Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.00
    0.0020783632 = product of:
      0.017666087 = sum of:
        0.005706471 = weight(_text_:in in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005706471 = score(doc=2652,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
        0.011959616 = product of:
          0.023919232 = sum of:
            0.023919232 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.023919232 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.08743035 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.024967048 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.11764706 = coord(2/17)
    
    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
  2. Blumauer, A.; Hochmeister, M.: Tag-Recommender gestützte Annotation von Web-Dokumenten (2009) 0.00
    0.001956587 = product of:
      0.016630989 = sum of:
        0.0094853565 = weight(_text_:und in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094853565 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
        0.0071456316 = weight(_text_:in in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071456316 = score(doc=4866,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
      0.11764706 = coord(2/17)
    
    Abstract
    In diesem Kapitel wird die zentrale Bedeutung der Annotation von Webdokumenten bzw. von Ressourcen in einem Semantischen Web diskutiert. Es wird auf aktuelle Methoden und Techniken in diesem Gebiet eingegangen, insbesondere wird das Phänomen "Social Tagging" als zentrales Element eines "Social Semantic Webs" beleuchtet. Weiters wird der Frage nachgegangen, welchen Mehrwert "Tag Recommender" beim Annotationsvorgang bieten, sowohl aus Sicht des End-Users aber auch im Sinne eines kollaborativen Ontologieerstellungsprozesses. Schließlich wird ein Funktionsprinzip für einen semi-automatischen Tag-Recommender vorgestellt unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Anwendbarkeit in einem Corporate Semantic Web.
  3. 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
    0.0015953823 = product of:
      0.01356075 = sum of:
        0.005104023 = weight(_text_:in in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005104023 = score(doc=2650,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
        0.008456727 = product of:
          0.016913453 = sum of:
            0.016913453 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.016913453 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.08743035 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.024967048 = 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)
      0.11764706 = coord(2/17)
    
    Abstract
    There is a growing interest into how we represent and share tagging data in collaborative tagging systems. Conventional tags, meaning freely created tags that are not associated with a structured ontology, are not naturally suited for collaborative processes, due to linguistic and grammatical variations, as well as human typing errors. Additionally, tags reflect personal views of the world by individual users, and are not normalised for synonymy, morphology or any other mapping. Our view is that the conventional approach provides very limited semantic value for collaboration. Moreover, in cases where there is some semantic value, automatically sharing semantics via computer manipulations is extremely problematic. This paper explores these problems by discussing approaches for collaborative tagging activities at a semantic level, and presenting conceptual models for collaborative tagging activities and folksonomies. We present criteria for the comparison of existing tag ontologies and discuss their strengths and weaknesses in relation to these criteria.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  4. Tonkin, E.; Baptista, A.A.; Hooland, S. van; Resmini, A.; Mendéz, E.; Neville, L.: Kinds of Tags : a collaborative research study on tag usage and structure (2007) 0.00
    2.972191E-4 = product of:
      0.005052725 = sum of:
        0.005052725 = weight(_text_:in in 531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005052725 = score(doc=531,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 531, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=531)
      0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    
    Abstract
    KoT (Kinds of Tags) is an ongoing joint collaborative research effort with many participants worldwide, including the University of Minho, UKOLN, the University of Bologna, the Université Libre de Bruxelles and La Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. It is focused on the analysis of tags that are in common use in the practice of social tagging, with the aim of discovering how easily tags can be 'normalised' for interoperability with standard metadata environments such as the DC Metadata Terms.
  5. Golub, K.; Moon, J.; Nielsen, M.L.; Tudhope, D.: EnTag: Enhanced Tagging for Discovery (2008) 0.00
    2.972191E-4 = product of:
      0.005052725 = sum of:
        0.005052725 = weight(_text_:in in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005052725 = score(doc=2294,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 2294, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2294)
      0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    
    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/.