The first point that I would like to make about the differences between a structured and unstructured vocabulary is that the question is very much related to vocabulary size and this has certainly in the past generated a good deal of controversy in Aslib co‐ordinate indexing circles. Mr Snel and Mr Boyd have been two of the leading advocates of a restricted vocabulary and they argue that this keeps both indexing and searching simple. They also argue that it allows for human intelligence to play a much bigger part in the search process by allowing the sifting of search output to be done by the inquirer and not the system. It is also assumed, probably correctly, that the bigger the vocabulary the more noise a system will produce. The reason that I believe that the question of structured vocabularies and vocabulary's size are related is simply that if one does employ structure, i.e. a classificatory element of some sort, then the practical result of this is a bigger vocabulary. May I interject with a quotation from Cyril Cleverdon, who, to my way of thinking, summed up the question of vocabulary size in a conference that the Co‐ordinate Indexing Group organized some considerable while ago: ‘Much of the disagreement has been due to the fact that speakers were arguing from different view points. If it was found that a particular system operated satisfactorily for a certain organization, then obviously there was no need to find fault with it. However, it was unjustifiable to make claim as speakers had done that the same system would necessarily operate satisfactorily in all other situations. There were obvious differences when one organization was more interested in having a good recall ratio and was relatively unconcerned about relevance, whilst another organization was more interested in having a good relevance ratio. Certain indexing devices were available which could bring about either of these situations but it was unlikely that any of the operating systems discussed would satisfactorily meet both requirements.’
Article navigation
Review Article|
March 01 1971
STRUCTURED THESAURI
JOHN BLAGDEN
JOHN BLAGDEN
McKinsey & Co. Inc. (formerly British Institute of Management)
Search for other works by this author on:
Publisher: Emerald Publishing
Online ISSN: 1758-3748
Print ISSN: 0001-253X
© MCB UP Limited
1971
Aslib Proceedings (1971) 23 (3): 139–143.
Citation
BLAGDEN J (1971), "STRUCTURED THESAURI". Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 23 No. 3 pp. 139–143, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/eb050279
Download citation file:
125
Views
New and popular articles
Suggested Reading
HOW MUCH ‘EXPLICIT RELATIONS’ DO RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS USE?
Journal of Documentation (April,1974)
Thesauri: practical guidance for construction
Library Review (September,2005)
Building a platform for linked open thesauri
Library Hi Tech (November,2013)
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF COMPOUND WORDS IN THESAURI, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO BS 5723:1979
Journal of Documentation (February,1981)
Thesauri on the Web: current developments and trends
Online Information Review (August,2000)
Related Chapters
Social Semantic Corporate Digital Libraries: Joining Knowledge Representation and Knowledge Management
Advances in Librarianship
Tough Times, Difficult Choices and Public Entrepreneurship: Is Sponsorship a Winning Solution?
New Perspectives on Research, Policy & Practice in Public Entrepreneurship
Using Backchanneling Technology to Facilitate Dialogic Discussions about Literature
Best Practices in Teaching Digital Literacies
Recommended for you
These recommendations are informed by your reading behaviors and indicated interests.
