Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Breslin, J.G."
  1. Kim, H.L.; Scerri, S.; Breslin, J.G.; Decker, S.; Kim, H.G.: ¬The state of the art in tag ontologies : a semantic model for tagging and folksonomies (2008) 0.02
    0.01938208 = product of:
      0.03876416 = sum of:
        0.03876416 = sum of:
          0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0075639198 = score(doc=2650,freq=10.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
                3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                  10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
          0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03120024 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    There is a growing interest into how we represent and share tagging data in collaborative tagging systems. Conventional tags, meaning freely created tags that are not associated with a structured ontology, are not naturally suited for collaborative processes, due to linguistic and grammatical variations, as well as human typing errors. Additionally, tags reflect personal views of the world by individual users, and are not normalised for synonymy, morphology or any other mapping. Our view is that the conventional approach provides very limited semantic value for collaboration. Moreover, in cases where there is some semantic value, automatically sharing semantics via computer manipulations is extremely problematic. This paper explores these problems by discussing approaches for collaborative tagging activities at a semantic level, and presenting conceptual models for collaborative tagging activities and folksonomies. We present criteria for the comparison of existing tag ontologies and discuss their strengths and weaknesses in relation to these criteria.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
    Type
    a
  2. Breslin, J.G.: Social semantic information spaces (2009) 0.00
    0.0022374375 = product of:
      0.004474875 = sum of:
        0.004474875 = product of:
          0.00894975 = sum of:
            0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 3377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.00894975 = score(doc=3377,freq=14.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 3377, product of:
                  3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                    14.0 = termFreq=14.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3377)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The structural and syntactic web put in place in the early 90s is still much the same as what we use today: resources (web pages, files, etc.) connected by untyped hyperlinks. By untyped, we mean that there is no easy way for a computer to figure out what a link between two pages means - for example, on the W3C website, there are hundreds of links to the various organisations that are registered members of the association, but there is nothing explicitly saying that the link is to an organisation that is a "member of" the W3C or what type of organisation is represented by the link. On John's work page, he links to many papers he has written, but it does not explicitly say that he is the author of those papers or that he wrote such-and-such when he was working at a particular university. In fact, the Web was envisaged to be much more, as one can see from the image in Fig. 1 which is taken from Tim Berners Lee's original outline for the Web in 1989, entitled "Information Management: A Proposal". In this, all the resources are connected by links describing the type of relationships, e.g. "wrote", "describe", "refers to", etc. This is a precursor to the Semantic Web which we will come back to later.
    Type
    a