Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Heckner, M.: Tagging, rating, posting : studying forms of user contribution for web-based information management and information retrieval (2009) 0.06 
    0.06414506 = product of:
  0.09621758 = sum of:
    0.031852208 = weight(_text_:im in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031852208 = score(doc=2931,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.22084267 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
    0.06436537 = product of:
      0.09654805 = sum of:
        0.04496643 = weight(_text_:online in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04496643 = score(doc=2931,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
        0.051581617 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051581617 = score(doc=2931,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Die Entstehung von Social Software ermöglicht es Nutzern, in großem Umfang im Netz zu publizieren. Bisher liegen aber nur wenige empirische Befunde zu funktionalen Eigenschaften sowie Qualitätsaspekten von Nutzerbeiträgen im Kontext von Informationsmanagement und Information Retrieval vor. Diese Arbeit diskutiert grundlegende Partizipationsformen, präsentiert empirische Studien über Social Tagging, Blogbeiträge sowie Relevanzbeurteilungen und entwickelt Design und Implementierung einer "sozialen" Informationsarchitektur für ein partizipatives Onlinehilfesystem.
    Content
    The Web of User Contribution - Foundations and Principles of the Social Web - Social Tagging - Rating and Filtering of Digital Resources Empirical Analysisof User Contributions - The Functional and Linguistic Structure of Tags - A Comparative Analysis of Tags for Different Digital Resource Types - Exploring Relevance Assessments in Social IR Systems - Exploring User Contribution Within a Higher Education Scenario - Summary of Empirical Results and Implications for Designing Social Information Systems User Contribution for a Participative Information System - Social Information Architecture for an Online Help System
    RSWK
    World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem
    Subject
    World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem
  2. Peters, I.: Folksonomies : indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0 (2009) 0.03 
    0.032036766 = product of:
  0.04805515 = sum of:
    0.031208664 = weight(_text_:im in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031208664 = score(doc=4203,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.21638076 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
    0.016846485 = product of:
      0.050539456 = sum of:
        0.050539456 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050539456 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.32745665 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Kollaborative Informationsdienste im Web 2.0 werden von den Internetnutzern nicht nur dazu genutzt, digitale Informationsressourcen zu produzieren, sondern auch, um sie inhaltlich mit eigenen Schlagworten, sog. Tags, zu erschließen. Dabei müssen die Nutzer nicht wie bei Bibliothekskatalogen auf Regeln achten. Die Menge an nutzergenerierten Tags innerhalb eines Kollaborativen Informationsdienstes wird als Folksonomy bezeichnet. Die Folksonomies dienen den Nutzern zum Wiederauffinden eigener Ressourcen und für die Recherche nach fremden Ressourcen. Das Buch beschäftigt sich mit Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten, Folksonomies als Methode der Wissensrepräsentation und als Werkzeug des Information Retrievals.
    Footnote
    Zugl.: Düsseldorf, Univ., Diss., 2009 u.d.T.: Peters, Isabella: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval Rez. in: IWP - Information Wissenschaft & Praxis, 61(2010) Heft 8, S.469-470 (U. Spree): "... Nachdem sich die Rezensentin durch 418 Seiten Text hindurch gelesen hat, bleibt sie unentschieden, wie der auffällige Einsatz langer Zitate (im Durchschnitt drei Zitate, die länger als vier kleingedruckte Zeilen sind, pro Seite) zu bewerten ist, zumal die Zitate nicht selten rein illustrativen Charakter haben bzw. Isabella Peters noch einmal zitiert, was sie bereits in eigenen Worten ausgedrückt hat. Redundanz und Verlängerung der Lesezeit halten sich hier die Waage mit der Möglichkeit, dass sich die Leserin einen unmittelbaren Eindruck von Sprache und Duktus der zitierten Literatur verschaffen kann. Eindeutig unschön ist das Beenden eines Gedankens oder einer Argumentation durch ein Zitat (z. B. S. 170). Im deutschen Original entstehen auf diese Weise die für deutsche wissenschaftliche Qualifikationsarbeiten typischen denglischen Texte. Für alle, die sich für Wissensrepräsentation, Information Retrieval und kollaborative Informationsdienste interessieren, ist "Folksonomies : Indexing and Retrieval in Web 2.0" trotz der angeführten kleinen Mängel zur Lektüre und Anschaffung - wegen seines beinahe enzyklopädischen Charakters auch als Nachschlage- oder Referenzwerk geeignet - unbedingt zu empfehlen. Abschließend möchte ich mich in einem Punkt der Produktinfo von de Gruyter uneingeschränkt anschließen: ein "Grundlagenwerk für Folksonomies".
    RSWK
    Information Retrieval
    Subject
    Information Retrieval
  3. Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008) 0.03 
    0.025885364 = product of:
  0.07765609 = sum of:
    0.07765609 = sum of:
      0.029371947 = weight(_text_:online in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029371947 = score(doc=2657,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051022716 = queryNorm
          0.18968134 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.020632647 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020632647 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051022716 = queryNorm
          0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.027651496 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027651496 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051022716 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Social tagging empowers users to categorize content in a personally meaningful way while harnessing their potential to contribute to a collaborative construction of knowledge (Vander Wal, 2007). In addition, social tagging systems offer innovative filtering mechanisms that facilitate resource discovery and browsing (Mathes, 2004). As a result, social tags may support online communication, informal or intended learning as well as the development of online communities. The purpose of this mixed methods study is to examine how undergraduate students participate in social tagging activities in order to learn about their motivations, behaviours and practices. A better understanding of their knowledge, habits and interactions with such systems will help practitioners and developers identify important factors when designing enhancements. In the first phase of the study, students enrolled at a Canadian university completed 103 questionnaires. Quantitative results focusing on general familiarity with social tagging, frequently used Web 2.0 sites, and the purpose for engaging in social tagging activities were compiled. Eight questionnaire respondents participated in follow-up semi-structured interviews that further explored tagging practices by situating questionnaire responses within concrete experiences using popular websites such as YouTube, Facebook, Del.icio.us, and Flickr. Preliminary results of this study echo findings found in the growing literature concerning social tagging from the fields of computer science (Sen et al., 2006) and information science (Golder & Huberman, 2006; Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006). Generally, two classes of social taggers emerge: those who focus on tagging for individual purposes, and those who view tagging as a way to share or communicate meaning to others. Heavy del.icio.us users, for example, were often focused on simply organizing their own content, and seemed to be conscientiously maintaining their own personally relevant categorizations while, in many cases, placing little importance on the tags of others. Conversely, users tagging items primarily to share content preferred to use specific terms to optimize retrieval and discovery by others. Our findings should inform practitioners of how interaction design can be tailored for different tagging systems applications, and how these findings are positioned within the current debate surrounding social tagging among the resource discovery community. We also hope to direct future research in the field to place a greater importance on exploring the benefits of tagging as a socially-driven endeavour rather than uniquely as a means of managing information.
    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
  4. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.02 
    0.019007815 = product of:
  0.057023443 = sum of:
    0.057023443 = product of:
      0.08553516 = sum of:
        0.04405792 = weight(_text_:online in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04405792 = score(doc=3602,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.284522 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
        0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04147724 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This study is an examination of the overlap between author-assigned keywords and cataloger-assigned Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for a set of electronic theses and dissertations in Ohio State University's online catalog. The project is intended to contribute to the literature on the issue of keywords versus controlled vocabularies in the use of online catalogs and databases. Findings support previous studies' conclusions that both keywords and controlled vocabularies complement one another. Further, even in the presence of bibliographic record enhancements, such as abstracts or summaries, keywords and subject headings provided a significant number of unique terms that could affect the success of keyword searches. Implications for the maintenance of controlled vocabularies such as LCSH also are discussed in light of the patterns of matches and nonmatches found between the keywords and their corresponding subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  5. Kipp, M.E.I.: Searching with tags : do tags help users find things? (2008) 0.01 
    0.013800584 = product of:
  0.04140175 = sum of:
    0.04140175 = product of:
      0.062102623 = sum of:
        0.031153653 = weight(_text_:online in 2278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031153653 = score(doc=2278,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 2278, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2278)
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=2278,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2278, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2278)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Content
    This study examines the question of whether tags can be useful in the process of information retrieval. Participants were asked to search a social bookmarking tool specialising in academic articles (CiteULike) and an online journal database (Pubmed) in order to determine if users found tags were useful in their search process. The actions of each participants were captured using screen capture software and they were asked to describe their search process. The preliminary study showed that users did indeed make use of tags in their search process, as a guide to searching and as hyperlinks to potentially useful articles. However, users also made use of controlled vocabularies in the journal database.
  6. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.01 
    0.013412262 = product of:
  0.040236786 = sum of:
    0.040236786 = product of:
      0.06035518 = sum of:
        0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025790809 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
        0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456437 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    More and more users index everything on their own in the web 2.0. There are services for links, videos, pictures, books, encyclopaedic articles and scientific articles. All these services are library independent. But must that really be? Can't libraries help with their experience and tools to make user indexing better? On the experience of a project from German language Wikipedia together with the German person authority files (Personen Namen Datei - PND) located at German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) I would like to show what is possible. How users can and will use the authority files, if we let them. We will take a look how the project worked and what we can learn for future projects. Conclusions - Authority files can have a role in the web 2.0 - there must be an open interface/ service for retrieval - everything that is indexed on the net with authority files can be easy integrated in a federated search - O'Reilly: You have to found ways that your data get more important that more it will be used
    Content
    Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".
  7. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.01 
    0.013412262 = product of:
  0.040236786 = sum of:
    0.040236786 = product of:
      0.06035518 = sum of:
        0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025790809 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
        0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456437 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, 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=2648)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The growing predominance of social semantics in the form of tagging presents the metadata community with both opportunities and challenges as for leveraging this new form of information content representation and for retrieval. One key challenge is the absence of contextual information associated with these tags. This paper presents an experiment working with Flickr tags as an example of utilizing social semantics sources for enriching subject metadata. The procedure included four steps: 1) Collecting a sample of Flickr tags, 2) Calculating cooccurrences between tags through mutual information, 3) Tracing contextual information of tag pairs via Google search results, 4) Applying natural language processing and machine learning techniques to extract semantic relations between tags. The experiment helped us to build a context sentence collection from the Google search results, which was then processed by natural language processing and machine learning algorithms. This new approach achieved a reasonably good rate of accuracy in assigning semantic relations to tag pairs. This paper also explores the implications of this approach for using social semantics to enrich subject metadata.
    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
  8. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.01 
    0.012671877 = product of:
  0.03801563 = sum of:
    0.03801563 = product of:
      0.057023443 = sum of:
        0.029371947 = weight(_text_:online in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029371947 = score(doc=2666,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.18968134 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
        0.027651496 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027651496 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.
    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
  9. Farkas, M.G.: Social software in libraries : building collaboration, communication, and community online (2007) 0.01 
    0.0077401884 = product of:
  0.023220565 = sum of:
    0.023220565 = product of:
      0.06966169 = sum of:
        0.06966169 = weight(_text_:online in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06966169 = score(doc=2364,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.4498688 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Content
    Inhalt: What is social software? -- Blogs -- Blogs in libraries : practical applications -- RSS -- Wikis -- Online communities -- Social networking -- Social bookmarking and collaborative filtering -- Tools for synchronous online reference -- The mobile revolution -- Podcasting -- Screencasting and vodcasting -- Gaming -- What will work @ your library -- Keeping up : a primer -- Future trends in social software.
    LCSH
    Online social networks
    Subject
    Online social networks
  10. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.01 
    0.0054312674 = product of:
  0.016293801 = sum of:
    0.016293801 = product of:
      0.0488814 = sum of:
        0.0488814 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0488814 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Pages
    S.14-22
    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
  11. Hänger, C.: Knowledge management in the digital age : the possibilities of user generated content (2009) 0.00 
    0.00499627 = product of:
  0.01498881 = sum of:
    0.01498881 = product of:
      0.04496643 = sum of:
        0.04496643 = weight(_text_:online in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04496643 = score(doc=2813,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Today, in times of Web 2.0., graduates and undergraduates interact in virtual communities like studiVZ (Studentenverzeichnis) and generate content by reviewing or tagging documents. This phenomenon offers good prospects for academic libraries. They can use the customers' tags for indexing the growing amount of electronic resources and thereby optimize the search for these documents. Important examples are the journals, databases and e-books included in the "Nationallizenzen" financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The documents in this collection are not manually indexed by librarians and have no annotation according to the German standard classification systems. Connecting search systems by means of Web-2.0.-services is an important task for libraries. For this purpose users are encouraged to tag printed and electronic resources in search systems like the libraries' online catalogs and to establish connections between entries in other systems, e.g. Bibsonomy, and the items found in the online catalog. As a consequence annotations chosen by both, users and librarians, will coexist: The items in the tagging systems and the online catalog are linked, library users may find other publications of interest, and contacts between library users with similar scientific interests may be established. Librarians have to face the fact that user generated tags do not necessarily have the same quality as their own annotations and will therefore have to seek for instruments for comparing user generated tags with library generated keywords.
  12. Corrado, E.; Moulaison, H.L.: Social tagging and communities of practice : two case studies (2008) 0.00 
    0.004895325 = product of:
  0.0146859735 = sum of:
    0.0146859735 = product of:
      0.04405792 = sum of:
        0.04405792 = weight(_text_:online in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04405792 = score(doc=2271,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.284522 = fieldWeight in 2271, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2271)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Content
    In investigating the use of social tagging for knowledge organization and sharing, this paper reports on two case studies. Each study examines how two disparate communities of practices utilize social tagging to disseminate information to other community members in the online environment. Through the use of these tags, community members may retrieve and view relevant Web sites and online videos. The first study looks at tagging within the Code4Lib community of practice. The second study examines the use of tagging on video sharing sites used by a community of French teenagers. Uses of social tagging to share information within these communities are analyzed and discussed, and recommendations for future study are provided.
  13. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.00 
    0.0046085827 = product of:
  0.013825747 = sum of:
    0.013825747 = product of:
      0.04147724 = sum of:
        0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04147724 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
  14. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.00 
    0.0046085827 = product of:
  0.013825747 = sum of:
    0.013825747 = product of:
      0.04147724 = sum of:
        0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04147724 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  15. Hammond, T.; Hannay, T.; Lund, B.; Flack, M.: Social bookmarking tools (II) : a case study - Connotea (2005) 0.00 
    0.0040794373 = product of:
  0.012238312 = sum of:
    0.012238312 = product of:
      0.036714934 = sum of:
        0.036714934 = weight(_text_:online in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036714934 = score(doc=1189,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Connotea is a free online reference management and social bookmarking service for scientists created by Nature Publishing Group. While somewhat experimental in nature, Connotea already has a large and growing number of users, and is a real, fully functioning service. The label 'experimental' is not meant to imply that the service is any way ephemeral or esoteric, rather that the concept of social bookmarking itself and the application of that concept to reference management are both recent developments. Connotea is under active development, and we are still in the process of discovering how people will use it. In addition to Connotea being a free and public service, the core code is freely available under an open source license. Connotea was conceived from the outset as an online, social tool. Seeing the possibilities that del.icio.us was opening up for its users in the area of general web linking, we realised that scholarly reference management was a similar problem space. Connotea was designed and developed late in 2004, and soft-launched at the end of December 2004. Usage has grown over the past several months, to the point where there is now enough data in the system for interesting second-order effects to emerge. This paper will start by giving an overview of Connotea, and will outline the key concepts and describe its main features. We will then take the reader on a brief guided tour, show some of the aforementioned second-order effects, and end with a discussion of Connotea's likely future direction.
  16. Golub, K.; Moon, J.; Nielsen, M.L.; Tudhope, D.: EnTag: Enhanced Tagging for Discovery (2008) 0.00 
    0.004011904 = product of:
  0.012035711 = sum of:
    0.012035711 = product of:
      0.03610713 = sum of:
        0.03610713 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610713 = score(doc=2294,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 2294, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2294)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose: Investigate the combination of controlled and folksonomy approaches to support resource discovery in repositories and digital collections. Aim: Investigate whether use of an established controlled vocabulary can help improve social tagging for better resource discovery. Objectives: (1) Investigate indexing aspects when using only social tagging versus when using social tagging with suggestions from a controlled vocabulary; (2) Investigate above in two different contexts: tagging by readers and tagging by authors; (3) Investigate influence of only social tagging versus social tagging with a controlled vocabulary on retrieval. - Vgl.: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/projects/enhanced-tagging/.
  17. 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) 0.00 
    0.0038404856 = product of:
  0.011521457 = sum of:
    0.011521457 = product of:
      0.03456437 = sum of:
        0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456437 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  18. Furner, J.: User tagging of library resources : toward a framework for system evaluation (2007) 0.00 
    0.0034387745 = product of:
  0.0103163235 = sum of:
    0.0103163235 = product of:
      0.03094897 = sum of:
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Although user tagging of library resources shows substantial promise as a means of improving the quality of users' access to those resources, several important questions about the level and nature of the warrant for basing retrieval tools on user tagging are yet to receive full consideration by library practitioners and researchers. Among these is the simple evaluative question: What, specifically, are the factors that determine whether or not user-tagging services will be successful? If success is to be defined in terms of the effectiveness with which systems perform the particular functions expected of them (rather than simply in terms of popularity), an understanding is needed both of the multifunctional nature of tagging tools, and of the complex nature of users' mental models of that multifunctionality. In this paper, a conceptual framework is developed for the evaluation of systems that integrate user tagging with more traditional methods of library resource description.
  19. Rafferty, P.; Hidderley, R.: Flickr and democratic Indexing : dialogic approaches to indexing (2007) 0.00 
    0.0034387745 = product of:
  0.0103163235 = sum of:
    0.0103163235 = product of:
      0.03094897 = sum of:
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is two-fold: to examine three models of subject indexing (i.e. expert-led indexing, author-generated indexing, and user-orientated indexing); and to compare and contrast two user-orientated indexing approaches (i.e. the theoretically-based Democratic Indexing project, and Flickr, a working system for describing photographs). Design/methodology/approach - The approach to examining Flickr and Democratic Indexing is evaluative. The limitations of Flickr are described and examples are provided. The Democratic Indexing approach, which the authors believe offers a method of marshalling a "free" user-indexed archive to provide useful retrieval functions, is described. Findings - The examination of both Flickr and the Democratic Indexing approach suggests that, despite Shirky's claim of philosophical paradigm shifting for social tagging, there is a residing doubt amongst information professionals that self-organising systems can work without there being some element of control and some form of "representative authority". Originality/value - This paper contributes to the literature of user-based indexing and social tagging.
  20. Heckner, M.; Mühlbacher, S.; Wolff, C.: Tagging tagging : a classification model for user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems (2007) 0.00 
    0.0032421078 = product of:
  0.009726323 = sum of:
    0.009726323 = product of:
      0.029178968 = sum of:
        0.029178968 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029178968 = score(doc=533,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Recently, a growing amount of systems that allow personal content annotation (tagging) are being created, ranging from personal sites for organising bookmarks (del.icio.us), photos (flickr.com) or videos (video.google.com, youtube.com) to systems for managing bibliographies for scientific research projects (citeulike.org, connotea.org). Simultaneously, a debate on the pro and cons of allowing users to add personal keywords to digital content has arisen. One recurrent point-of-discussion is whether tagging can solve the well-known vocabulary problem: In order to support successful retrieval in complex environments, it is necessary to index an object with a variety of aliases (cf. Furnas 1987). In this spirit, social tagging enhances the pool of rigid, traditional keywording by adding user-created retrieval vocabularies. Furthermore, tagging goes beyond simple personal content-based keywords by providing meta-keywords like funny or interesting that "identify qualities or characteristics" (Golder and Huberman 2006, Kipp and Campbell 2006, Kipp 2007, Feinberg 2006, Kroski 2005). Contrarily, tagging systems are claimed to lead to semantic difficulties that may hinder the precision and recall of tagging systems (e.g. the polysemy problem, cf. Marlow 2006, Lakoff 2005, Golder and Huberman 2006). Empirical research on social tagging is still rare and mostly from a computer linguistics or librarian point-of-view (Voß 2007) which focus either on the automatic statistical analyses of large data sets, or intellectually inspect single cases of tag usage: Some scientists studied the evolution of tag vocabularies and tag distribution in specific systems (Golder and Huberman 2006, Hammond 2005). Others concentrate on tagging behaviour and tagger characteristics in collaborative systems. (Hammond 2005, Kipp and Campbell 2007, Feinberg 2006, Sen 2006). However, little research has been conducted on the functional and linguistic characteristics of tags.1 An analysis of these patterns could show differences between user wording and conventional keywording. In order to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, a classification system for existing tags is needed.

Authors

Types

Themes

Subjects

Classifications