4573(97)00009-5
Mills, J. (2004). Faceted classifi cation and logical division in information retrieval. Library Trends, vol. 52 (3), 541-570.
National Information Standards Organization (2005). Guidelines for the construction, format, and management of monolingual controlled vocabularies [en línea]. Bethesda MD; NISO Press (ANSI/NISO Z39.19:2005). http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39-19-2005.pdf [consulta: 23-12-2010].
Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (1988). Tesauro Spines [en línea]. París: La Organización. http://thes.cindoc.csic.es/index_SPIN_esp.html [consulta: 23-12-2010].
Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (2007). Tesauro de la Unesco (15.ª ed.). París: La Organización. http://databases.unesco.org/thessp/ [consulta: 23-12-2010].
Orr, R. H. (1973). Measuring the goodness of library services: a general framework for considering quantitative measures. Journal of Documentation, vol. 29 (3), 315-332. doi:10.1108/eb026561
Owens, L. A., y Cochrane, P. A. (2004). Thesaurus evaluation. En: Roe, S. K., y Thomas, A. R. (eds.). The thesaurus: review, renaissance, and revision. New York: Haworth Information Press, 87-102.
Ranganathan, S. R. (1967). Prolegomena to library classifi cation (3.ª ed.). New York: Asia Publishing House, Chapter EC, 145.
Spiteri, L. A. (1998). Simplified model for facet analysis. Canadian journal of information and library science, vol. 23 (1), 1-30.
Vickery, B. C. (1960). Faceted classification: a guide to the construction and use of specia schemes. London: Aslib.
W3C Working Group (2009). SKOS simple knowledge organization system primer [en línea]. s.L.: W3C. Disponible en la World Wide Web http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-skosprimer-20090818/#secconcept [consulta 23-12-2010].
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2011 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the print and online versions of this journal are the property of the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.
All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. You may read here the basic information and the legal text of the licence. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 licence must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the final version of the work produced by the publisher, is not allowed.
