Detailed discussion of bar‐hillel's “theoretical aspects of the mechanization of literature searching”

Ron Manly

American Documentation, 1964, vol. 15, issue 2, 126-131

Abstract: Bar‐Hillel is criticized as tending to use the terms “impossible” or “unfeasible” for almost anything that cannot be done immediately. This is considered inappropriate for evaluating research. It is stated that there seems to be no reason why a lower limit in the costs of machine processing should exist that would be above comparable costs of human processing. This is presented to counter Bar‐Hillel's doubts as to whether machines can do complex information processing tasks (in the area of documentation) cheaper than present methods. A “proof” that machines are capable of fully‐automatic, high‐quality indexing, extracting, abstracting, etc., is presented to refute Bar‐Hillel's doubts on this point (and as a counter‐proof to Bar‐Hillel's demonstration of the nonfeasibility of fully‐automatic, high‐quality machine translation of languages). Other topics discussed include: types of information retrieval systems and distinctions between various complex information processing tasks.

Date: 1964
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090150211

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:amedoc:v:15:y:1964:i:2:p:126-131

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1936-6108

Access Statistics for this article

American Documentation is currently edited by Javed Mostafa

More articles in American Documentation from Wiley Blackwell
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().