Search (47 results, page 3 of 3)

0.005348703 = product of:
  0.016046109 = sum of:
    0.016046109 = product of:
      0.032092217 = sum of:
        0.032092217 = weight(_text_:management in 4100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032092217 = score(doc=4100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 4100, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Web 2.0 and social/collaborative tagging have altered the traditional roles of indexer and user. Traditional indexing tools and systems assume the top-down approach to indexing in which a trained professional is responsible for assigning index terms to information sources with a potential user in mind. However, in today's Web, end users create, organize, index, and search for images and other information sources through social tagging and other collaborative activities. One of the impediments to user-centered indexing had been the cost of soliciting user-generated index terms or tags. Social tagging of images such as those on Flickr, an online photo management and sharing application, presents an opportunity that can be seized by designers of indexing tools and systems to bridge the semantic gap between indexer terms and user vocabularies. Empirical research on the differences and similarities between user-generated tags and index terms based on controlled vocabularies has the potential to inform future design of image indexing tools and systems. Toward this end, a random sample of Flickr images and the tags assigned to them were content analyzed and compared with another sample of index terms from a general image collection using established frameworks for image attributes and contents. The results show that there is a fundamental difference between the types of tags and types of index terms used. In light of this, implications for research into and design of user-centered image indexing tools and systems are discussed.

0.005348703 = product of:
  0.016046109 = sum of:
    0.016046109 = product of:
      0.032092217 = sum of:
        0.032092217 = weight(_text_:management in 4220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032092217 = score(doc=4220,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 4220, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4220)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Information processing and management. 46(2010) no.1, S.44-57

0.0046186056 = product of:
  0.013855817 = sum of:
    0.013855817 = product of:
      0.027711634 = sum of:
        0.027711634 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027711634 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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

0.0046186056 = product of:
  0.013855817 = sum of:
    0.013855817 = product of:
      0.027711634 = sum of:
        0.027711634 = weight(_text_:22 in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027711634 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2881, 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=2881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2009 9:15:45

0.0042789625 = product of:
  0.0128368875 = sum of:
    0.0128368875 = product of:
      0.025673775 = sum of:
        0.025673775 = weight(_text_:management in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025673775 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0042789625 = product of:
  0.0128368875 = sum of:
    0.0128368875 = product of:
      0.025673775 = sum of:
        0.025673775 = weight(_text_:management in 4221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025673775 = score(doc=4221,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 4221, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4221)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Information processing and management. 45(2009) no.4, S.452-468

0.0037440923 = product of:
  0.011232276 = sum of:
    0.011232276 = product of:
      0.022464553 = sum of:
        0.022464553 = weight(_text_:management in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022464553 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.13034125 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Because, to paraphrase a pop music lyric from a certain rock and roll band of yesterday, "the Web is old, the Web is new, the Web is all, the Web is you", it seems like we might have to face up to some of these stark realities. With the introduction of new social software applications such as blogs, wikis, newsfeeds, social networks, and bookmarking tools (the subject of this paper), the claim that Shelley Powers makes in a Burningbird blog entry seems apposite: "This is the user's web now, which means it's my web and I can make the rules." Reinvention is revolution - it brings us always back to beginnings. We are here going to remind you of hyperlinks in all their glory, sell you on the idea of bookmarking hyperlinks, point you at other folks who are doing the same, and tell you why this is a good thing. Just as long as those hyperlinks (or let's call them plain old links) are managed, tagged, commented upon, and published onto the Web, they represent a user's own personal library placed on public record, which - when aggregated with other personal libraries - allows for rich, social networking opportunities. Why spill any ink (digital or not) in rewriting what someone else has already written about instead of just pointing at the original story and adding the merest of titles, descriptions and tags for future reference? More importantly, why not make these personal 'link playlists' available to oneself and to others from whatever browser or computer one happens to be using at the time? This paper reviews some current initiatives, as of early 2005, in providing public link management applications on the Web - utilities that are often referred to under the general moniker of 'social bookmarking tools'. There are a couple of things going on here: 1) server-side software aimed specifically at managing links with, crucially, a strong, social networking flavour, and 2) an unabashedly open and unstructured approach to tagging, or user classification, of those links.