Estudo comparativo de softwares de construção de tesauros

Abstract

Para auxiliar a construção de vocabulários o uso e, conseqüentemente, a escolha de um software de construção de tesauros é uma necessidade. Entretanto, esses softwares possuem diferentes características de funcionalidades, custo e apoio metodológico, cuja análise criteriosa deve ser considerada, visando orientar a sua escolha de acordo com a finalidade e complexidade do tesauro a ser construído. Com base nessa necessidade de avaliação, o objetivo do presente trabalho é apresentar um estudo comparativo desses softwares, levando em consideração as utilizações dos tesauros nos dias de hoje.

27 pawns ready for action

“…Five years later, Almeida Campos et al (2006) analyzed six thesaurus creation tools: TermChoir, MultiTes, Thesmain, TermTree, Synaptica, and Tematres. They conclude that the programs evaluated are designed to perform operational tasks, but do not guide the user in the process of constructing a thesaurus.…”

“…The conformance of relations between terms to standards for thesauri management has traditionally been a factor of analysis, although differently named: "consistency control" (Almeida Campos et al, 2006;Ganzmann, 1990;Hedden, 2008;Moya and Gil, 2001), "integrity management" (Martínez and Alvite, 2014) or "consistency of management and control" (Myrseth et al, 2013). Regardless of the name, it covers criteria like coherence of the terms and their relations with established standards for thesauri (traditionally hierarchical, associative, and equivalence), rejection of duplication in a term, and automatic reciprocity of relations.…”

“…Controlling users through different levels of permission is taken into account by Almeida Campos et al (2006), Myrseth et al (2013), and Martínez and Alvite (2014). The second aspect is only considered in the work of Martínez and Alvite (2014).…”

“…The presence of user-defined relations, recommended by ISO 25964-1:2011, is recognized by Ganzmann (1990), Moya and Gil (2001), Almeida Campos et al (2006) and Hedden (2008). But none of those studies provide information about how to evaluate the relations created by users.…”

“…These ways of consulting vocabularies have been treated differently in the documentation studied, in some cases so detailed that it is infeasible to use all of the criteria, in others so generic that it is not useful for evaluating the quality of software. Morshed and Dutta (2012), Hedden (2008), Almeida Campos et al (2006), Pérez-León and Martínez-González (2010) include searching, browsing, and retrieval functionalities as evaluation criteria, but no detail of desirable elements are given.…”