IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jamest/v32y1981i4p275-279.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of two systems of weighted boolean retrieval

Author

Listed:
  • A. Bookstein

Abstract

A major deficiency of traditional Boolean systems is their inability to represent the varying degrees to which a document may be written on a subject. In this article we isolate a number of criteria that should be met by any Boolean system generalized to have a weighting capability. It is proven that only one weighting rule satisfies these conditions—that associated with fuzzy‐set theory—and that this weighting scheme satisfies most of the other properties associated with Boolean algebra as well. Probabilistic weighting is then introduced as an alternative approach and the two systems compared. In the limit of zero/one weights, all systems considered converge to traditional Boolean retrieval.

Suggested Citation

  • A. Bookstein, 1981. "A comparison of two systems of weighted boolean retrieval," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 32(4), pages 275-279, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jamest:v:32:y:1981:i:4:p:275-279
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.4630320407
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630320407
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.4630320407?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:jamest:v:32:y:1981:i:4:p:275-279. 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: http://www.asis.org .

    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.