IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/amedoc/v13y1962i1p93-94.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relevancy and pertinency in indexing

Author

Listed:
  • Alan M. Rees

Abstract

Underlying all types of subject analysis—descriptors, uniterms, subject headings, telegraphic abstracting, etc.—is the fundamental problem of selection of significant concepts and characteristics from a document to be recorded as reference points for use in future retrieval operations. Faced with several thousands of words normally found in a typical document, the analyst selects those words and ideas which seem significant, based upon his subjective knowledge of the subject matter. Such a selection is conditioned by his academic training, observance of the frequency of occurrence of certain words, knowledge of the pattern of use of the literature, acquaintance with the terminology used in the phrasing of questions to be put to the file, and comparative knowledge and ignorance of the association of ideas or relationships between the concepts recorded in the document. Pertinency is therefore in the eyes of the beholder and is relevant to the state of knowledge at any given time. The difficulty in subject analysis is one of recording characteristics for retrieval at a later date when the implications inherent in future requests are unknown at the time of recording and when the terminology has not yet crystallized into any standardized form. In the absence of a permanent description, information requests can either be translated into the archaic language and frozen concepts of the file or the file itself can be updated to match modern concepts and associations and to bring out implications subsequently made apparent by continually evolving technology. The continuous shift in traditional interests is illustrated in the current awareness type of literature search where the constant rearrangement of concepts is seen in the attempt to define interests whose relevance is not yet established. Superimposed on this is the problem of finding suitable words which characterize these shifting concepts. The words of the document are not necessarily those which are in current use, nor will they always be the same words used to characterize an information request put to the file at a later date. Thus it is necessary to use an artificial language (code, authority, list, notation, etc.) into which the natural language of the text and the languge of the request can be converted. This language should be such that it would serve as a more permanent and regularized language which would cut through the tangle of synonyms and infinity of syntactic structures. The coded thesaurus is suggested as a means of providing for this intermediary language at the same time as performing the function of being a means of bringing into coincidence the vocabularies of the future searches and retrieval system and indicate networks of related meaning and associated ideas. The association of ideas in the semantic code is suggested as a yardstick of predetermined relevancy. Experimental data will be presented to facilitate the establishment of objective criteria of relevancy and pertinency in searching operations.

Suggested Citation

  • Alan M. Rees, 1962. "Relevancy and pertinency in indexing," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(1), pages 93-94, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:amedoc:v:13:y:1962:i:1:p:93-94
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.5090130113
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090130113
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.5090130113?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:amedoc:v:13:y:1962:i:1:p:93-94. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.