Search (690 results, page 1 of 35)

0.11309586 = product of:
  0.22619171 = sum of:
    0.22619171 = sum of:
      0.19879878 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19879878 = score(doc=2661,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.6781442 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
      0.02739294 = weight(_text_:22 in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02739294 = score(doc=2661,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2661, 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=2661)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The basic goal of education within a discipline is to transform a novice into an expert. This entails moving the novice toward the "semantic space" that the expert inhabits-the space of concepts, meanings, vocabularies, and other intellectual constructs that comprise the discipline. Metadata is significant to this goal in digitally mediated education environments. Encoding the experts' semantic space not only enables the sharing of semantics among discipline scientists, but also creates an environment that bridges the semantic gap between the common vocabulary of the novice and the granular descriptive language of the seasoned scientist (Greenberg, et al, 2005). Developments underlying the Semantic Web, where vocabularies are formalized in the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and Web 2.0 approaches of user-generated folksonomies provide an infrastructure for linking vocabulary systems and promoting group learning via metadata literacy. Group learning is a pedagogical approach to teaching that harnesses the phenomenon of "collective intelligence" to increase learning by means of collaboration. Learning a new semantic system can be daunting for a novice, and yet it is integral to advance one's knowledge in a discipline and retain interest. These ideas are key to the "BOT 2.0: Botany through Web 2.0, the Memex and Social Learning" project (Bot 2.0).72 Bot 2.0 is a collaboration involving the North Carolina Botanical Garden, the UNC SILS Metadata Research center, and the Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI). Bot 2.0 presents a curriculum utilizing a memex as a way for students to link and share digital information, working asynchronously in an environment beyond the traditional classroom. Our conception of a memex is not a centralized black box but rather a flexible, distributed framework that uses the most salient and easiest-to-use collaborative platforms (e.g., Facebook, Flickr, wiki and blog technology) for personal information management. By meeting students "where they live" digitally, we hope to attract students to the study of botanical science. A key aspect is to teach students scientific terminology and about the value of metadata, an inherent function in several of the technologies and in the instructional approach we are utilizing. This poster will report on a study examining the value of both folksonomies and taxonomies for post-secondary college students learning plant identification. Our data is drawn from a curriculum involving a virtual independent learning portion and a "BotCamp" weekend at UNC, where students work with digital plan specimens that they have captured. Results provide some insight into the importance of collaboration and shared vocabulary for gaining confidence and for student progression from novice to expert in botany.

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

0.11104417 = product of:
  0.22208834 = sum of:
    0.22208834 = sum of:
      0.18784717 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18784717 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.640786 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.034241177 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034241177 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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".

Object

Web 2.0

0.102531806 = product of:
  0.20506361 = sum of:
    0.20506361 = sum of:
      0.15027773 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15027773 = score(doc=1001,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.5126288 = fieldWeight in 1001, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1001)
      0.05478588 = weight(_text_:22 in 1001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05478588 = score(doc=1001,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1001, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1001)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

HTML has reinvented itself as an XML application. The working draft of the latest version, XHTML 2.0, is causing controversy due to its lack of backward compatibility and the deprecation - and in some cases disappearance - of some popular tags. But is this commotion distracting us from the big picture of what XHTML has to offer? Where is HTML going? And is it taking the Web community with it?

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.99-105

0.10082457 = sum of:
  0.080279864 = product of:
    0.24083959 = sum of:
      0.24083959 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.24083959 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.42852643 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.020544706 = product of:
    0.04108941 = sum of:
      0.04108941 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04108941 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.

Date

8. 1.2013 10:22:32

0.08971533 = product of:
  0.17943066 = sum of:
    0.17943066 = sum of:
      0.13149302 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13149302 = score(doc=3663,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.4485502 = fieldWeight in 3663, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3663)
      0.047937647 = weight(_text_:22 in 3663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047937647 = score(doc=3663,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3663, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3663)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is the era of social networking, collective intelligence, participation, collaborative creation, and borderless distribution. Every day we are bombarded with more publicity about collaborative environments, news feeds, blogs, wikis, podcasting, webcasting, folksonomies, social bookmarking, social citations, collaborative filtering, recommender systems, media sharing, massive multiplayer online games, virtual worlds, and mash-ups. This sort of anarchic environment appeals to the digital natives, but which of these so-called 'Web 2.0' technologies are going to have a real business impact? This paper addresses the impact that issues such as quality control, security, privacy and bandwidth may have on the implementation of social networking in hide-bound, large organizations.

Date

8. 7.2010 19:24:22

0.0835346 = product of:
  0.1670692 = sum of:
    0.1670692 = sum of:
      0.13282801 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13282801 = score(doc=2754,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.45310414 = fieldWeight in 2754, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2754)
      0.034241177 = weight(_text_:22 in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034241177 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2754, 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=2754)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents an exploratory study of Blobgects, an experimental interface for an online museum catalog that enables social tagging and blogging activity around a set of cultural heritage objects held by a preeminent museum of anthropology and archaeology. This study attempts to understand not just whether social tagging and commenting about these objects is useful but rather whose tags and voices matter in presenting different expert perspectives around digital museum objects. Based on an empirical comparison between two different user groups (Canadian Inuit high-school students and museum studies students in the United States), we found that merely adding the ability to tag and comment to the museum's catalog does not sufficiently allow users to learn about or engage with the objects represented by catalog entries. Rather, the specialist language of the catalog provides too little contextualization for users to enter into the sort of dialog that proponents of Web 2.0 technologies promise. Overall, we propose a more nuanced application of Web 2.0 technologies within museums - one which provides a contextual basis that gives users a starting point for engagement and permits users to make sense of objects in relation to their own needs, uses, and understandings.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:52:32

0.07787733 = product of:
  0.15575466 = sum of:
    0.15575466 = product of:
      0.3115093 = sum of:
        0.3115093 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3115093 = score(doc=2959,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            1.0626235 = fieldWeight in 2959, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to illustrate issues surrounding Web 2.0 technologies and their relevance to libraries by general discussion and examples from library practice. Design/methodology/approach - A broad narrative account of Web 2.0 developments combined with illustrations of how one library in particular reacted to these developments. Findings - It was found that all libraries need to evolve a Web 2.0 strategy to promote this aspect of their services, but that they will need to devise solutions to specific problems as part of this strategy. These include the range of Web 2.0 platforms that are on offer and the authentication and workload issues associated with this diversity. A single, unified library system-based approach to Web 2.0 is offered as a viable alternative to using disparate external services. Research limitations/implications - This paper does not resolve the difference between a multi-platform Web 2.0 strategy and the single, unified library system-based approach, although a preference for the systems-based approach is suggested. The relative strengths and weaknesses of these two approaches is worthy of further research. Practical implications - At the level of practice, this viewpoint article offers two alternative Web 2.0 strategies which can be applied quite readily in everyday library work. Originality/value - This paper tries to offer a clear range of options for librarians interested in pursuing Web 2.0 services, facilitating successful service enhancement in the working library.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Special Issue: Web 2.0 and gaming in libraries

Object

Web 2.0

0.07689886 = product of:
  0.15379772 = sum of:
    0.15379772 = sum of:
      0.1127083 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1127083 = score(doc=2634,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.3844716 = fieldWeight in 2634, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2634)
      0.04108941 = weight(_text_:22 in 2634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04108941 = score(doc=2634,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2634, 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=2634)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This report introduces the Dublin Core Microformats (DCMF) project, a new way to use the DC element set within X/HTML. The DC microformats encode explicit semantic expressions in an X/HTML webpage, by using a specific list of terms for values of the attributes "rev" and "rel" for <a> and <link> elements, and "class" and "id" of other elements. Microformats can be easily processed by user agents and software, enabling a high level of interoperability. These characteristics are crucial for the growing number of social applications allowing users to participate in the Web 2.0 environment as information creators and consumers. This report reviews the origins of microformats; illustrates the coding of DC microformats using the Dublin Core Metadata Gen tool, and a Firefox extension for extraction and visualization; and discusses the benefits of creating Web services utilizing DC microformats.

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

0.07425311 = product of:
  0.14850622 = sum of:
    0.14850622 = product of:
      0.29701245 = sum of:
        0.29701245 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.29701245 = score(doc=2935,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            1.0131717 = fieldWeight in 2935, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2935)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Though practitioners have seen discussions and debates surrounding the Web 2.0 concept for the last few years, we know little of Web users' heterogeneity in the usage of Web 2.0 applications, let alone the factors associated with such heterogeneity. In this article, we propose a Web user's degree of Web 2.0-ness to be measured by the weighted average of the degrees of Web 2.0-ness of the Web sites that he or she has visited. A Web site's degree of Web 2.0-ness in turn is evaluated through a series of binary criteria as to whether the site accommodates popular Web 2.0 applications. Utilizing clickstream data from an online panel coupled with expert scoring for the empirical analysis, we find that a Web user's degree of Web 2.0-ness is positively associated with his or her behavioral volume (measured by the number of page views), behavioral speed (measured by the duration of each page view), and behavioral concentration (measured by the Gini coefficient of page views the user made across Web sites). Furthermore, Web users who are younger and male are found to have a higher degree of Web 2.0-ness.

Object

Web 2.0

0.07350684 = product of:
  0.14701368 = sum of:
    0.14701368 = product of:
      0.29402736 = sum of:
        0.29402736 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 8086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.29402736 = score(doc=8086,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            1.0029888 = fieldWeight in 8086, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8086)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Inhalt: Brand library 2.0 - The essential ingredients - Finding the road to library 2.0 - A framework for change - Participatory service and the long tail - Incorporating technology - Buy-in : getting everyone on board - Maintaining the momentum - Final considerations

RSWK

Bibliothek / World Wide Web 2.0

Subject

Bibliothek / World Wide Web 2.0

0.06574651 = product of:
  0.13149302 = sum of:
    0.13149302 = product of:
      0.26298603 = sum of:
        0.26298603 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26298603 = score(doc=425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.8971004 = fieldWeight in 425, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=425)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Review of Dewey for Windows, Version 2.0

0.064082384 = product of:
  0.12816477 = sum of:
    0.12816477 = sum of:
      0.09392358 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09392358 = score(doc=2651,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.320393 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
      0.034241177 = weight(_text_:22 in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034241177 = score(doc=2651,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2651, 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=2651)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The digitized version of the only extant copy of Archimedes' key mathematical and scientific works contains over 6,500 images and 130 pages of transcriptions. Metadata is essential for managing, integrating and accessing these digital resources in the Web 2.0 environment. The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set meets many of our needs. It offers the needed flexibility and applicability to a variety of data sets containing different texts and images in a dynamic technical environment. The program team has continued to refine its data dictionary and elements based on the Dublin Core standard and feedback from the Dublin Core community since the 2006 Dublin Core Conference. This presentation cites the application and utility of the DCMI Standards during the final phase of this decade-long program. Since the 2006 conference, the amount of data has grown tenfold with new imaging techniques. Use of the DCMI Standards for integration across digital images and transcriptions will allow the hosting and integration of this data set and other cultural works across service providers, libraries and cultural institutions.

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

0.05693815 = product of:
  0.1138763 = sum of:
    0.1138763 = product of:
      0.2277526 = sum of:
        0.2277526 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2277526 = score(doc=2254,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.7769118 = fieldWeight in 2254, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2254)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents an overview of some of the important recent developments in cataloging theory and practice and online catalog design. Changes in cataloging theory and practice include the incorporation of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records principles into catalogs, the new Resource Description and Access cataloging manual, and the new CONSER Standard Record. Web 2.0 functionalities and advances in search technology and results displays are influencing online catalog design. The paper ends with hypothetical scenarios in which a catalog, enhanced by the developments described, fulfills the tasks of finding serials articles and titles.

Object

Web 2.0

0.05635415 = product of:
  0.1127083 = sum of:
    0.1127083 = product of:
      0.2254166 = sum of:
        0.2254166 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2254166 = score(doc=1304,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.7689432 = fieldWeight in 1304, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1304)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is the full text of a "Reply All" debate on Web 2.0 between authors Andrew Keen and David Weinberger

Content

"Mr. Keen begins: So what, exactly, is Web 2.0? It is the radical democratization of media which is enabling anyone to publish anything on the Internet. Mainstream media's traditional audience has become Web 2.0's empowered author. Web 2.0 transforms all of us -- from 90-year-old grandmothers to eight-year-old third graders -- into digital writers, music artists, movie makers and journalists. Web 2.0 is YouTube, the blogosphere, Wikipedia, MySpace or Facebook. Web 2.0 is YOU! (Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2006). Is Web 2.0 a dream or a nightmare? Is it a remix of Disney's "Cinderella" or of Kafka's "Metamorphosis"? Have we -- as empowered conversationalists in the global citizen media community -- woken up with the golden slipper of our ugly sister (aka: mainstream media) on our dainty little foot? Or have we -- as authors-formerly-know-as-the-audience -- woken up as giant cockroaches doomed to eternally stare at our hideous selves in the mirror of Web 2.0? Silicon Valley, of course, interprets Web 2.0 as Disney rather than Kafka. After all, as the sales and marketing architects of this great democratization argue, what could be wrong with a radically flattened media? Isn't it dreamy that we can all now publish ourselves, that we each possess digital versions of Johannes Gutenberg's printing press, that we are now able to easily create, distribute and sell our content on the Internet? This is personal liberation with an early 21st Century twist -- a mash-up of the countercultural Sixties, the free market idealism of the Eighties, and the technological determinism and consumer-centricity of the Nineties. The people have finally spoken. The media has become their message and the people are self-broadcasting this message of emancipation on their 70 million blogs, their hundreds of millions of YouTube videos, their MySpace pages and their Wikipedia entries. ..."

0.055522084 = product of:
  0.11104417 = sum of:
    0.11104417 = sum of:
      0.09392358 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09392358 = score(doc=680,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.320393 = fieldWeight in 680, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=680)
      0.017120589 = weight(_text_:22 in 680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017120589 = score(doc=680,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 680, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=680)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Dass dieses Buch den Bibliothekaren gewidmet ist, stimmt tröstlich. Denn auf den Punkt gebracht, bedeutet sein Inhalt für unseren Berufsstand: Es kommt nicht mehr auf Euch an! Die Kernthese, die der Autor, ein bekannter Publizist zum Internet und Mitglied einer Harvard-Institution, in diesem Essay überaus anregend und mit vielen Beispielen gespickt ausführt, lautet: Dem Informationsüberfluss durch elektronische Dokumente kann nur noch durch noch mehr Information begegnet werden. Die Erschließung elektronischer Dokumente durch die Benutzer mithilfe von Metadaten und so genannten Tags (freie Verschlagwortung, also nicht standardisierte Metadaten) führt zu einer Überlagerung mit der systematischen Erschließung, für die der bibliothekarische Berufsstand steht. Diese Art der Erschließung wird in der gegenwärtigen Diskussion über Web 2.0 Folksonomy genannt. Nur so, schreibt David Weinberger, können die elektronischen Dokumente vielfältig und vieldeutig erschlossen werden, nach Gesichtspunkten, die vielleicht für viele, vielleicht auch nur für einige relevant sind. Aber auf jeden Fall vielfältiger und zukunftssicherer, als dies durch bibliothekarische Erschließung möglich wäre. Sagenhafte Zuwachsraten Der Autor entwickelt seine Argumente anhand von Beispielen aus vielen Bereichen. Besonders eindrücklich ist seine Schilderung von Fotoarchiven. Er beschreibt das Buttmann-Archiv, eine umfangreiche historische Fotosammlung in den USA, das durch Zettelkataloge erschlossen ist. Hier ist eine Recherche, die von Fachpersonal durchgeführt werden muss, langwierig, und die Erschließung wurde den vielfältigen Bezügen der Darstellungen auf den Fotos nicht gerecht.
Katalog 2.0 Und wir stehen erst am Anfang der Entwicklung, denn man erschrickt, wie kurz erst die »Erfindung« von Tags durch den Gründer des sozialen Bookmarkdienstes Delicious (http://del.icio.us), Joshua Schachter, her ist. Uns wird hier ein Lernprozess abverlangt. Wer beispielsweise seine Bookmarks mithilfe eines sozialen Bookmarkdienstes wie Delicious, Furl (www.furl.net) oder Mr. Wong (www.mister-wong.de) verwaltet, wird zunächst einmal sehr verunsichert sein, die Links nicht in Schubladen zu haben, sondern mithilfe von Tags zu verwalten und zu suchen. Der Rezensent kann sich noch erinnern, wie erleichtert er war, dass Delicious sogenannte Bundles anbietet, doch wieder Schubladen, in denen man die Tags grob gliedern kann. Das stellt sich leider nicht immer als besonders sinnvoll heraus... Wahrscheinlich wird immer wieder die Qualität als Gegenargument ins Feld geführt werden. Die F.A.Z. hat sich über das Buch ziemlich lustig gemacht und auf die wenig qualitätvolle Arbeit von Reader-Editoren und von der Banalität der hoch gerankten Nachrichten bei Digg (www.digg.com) verwiesen. Diese Kritik hat schon ihre Berechtigung, aber auch bei anderen sozialen Diensten wie den Weblogs war es so, dass anfangs Banalität herrschte und jetzt mehr und mehr Fachblogs qualitativ höherwertigen Inhalt bieten. Wenn einmal die Experten die Potenz der Erschließung durch Metatags entdecken, wird die Qualität ansteigen. Das heißt nicht, dass kontrollierte Vokabulare wie die Medical Subject Headings oder RSWK bedeutungslos werden, sie werden aber durch die Verschlagwortung der Nutzer notwendigerweise ergänzt werden müssen, weil sich der Mehrwert dieser Nutzererschließung zeigen wird. Solches wird unter dem Stichwort Katalog 2.0 bereits diskutiert, und es existieren auch schon einige Beispiele dafür.
Kontrolle aufgeben Es gibt noch weitere Aspekte dieses Buches, die überaus bedenkenswert sind. Über das Wissensmanagement beispielsweise, die Schwierigkeit implizites Wissen explizit zu machen. Der Gedanke auch, dass Wissen vor allem in der Kommunikation, im Gespräch erarbeitet wird, während unsere ganze Bildungskonzeption immer noch von dem Bild ausgeht, dass Wissen etwas sei, was jeder Einzelne in seinen Kopf trichtert. Weinberger benutzt als Beispiel die Schulkinder, die schon längst kollektiv Hausaufgaben machen, indem neben dem Erledigen der Aufgaben her zwei oder drei Chatfenster offen sind und die Lösungswege gemeinsam erarbeitet werden. Gibt es einen Trost für die Bibliothekare? Nach diesem Buch nicht. Prof. Hans-Christoph Hobohm bezweifelt aber in einer Besprechung des Buches im Weblog LIS der FH Potsdam (http://tinyurl.com/ywb8ld), dass es sich um einen Paradigmenwechsel handelt. Aber auch wenn die Zukunft von Bibliotheken im Buch nicht explizit erörtert wird: Zum Schluss behandelt der Autor anhand mehrerer Beispiele die Wirtschaft, die unter diesen Rahmenbedingungen ihr Marketing umstellen müsse: Nur wer seine Kontrolle über die Information aufgebe, könne unter den wechselnden Rahmenbedingungen wieder an Reputation, an Wert gewinnen. Wer sie festzuhalten versucht, verliere notwendigerweise die Kunden! Das lässt sich eins zu eins auf die Bibliotheken übertragen: Nur wer seine Informationen freigibt und die Benutzer (auch) erschließen lässt, wird Erfolg haben. Also muss man in Richtung Katalog 2.0 denken oder beispielsweise an die Zugänglichmachung von RSS-Feeds bestimmter Medien (in Öffentlichen Bibliotheken) oder Zeitschriftenin halten (in wissenschaftlichen Bibliotheken)."

Date

4.11.2007 13:22:29

0.05250488 = product of:
  0.10500976 = sum of:
    0.10500976 = product of:
      0.21001951 = sum of:
        0.21001951 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21001951 = score(doc=2931,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.71642053 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

Web 2.0

RSWK

World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem
Social Tagging / Filter / Web log / World Wide Web 2.0

Subject

World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem
Social Tagging / Filter / Web log / World Wide Web 2.0

0.051265903 = product of:
  0.102531806 = sum of:
    0.102531806 = sum of:
      0.07513887 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07513887 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.2563144 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.02739294 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02739294 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = 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)

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

0.051265903 = product of:
  0.102531806 = sum of:
    0.102531806 = sum of:
      0.07513887 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07513887 = score(doc=2660,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.2563144 = fieldWeight in 2660, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2660)
      0.02739294 = weight(_text_:22 in 2660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02739294 = score(doc=2660,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2660, 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=2660)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Developing and managing local practices about metadata implementation (desired quality, workflow, support tools, guidelines, and vocabularies) and about metadata exposure (supported standards, and pre-exposure transformations) requires an ability to understand and communicate the specific complex settings in which the metadata, resources, and users exist. Developing such an understanding is often informed by an implicit or explicit conceptual model. Ecology is the study of complex natural systems, with the aim of understanding and modeling the processes and interactions between the participants in the system and their environment. The concept is also widely used as a metaphor to describe complex systems within their settings. The Repositories Research Team (which supports repository development work in UK HE) has been examining the use of ecology as a metaphor to support the understanding and representation of interactions between repositories, dependent services, and their users. These interactions whether technical, political, or cultural have a direct impact on the metadata in each repository. Where many other approaches to modeling facilitate an abstract view of a single type of interaction; the ecologically influenced approach seeks to support communication of the combined influences of a repository's technical and cultural setting, however specific and chaotic (or messy) it may be. The idea that ecology is a suitable metaphor for the interaction of users and technologies has been considered by Davenport (1997), by Nardi and O'Day (2000), in strand of projects funded by the European Union (see Nachira et al., 2007), and by Robertson et al. (2008). This poster presents an ecologically influenced view of a researcher seeking to disseminate and store their presentations. The interactions and resources that will be considered, as they influence the metadata, include the storage of the presentation in formal and informal services (a repository, SlideShare), different versions of the intellectual content (blog post, slides, paper), different formats (PowerPoint, PDF). Environmental factors, which affect the metadata, that will be considered include influences on the researcher (e.g. availability of web 2.0 tools, the link between career progression and publication of research, a commitment to sharing resources, and institutional policies) and influences on the institutional policies (such as IPR concerns about the use of third party material or the loss of university ownership of intellectual outputs or branding).

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

0.051265903 = product of:
  0.102531806 = sum of:
    0.102531806 = sum of:
      0.07513887 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07513887 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.2563144 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.02739294 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02739294 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.04696179 = product of:
  0.09392358 = sum of:
    0.09392358 = product of:
      0.18784717 = sum of:
        0.18784717 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18784717 = score(doc=2962,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.640786 = fieldWeight in 2962, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2962)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to discuss alternative definitions of and approaches to the semantic web. It aims to clarify the relationship between the semantic web, Web 2.0 and Library 2.0. Design/methodology/approach - The paper is based on a literature review and evaluation of systems with semantic web features. It identifies and describes semantic web projects of relevance to libraries and evaluates the usefulness of JeromeDL and other social semantic digital library systems. It discusses actual and potential applications for libraries and makes recommendations for actions needed by researchers and practitioners. Findings - The paper concludes that the library community has a lot to offer to, and benefit from, the semantic web, but there is limited interest in the library community. It recommends that there be greater collaboration between semantic web researchers and project developers, library management systems providers and the library community. Librarians should get involved in the development of semantic web standards, for example, metadata and taxonomies. Originality/value - The paper clarifies the distinction between semantic web and Web 2.0 in a digital library environment. It evaluates and predicts future developments for operational systems.

Object

Web 2.0