Search (40 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0027825988 = product of:
  0.01947819 = sum of:
    0.01947819 = product of:
      0.03895638 = sum of:
        0.03895638 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03895638 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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

0.0027546322 = product of:
  0.019282425 = sum of:
    0.019282425 = product of:
      0.03856485 = sum of:
        0.03856485 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03856485 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, 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=2889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

21. 6.2009 12:22:44

0.0027219015 = product of:
  0.01905331 = sum of:
    0.01905331 = product of:
      0.03810662 = sum of:
        0.03810662 = weight(_text_:design in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03810662 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.24924651 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.0023611132 = product of:
  0.016527792 = sum of:
    0.016527792 = product of:
      0.033055585 = sum of:
        0.033055585 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033055585 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

1. 8.2010 12:35:22

0.0023611132 = product of:
  0.016527792 = sum of:
    0.016527792 = product of:
      0.033055585 = sum of:
        0.033055585 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033055585 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0023611132 = product of:
  0.016527792 = sum of:
    0.016527792 = product of:
      0.033055585 = sum of:
        0.033055585 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033055585 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0023611132 = product of:
  0.016527792 = sum of:
    0.016527792 = product of:
      0.033055585 = sum of:
        0.033055585 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033055585 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, 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=164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

¬Die Kraft der digitalen Unordnung: 32. Arbeits- und Fortbildungstagung der ASpB e. V., Sektion 5 im Deutschen Bibliotheksverband, 22.-25. September 2009 in der Universität Karlsruhe. Hrsg: Jadwiga Warmbrunn u.a

0.0022682515 = product of:
  0.01587776 = sum of:
    0.01587776 = product of:
      0.03175552 = sum of:
        0.03175552 = weight(_text_:design in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175552 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential of applying the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) as an established knowledge organization system (KOS) for enhancing social tagging, with the ultimate purpose of improving subject indexing and information retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - Over 11.000 Intute metadata records in politics were used. Totally, 28 politics students were each given four tasks, in which a total of 60 resources were tagged in two different configurations, one with uncontrolled social tags only and another with uncontrolled social tags as well as suggestions from a controlled vocabulary. The controlled vocabulary was DDC comprising also mappings from the Library of Congress Subject Headings. Findings - The results demonstrate the importance of controlled vocabulary suggestions for indexing and retrieval: to help produce ideas of which tags to use, to make it easier to find focus for the tagging, to ensure consistency and to increase the number of access points in retrieval. The value and usefulness of the suggestions proved to be dependent on the quality of the suggestions, both as to conceptual relevance to the user and as to appropriateness of the terminology. Originality/value - No research has investigated the enhancement of social tagging with suggestions from the DDC, an established KOS, in a user trial, comparing social tagging only and social tagging enhanced with the suggestions. This paper is a final reflection on all aspects of the study.

0.0022682515 = product of:
  0.01587776 = sum of:
    0.01587776 = product of:
      0.03175552 = sum of:
        0.03175552 = weight(_text_:design in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175552 = score(doc=295,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 295, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=295)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - The object of this empirical research study is emotion, as depicted and aroused in videos. This paper seeks to answer the questions: Are users able to index such emotions consistently? Are the users' votes usable for emotional video retrieval? Design/methodology/approach - The authors worked with a controlled vocabulary for nine basic emotions (love, happiness, fun, surprise, desire, sadness, anger, disgust and fear), a slide control for adjusting the emotions' intensity, and the approach of broad folksonomies. Different users tagged the same videos. The test persons had the task of indexing the emotions of 20 videos (reprocessed clips from YouTube). The authors distinguished between emotions which were depicted in the video and those that were evoked in the user. Data were received from 776 participants and a total of 279,360 slide control values were analyzed. Findings - The consistency of the users' votes is very high; the tag distributions for the particular videos' emotions are stable. The final shape of the distributions will be reached by the tagging activities of only very few users (less than 100). By applying the approach of power tags it is possible to separate the pivotal emotions of every document - if indeed there is any feeling at all. Originality/value - This paper is one of the first steps in the new research area of emotional information retrieval (EmIR). To the authors' knowledge, it is the first research project into the collective indexing of emotions in videos.

0.0022682515 = product of:
  0.01587776 = sum of:
    0.01587776 = product of:
      0.03175552 = sum of:
        0.03175552 = weight(_text_:design in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175552 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - This study aims to consider the value of user-assigned image tags by comparing the facets that are represented in image tags with those that are present in image queries to see if there is a similarity in the way that users describe and search for images. Design/methodology/approach - A sample dataset was created by downloading a selection of images and associated tags from Flickr, the online photo-sharing web site. The tags were categorised using image facets from Shatford's matrix, which has been widely used in previous research into image indexing and retrieval. The facets present in the image tags were then compared with the results of previous research into image queries. Findings - The results reveal that there are broad similarities between the facets present in image tags and queries, with people and objects being the most common facet, followed by location. However, the results also show that there are differences in the level of specificity between tags and queries, with image tags containing more generic terms and image queries consisting of more specific terms. The study concludes that users do describe and search for images using similar image facets, but that measures to close the gap between specific queries and generic tags would improve the value of user tags in indexing image collections. Originality/value - Research into tagging has tended to focus on textual resources with less research into non-textual documents. In particular, little research has been undertaken into how user tags compare to the terms used in search queries, particularly in the context of digital images.

0.0022682515 = product of:
  0.01587776 = sum of:
    0.01587776 = product of:
      0.03175552 = sum of:
        0.03175552 = weight(_text_:design in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175552 = score(doc=1091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The number of research studies on social tagging has increased rapidly in the past years, but few of them highlight the characteristics and research trends in social tagging. A set of 862 academic documents relating to social tagging and published from 2005 to 2011 was thus examined using bibliometric analysis as well as the social network analysis technique. The results show that social tagging, as a research area, develops rapidly and attracts an increasing number of new entrants. There are no key authors, publication sources, or research groups that dominate the research domain of social tagging. Research on social tagging appears to focus mainly on the following three aspects: (a) components and functions of social tagging (e.g., tags, tagging objects, and tagging network), (b) taggers' behaviors and interface design, and (c) tags' organization and usage in social tagging. The trend suggest that more researchers turn to the latter two integrated with human computer interface and information retrieval, although the first aspect is the fundamental one in social tagging. Also, more studies relating to social tagging pay attention to multimedia tagging objects and not only text tagging. Previous research on social tagging was limited to a few subject domains such as information science and computer science. As an interdisciplinary research area, social tagging is anticipated to attract more researchers from different disciplines. More practical applications, especially in high-tech companies, is an encouraging research trend in social tagging.

0.0022682515 = product of:
  0.01587776 = sum of:
    0.01587776 = product of:
      0.03175552 = sum of:
        0.03175552 = weight(_text_:design in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175552 = score(doc=1792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of the research is to explore relationships between social tagging and key poststructuralist principles; to devise and construct an analytical framework through which key poststructuralist principles are converted into workable research questions and applied to analyse Librarything tags, and to assess the validity of performing such an analysis. The research hypothesis is that tagging represents an imperfect analogy for the poststructuralist project Design/methodology/approach Tags from LibraryThing and from a library OPAC were compared and constrasted with Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and publishers' descriptions. Research questions derived from poststructuralism, asked whether tags destabilise meaning, whether and how far the death of the author is expressed in tags, and whether tags deconstruct LCSH. Findings Tags can temporarily destabilise meaning by obfuscating the structure of a word. Meaning is destabilised, perhaps only momentarily, and then it is recreated; it might resemble the original meaning, or it may not, however any attempt to make tags useful or functional necessarily imposes some form of structure. The analysis indicates that in tagging, the author, if not dead, is ignored. Authoritative interpretations are not pervasively mimicked in the tags. In relation to LCSH, tagging decentres the dominant view, but neither exposes nor judges it. Nor does tagging achieve the final stage of the deconstructive process, showing the dominant view to be a constructed reality. Originality/value This is one of very few studies to have attempted a critical theoretical approach to social tagging. It offers a novel methodological approach to undertaking analysis based on poststructuralist theory.

0.0022682515 = product of:
  0.01587776 = sum of:
    0.01587776 = product of:
      0.03175552 = sum of:
        0.03175552 = weight(_text_:design in 5359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175552 = score(doc=5359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 5359, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5359)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Colored Tags (abbr.Tag) as a unique type of social tags is used on e-commerce websites (e.g., Taobao) to summarize the high-frequency keywords extracted from users' online reviews about products they bought before. Tag is represented inked red or green according to users' personal experiences and judgments about purchased items: red for positive comments, green for negative ones. The valence of users' emotion induced by red or green is controversial. This study firstly discovers that colored tags inked in red incite users' positive emotion (evaluations) and colored tags inked in green incite negative emotion (evaluations) using an ERP experiment, which is manifested in ERP components (e.g., N170, N2c, and LPC). There are two main features of Tag: the text of Tag (abbr. Text) and the color of Tag (abbr.Color). Our study then proves that Color (red or green) is the dominant factor in users' decision behavior compared with Text under the high cognitive load condition, while users' decision behavior is influenced by Text (positive tags or negative tags) predominately rather than by Color under the low cognitive load condition with the help of Eye tracking instrument. Those findings can help to design colored tags for recommendation systems on e-commerce websites and other online platforms.

0.0019675945 = product of:
  0.013773161 = sum of:
    0.013773161 = product of:
      0.027546322 = sum of:
        0.027546322 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027546322 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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

0.0019675945 = product of:
  0.013773161 = sum of:
    0.013773161 = product of:
      0.027546322 = sum of:
        0.027546322 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027546322 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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

0.0019675945 = product of:
  0.013773161 = sum of:
    0.013773161 = product of:
      0.027546322 = sum of:
        0.027546322 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027546322 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 515, 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=515)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

25.12.2012 15:22:37

0.0019675945 = product of:
  0.013773161 = sum of:
    0.013773161 = product of:
      0.027546322 = sum of:
        0.027546322 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027546322 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2891, 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=2891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

21. 4.2016 11:23:22

0.0018146011 = product of:
  0.012702207 = sum of:
    0.012702207 = product of:
      0.025404414 = sum of:
        0.025404414 = weight(_text_:design in 3960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025404414 = score(doc=3960,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.16616434 = fieldWeight in 3960, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3960)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to discuss and test the claim that utilization of the personalization techniques can be valuable to improve the efficiency of collaborative information retrieval (CIR) systems. Design/methodology/approach - A new personalized CIR system, called PERCIRS, is presented based on the user profile similarity calculation (UPSC) formulas. To this aim, the paper proposes several UPSC formulas as well as two techniques to evaluate them. As the proposed CIR system is personalized, it could not be evaluated by Cranfield, like evaluation techniques (e.g. TREC). Hence, this paper proposes a new user-centric mechanism, which enables PERCIRS to be evaluated. This mechanism is generic and can be used to evaluate any other personalized IR system. Findings - The results show that among the proposed UPSC formulas in this paper, the (query-document)-graph based formula is the most effective. After integrating this formula into PERCIRS and comparing it with nine other IR systems, it is concluded that the results of the system are better than the other IR systems. In addition, the paper shows that the complexity of the system is less that the complexity of the other CIR systems. Research limitations/implications - This system asks the users to explicitly rank the returned documents, while explicit ranking is still not widespread enough. However it believes that the users should actively participate in the IR process in order to aptly satisfy their needs to information. Originality/value - The value of this paper lies in combining collaborative and personalized IR, as well as introducing a mechanism which enables the personalized IR system to be evaluated. The proposed evaluation mechanism is very valuable for developers of personalized IR systems. The paper also introduces some significant user profile similarity calculation formulas, and two techniques to evaluate them. These formulas can also be used to find the user's community in the social networks.

0.0018146011 = product of:
  0.012702207 = sum of:
    0.012702207 = product of:
      0.025404414 = sum of:
        0.025404414 = weight(_text_:design in 1) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025404414 = score(doc=1,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.16616434 = fieldWeight in 1, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Social bookmarking has gained popularity since the advent of Web 2.0. Keywords known as tags are created to annotate web content, and the resulting tag space composed of the tags, the resources, and the users arises as a new platform for web content discovery. Useful and interesting web resources can be located through searching and browsing based on tags, as well as following the user-user connections formed in the social bookmarking community. However, the effectiveness of tag-based search is limited due to the lack of explicitly represented semantics in the tag space. In addition, social connections between users are underused for web content discovery because of the inadequate social functions. In this research, we propose a comprehensive framework to reorganize the flat tag space into a hierarchical faceted model. We also studied the structure and properties of various networks emerging from the tag space for the purpose of more efficient web content discovery. The major research approach used in this research is social network analysis (SNA), together with methodologies employed in design science research. The contribution of our research includes: (i) a faceted model to categorize social bookmarking tags; (ii) a relationship ontology to represent the semantics of relationships between tags; (iii) heuristics to reorganize the flat tag space into a hierarchical faceted model using analysis of tag-tag co-occurrence networks; (iv) an implemented prototype system as proof-of-concept to validate the feasibility of the reorganization approach; (v) a set of evaluations of the social functions of the current networking features of social bookmarking and a series of recommendations as to how to improve the social functions to facilitate web content discovery.

0.0015740755 = product of:
  0.011018529 = sum of:
    0.011018529 = product of:
      0.022037057 = sum of:
        0.022037057 = weight(_text_:22 in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022037057 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 6.2009 9:15:45