Message-Id: <199707202023.PAA14228@library.wustl.edu> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 15:27:08 CDT From: Gerry McKiernan <mailto:JL.GJM@ISUMVS.IASTATE.EDU> Subject: As You See It: Visualization of Thesauri Structure, To: Multiple recipients of list WEBCAT-L <mailto:WEBCAT-L@WUVMD.WUSTL.EDU>
_As You See It:
Visualization of Thesauri Structure, Term Associations,
and Relationships_
In considering alternatives to the current syndetic relationship
provided within conventional thesauri (including the LCSH), it
has occurred to me that visualization of both the conventional
structure of the thesauri as well as its 'neo-conventional' structure
would greatly enhance the understanding and use of the thesauri
in either mode.
For my never-ending review [Yes, it' still never-ending],
I'd very much appreciate learning about effort that have applied
either conventional visualization techniques [whatever they may
be?] to thesauri as well as one's ideas about the potential
value of applying the Information Visualization technologies
profiled in _The Big Picture_ to either or both conventional
or 'neo-conventional' thesauri structures. _The Big Picture_
is accessible at:
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/BigPic.htm
By 'neo-conventional' here I mean the non-explicit
relationships that exist between thesauri descriptors/
terms that are _not_ offered by the thesauri itself. Harter's
and Cheng's (Indiana) work on co-linked descriptors is a good
example of what I would consider 'neo-conventional. For details,
see their article in JASIS 47 (1996):311-325 and/or an
abstract at
http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~harter/colinked.html
IMHO This is quite an important work for two reasons:
1) It confirms my feeling (how scientific [:->]
and belief [how non-scientific [:->]
that users don't make use of the syndetic as
much as they could/should.might. The study
documents user preference for 'associated' terms
or phrases that in some way relate to their
worldview of Information Space.
[This is very good because it supports my belief
in neo-conventional structured browsing [:->]
and
2) It provides a good general critique of the
highly-subjective and (shall we say it [Yes
Gerry say it!] highly-idiosyncratic and highly-
inconsistent nature of what defines the scope
of a Broader Term, A Narrower Terms and the
ever-mysterious [:->] Related Term structure, in
many (but certainly not all) widely-used and/or
applied thesauri.
[I'd very much appreciate learning about other
critiques of thesauri structure; any and all
relevant citations (particularly review articles)
are most welcome]
In my first phase literature review I've identified
one (perhaps three) key articles on visualization of thesauri.
It's:
Arents, Hans C. and Bogaerts, Walter F.L.
Concept-based retrieval of hypermedia information: from term
indexing to semantic hyperindexing. _Information Processing
and Management_ 29(3) (1993): 373-86 .
As always, any leads, citations, suggestions, comments,
critiques, criticisms, campaign contributions (oops! [:->]!)
would be very much appreciated. Certainly, any work relating
to the visualization of LCSH in OPACs would be of great interest!
Regards,
Gerry McKiernan
Curator, CyberStacks(sm)
Iowa State University
Ames IA 50011
mailto:gerrymck@iastate.edu
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/
"Show Me the System!"