-
Lee, Y.Y.; Yang, S.Q.: Folksonomies as subject access : a survey of tagging in library online catalogs and discovery layers (2012)
0.05
0.045742862 = product of:
0.091485724 = sum of:
0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051698197 = score(doc=309,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
0.039787523 = weight(_text_:library in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039787523 = score(doc=309,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This paper describes a survey on how system vendors and libraries handled tagging in OPACs and discovery layers. Tags are user added subject metadata, also called folksonomies. This survey also investigated user behavior when they face the possibility to tag. The findings indicate that legacy/classic systems have no tagging capability. About 47% of the discovery tools provide tagging function. About 49% of the libraries that have a system with tagging capability have turned the tagging function on in their OPACs and discovery tools. Only 40% of the libraries that turned tagging on actually utilized user added subject metadata as access point to collections. Academic library users are less active in tagging than public library users.
- Source
- Beyond libraries - subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web. IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn
-
Rafferty, P.: Tagging (2018)
0.04
0.043557227 = product of:
0.08711445 = sum of:
0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060314562 = score(doc=4647,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026799891 = score(doc=4647,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This article examines tagging as knowledge organization. Tagging is a kind of indexing, a process of labelling and categorizing information made to support resource discovery for users. Social tagging generally means the practice whereby internet users generate keywords to describe, categorise or comment on digital content. The value of tagging comes when social tags within a collection are aggregated and shared through a folksonomy. This article examines definitions of tagging and folksonomy, and discusses the functions, advantages and disadvantages of tagging systems in relation to knowledge organization before discussing studies that have compared tagging and conventional library-based knowledge organization systems. Approaches to disciplining tagging practice are examined and tagger motivation discussed. Finally, the article outlines current research fronts.
-
Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008)
0.02
0.024337403 = product of:
0.097349614 = sum of:
0.097349614 = sum of:
0.049331643 = weight(_text_:project in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049331643 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23317845 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
0.04801797 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04801797 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Folksonomy is the result of describing Web resources with tags created by Web users. Although it has become a popular application for the description of resources, in general terms Folksonomies are not being conveniently integrated in metadata. However, if the appropriate metadata elements are identified, then further work may be conducted to automatically assign tags to these elements (RDF properties) and use them in Semantic Web applications. This article presents research carried out to continue the project Kinds of Tags, which intends to identify elements required for metadata originating from folksonomies and to propose an application profile for DC Social Tagging. The work provides information that may be used by software applications to assign tags to metadata elements and, therefore, means for tags to be conveniently gathered by metadata interoperability tools. Despite the unquestionably high value of DC and the significance of the already existing properties in DC Terms, the pilot study show revealed a significant number of tags for which no corresponding properties yet existed. A need for new properties, such as Action, Depth, Rate, and Utility was determined. Those potential new properties will have to be validated in a later stage by the DC Social Tagging Community.
- 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
-
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
0.0042442293 = product of:
0.016976917 = sum of:
0.016976917 = product of:
0.033953834 = sum of:
0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033953834 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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
-
Peters, I.: Folksonomies : indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0 (2009)
0.00
0.0038285558 = product of:
0.015314223 = sum of:
0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015314223 = score(doc=4203,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Footnote
- Weitere Rez. in: Library review 59(2010) no.7, S.566-568 (G. Macgregor)
