Search (1 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Kim, H.G."
  • × theme_ss:"Folksonomies"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  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