Advertisement

Enabling Multilingual Search Through Controlled Vocabularies: The AGRIS Approach

  • Fabrizio CelliEmail author
  • Johannes KeizerEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 672)

Abstract

AGRIS is a bibliographic database of scientific publications in the food and agricultural domain. The AGRIS web portal is highly visited, reaching peaks of 350,000 visits/month from more than 200 countries and territories. Considering the variety of AGRIS users, the possibility to support cross-language information retrieval is crucial to improve the usefulness of the website. This paper describes a lightweight approach adopted to enable the aforementioned feature in the AGRIS system. The proposed approach relies on the adoption of a controlled vocabulary. Furthermore, we discuss how expanding user queries with synonyms increases the sensitivity of a search engine and how we can use a controlled vocabulary to achieve this result.

Keywords

Cross-language information retrieval Controlled vocabulary Query expansion Search engine Digital repository Agriculture 

Notes

Acknowledgement.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

References

  1. 1.
    Basili, R., Stellato, A., Daniele, P., Salvatore, P., Wurzer, J.: Innovation-related enterprise semantic search: the INSEARCH experience. In: 2012 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC), pp. 194–201. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bibliographic Services Task Force of the University of California Libraries: Final Report, Rethinking How We Provide Bibliographic Services for the University of California (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carpineto, C., Romano, G.: A survey of automatic query expansion in information retrieval. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 44(1), 1 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Celli, F., Keizer, J., Jaques, Y., Konstantopoulos, S., Vudragović, D.: Discovering, indexing and interlinking information resources. F1000Research 4, 432 (2015). doi: 10.12688/f1000research.6848.2 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marcum, D.B.: The future of cataloging: address to the ebsco leadership seminar, Boston, Massachusetts (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    FAOSTAT Food and Agriculture commodities production. http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/rankings/commodities_by_regions/E
  7. 7.
    Gardner, S.A.: The changing landscape of contemporary cataloging. Cataloging Classif. Q. 45(4), 81–99 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghorab, M.R., Leveling, J., Lawless, S., O’Connor, A., Zhou, D., Jones, G.J.F., Wade, V.: Multilingual adaptive search for digital libraries. In: Gradmann, S., Borri, F., Meghini, C., Schuldt, H. (eds.) TPDL 2011. LNCS, vol. 6966, pp. 244–251. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-24469-8_26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gale, W.A., Church, K.W., Yarowsky, D.: One sense per discourse. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Speech and Natural Language, pp. 233–237. Association for Computational LinguisticsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gross, T., Taylor, A.G.: What have we got to lose? the effect of controlled vocabulary on keyword searching results. Coll. Res. Libr. 66(3), 212–230 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gross, T., Taylor, A.G., Joudrey, D.N.: Still a lot to lose: the role of controlled vocabulary in keyword searching. Cataloging Classif. Q. 53(1), 1–39 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaplan, A., Sándor, Á., Severiens, T., Vorndran, A.: Finding quality: a multilingual search engine for educational research. In: Gogolin, I., Åström, F., Hansen, A. (eds.) Assessing Quality in European Educational Research, pp. 22–30. Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lu, C., Park, J.R., Hu, X.: User tags versus expert-assigned subject terms: a comparison of library thing tags and library of congress subject headings. J. Inf. Sci. 36(6), 763–779 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCutcheon, S.: Keyword vs controlled vocabulary searching: the one with the most tools wins. Indexer 27(2), 62–65 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peters, C., Braschler, M., Clough, P.: Cross-language information retrieval. In: Peters, C., Braschler, M., Clough, P. (eds.) Multilingual Information Retrieval, pp. 57–84. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rowley, J.: The controlled versus natural indexing languages debate revisited: a perspective on information retrieval practice and research. J. Inf. Sci. 20(2), 108–118 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scicluna, R.: Should libraries discontinue using and maintaining controlled subject vocabularies? (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Spink, A., Wolfram, D., Jansen, M.B., Saracevic, T.: Searching the web: the public and their queries. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 52(3), 226–234 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stellato, A., Rajbhandari, S., Turbati, A., Fiorelli, M., Caracciolo, C., Lorenzetti, T., Keizer, J., Pazienza, M.T.: VocBench: a web application for collaborative development of multilingual thesauri. In: Gandon, F., Sabou, M., Sack, H., d’Amato, C., Cudré-Mauroux, P., Zimmermann, A. (eds.) ESWC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9088, pp. 38–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-18818-8_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Voorbij, H.J.: Title keywords and subject descriptors: a comparison of subject search entries of books in the humanities and social sciences. J. Documentation 54(4), 466–476 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zavalina, O.L.: Collection-level subject access in aggregations of digital collections: metadata application and use. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FAO 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations