Search (81 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Vander Wal, T.: Welcome to the Matrix! (2008) 0.05 
    0.05214014 = product of:
  0.09124524 = sum of:
    0.016742166 = weight(_text_:systems in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016742166 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
    0.0061500426 = product of:
      0.012300085 = sum of:
        0.012300085 = weight(_text_:science in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012300085 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.012255851 = weight(_text_:library in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012255851 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 2881, 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=2881)
    0.05609718 = sum of:
      0.034358796 = weight(_text_:applications in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034358796 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17659263 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = queryNorm
          0.19456528 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
      0.021738386 = weight(_text_:22 in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021738386 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14046472 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = 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)
  0.5714286 = coord(4/7)
    Abstract
    My keynote at the workshop "Social Tagging in Knowledge Organization" was a great opportunity to make and share new experiences. For the first time ever, I sat in my office at home and gave a live web video presentation to a conference audience elsewhere on the globe. At the same time, it was also an opportunity to premier my conceptual model "Matrix of Perception" to an interdisciplinary audience of researchers and practitioners with a variety of backgrounds - reaching from philosophy, psychology, pedagogy and computation to library science and economics. The interdisciplinary approach of the conference is also mirrored in the structure of this volume, with articles on the theoretical background, the empirical analysis and the potential applications of tagging, for instance in university libraries, e-learning, or e-commerce. As an introduction to the topic of "social tagging" I would like to draw your attention to some foundation concepts of the phenomenon I have racked my brain with for the last few month. One thing I have seen missing in recent research and system development is a focus on the variety of user perspectives in social tagging. Different people perceive tagging in complex variegated ways and use this form of knowledge organization for a variety of purposes. My analytical interest lies in understanding the personas and patterns in tagging systems and in being able to label their different perceptions. To come up with a concise picture of user expectations, needs and activities, I have broken down the perspectives on tagging into two different categories, namely "faces" and "depth". When put together, they form the "Matrix of Perception" - a nuanced view of stakeholders and their respective levels of participation.
    Date
    22. 6.2009 9:15:45
  2. Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008) 0.05 
    0.050976567 = product of:
  0.11894532 = sum of:
    0.028998282 = weight(_text_:systems in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028998282 = score(doc=2657,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.2352409 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
    0.008697474 = product of:
      0.017394949 = sum of:
        0.017394949 = weight(_text_:science in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017394949 = score(doc=2657,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.16463245 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.081249565 = sum of:
      0.05951118 = weight(_text_:applications in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05951118 = score(doc=2657,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17659263 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = queryNorm
          0.33699697 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.021738386 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021738386 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14046472 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = 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)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    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
  3. Marchitelli, A.; Piazzini, T.: OPAC, SOPAC e social networking : cataloghi di biblioteca 2.0? (2008) 0.03 
    0.03378181 = product of:
  0.07882422 = sum of:
    0.02929879 = weight(_text_:systems in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02929879 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
    0.019193748 = product of:
      0.038387496 = sum of:
        0.038387496 = weight(_text_:29 in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038387496 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14110081 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.030331684 = weight(_text_:library in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030331684 = score(doc=3862,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    Abstract
    In this article are compared traditional OPAC systems, enriched OPAC, social OPAC and social cataloguing systems.the aim is to underline new theoretical trends and to offer a taxonomic outline of such tools, according to the interaction level granted to users and to the chance to manage user's generated contents in the point of view of the application of web 2.0 tendecies to libraries, in the library 2.0. At the end, a brief review of softwares, both open source and not, that seem promising for this future application.
    Date
    29. 1.1996 17:18:10
    Footnote
    Übers. d. Titels: OPAC, SOPAC and social networking: catalogues of Library 2.0?
  4. 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) 0.03 
    0.031096866 = product of:
  0.10883903 = sum of:
    0.020927707 = weight(_text_:systems in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020927707 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
    0.08791132 = sum of:
      0.060738344 = weight(_text_:applications in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060738344 = score(doc=2650,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17659263 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = queryNorm
          0.34394607 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.027172983 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027172983 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14046472 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
  5. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.03 
    0.029034615 = product of:
  0.10162114 = sum of:
    0.013709821 = product of:
      0.027419642 = sum of:
        0.027419642 = weight(_text_:29 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027419642 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14110081 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.08791132 = sum of:
      0.060738344 = weight(_text_:applications in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060738344 = score(doc=2648,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17659263 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = queryNorm
          0.34394607 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
      0.027172983 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027172983 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14046472 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Date
    20. 2.2009 10:29:07
    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
  6. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.03 
    0.027097363 = product of:
  0.094840765 = sum of:
    0.024511702 = weight(_text_:library in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024511702 = score(doc=2666,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.07032906 = sum of:
      0.048590675 = weight(_text_:applications in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048590675 = score(doc=2666,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17659263 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = queryNorm
          0.27515686 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.021738386 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021738386 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14046472 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
  7. Hunter, J.: Collaborative semantic tagging and annotation systems (2009) 0.03 
    0.026162526 = product of:
  0.091568835 = sum of:
    0.066968665 = weight(_text_:systems in 7382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066968665 = score(doc=7382,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.5432656 = fieldWeight in 7382, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7382)
    0.02460017 = product of:
      0.04920034 = sum of:
        0.04920034 = weight(_text_:science in 7382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04920034 = score(doc=7382,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.4656509 = fieldWeight in 7382, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 43(2009), S.xxx-xxx
  8. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.03 
    0.02562892 = product of:
  0.059800815 = sum of:
    0.02511325 = weight(_text_:systems in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02511325 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
    0.018383777 = weight(_text_:library in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018383777 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
    0.016303789 = product of:
      0.032607578 = sum of:
        0.032607578 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032607578 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14046472 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = 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)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    Abstract
    Libraries are the tools we use to learn and to answer our questions. The quality of our work depends, among others, on the quality of the tools we use. Recent research in digital libraries is focused, on one hand on improving the infrastructure of the digital library management systems (DLMS), and on the other on improving the metadata models used to annotate collections of objects maintained by DLMS. The latter includes, among others, the semantic web and social networking technologies. Recently, the semantic web and social networking technologies are being introduced to the digital libraries domain. The expected outcome is that the overall quality of information discovery in digital libraries can be improved by employing social and semantic technologies. In this chapter we present the results of an evaluation of social and semantic end-user information discovery services for the digital libraries.
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
  9. Stvilia, B.; Jörgensen, C.: Member activities and quality of tags in a collection of historical photographs in Flickr (2010) 0.03 
    0.025263982 = product of:
  0.05894929 = sum of:
    0.029596249 = weight(_text_:systems in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029596249 = score(doc=4117,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
    0.0076875538 = product of:
      0.0153751075 = sum of:
        0.0153751075 = weight(_text_:science in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0153751075 = score(doc=4117,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.02166549 = weight(_text_:library in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02166549 = score(doc=4117,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    Abstract
    To enable and guide effective metadata creation it is essential to understand the structure and patterns of the activities of the community around the photographs, resources used, and scale and quality of the socially created metadata relative to the metadata and knowledge already encoded in existing knowledge organization systems. This article presents an analysis of Flickr member discussions around the photographs of the Library of Congress photostream in Flickr. The article also reports on an analysis of the intrinsic and relational quality of the photostream tags relative to two knowledge organization systems: the Thesaurus for Graphic Materials (TGM) and the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). Thirty seven percent of the original tag set and 15.3% of the preprocessed set (after the removal of tags with fewer than three characters and URLs) were invalid or misspelled terms. Nouns, named entity terms, and complex terms constituted approximately 77% of the preprocessed set. More than a half of the photostream tags were not found in the TGM and LCSH, and more than a quarter of those terms were regular nouns and noun phrases. This suggests that these terms could be complimentary to more traditional methods of indexing using controlled vocabularies.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2477-2489
  10. Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011) 0.02 
    0.023224743 = product of:
  0.081286594 = sum of:
    0.0649828 = sum of:
      0.018450128 = weight(_text_:science in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018450128 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
      0.046532676 = weight(_text_:29 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046532676 = score(doc=164,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.14110081 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = queryNorm
          0.3297832 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
    0.016303789 = product of:
      0.032607578 = sum of:
        0.032607578 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032607578 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14046472 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Date
    29. 5.2012 13:58:08
    29. 5.2012 14:15:36
    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
  11. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.02 
    0.01951456 = product of:
  0.06830096 = sum of:
    0.051997177 = weight(_text_:library in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051997177 = score(doc=3601,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.4930085 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
    0.016303789 = product of:
      0.032607578 = sum of:
        0.032607578 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032607578 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14046472 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Some members of the library community, including the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, have suggested that libraries should open up their catalogs to allow users to add descriptive tags to the bibliographic data in catalog records. The web site LibraryThing currently permits its members to add such user tags to its records for books and therefore provides a useful resource to contrast with library bibliographic records. A comparison between the LibraryThing tags for a group of books and the library-supplied subject headings for the same books shows that users and catalogers approach these descriptors very differently. Because of these differences, user tags can enhance subject access to library materials, but they cannot entirely replace controlled vocabularies such as the Library of Congress subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 53(2009) no.3, S.174-184
  12. Matthews, B.; Jones, C.; Puzon, B.; Moon, J.; Tudhope, D.; Golub, K.; Nielsen, M.L.: ¬An evaluation of enhancing social tagging with a knowledge organization system (2010) 0.02 
    0.018206416 = product of:
  0.063722454 = sum of:
    0.020927707 = weight(_text_:systems in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020927707 = score(doc=4171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 4171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4171)
    0.04279475 = sum of:
      0.0153751075 = weight(_text_:science in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0153751075 = score(doc=4171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = queryNorm
          0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4171, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4171)
      0.027419642 = weight(_text_:29 in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027419642 = score(doc=4171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14110081 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = queryNorm
          0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4171, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4171)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Traditional subject indexing and classification are considered infeasible in many digital collections. This paper seeks to investigate ways of enhancing social tagging via knowledge organization systems, with a view to improving the quality of tags for increased information discovery and retrieval performance. Design/methodology/approach - Enhanced tagging interfaces were developed for exemplar online repositories, and trials were undertaken with author and reader groups to evaluate the effectiveness of tagging augmented with control vocabulary for subject indexing of papers in online repositories. Findings - The results showed that using a knowledge organisation system to augment tagging does appear to increase the effectiveness of non-specialist users (that is, without information science training) in subject indexing. Research limitations/implications - While limited by the size and scope of the trials undertaken, these results do point to the usefulness of a mixed approach in supporting the subject indexing of online resources. Originality/value - The value of this work is as a guide to future developments in the practical support for resource indexing in online repositories.
    Date
    29. 8.2010 11:39:20
  13. Rafferty, P.: Tagging (2018) 0.02 
    0.017966425 = product of:
  0.06288248 = sum of:
    0.041434746 = weight(_text_:systems in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041434746 = score(doc=4647,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
    0.02144774 = weight(_text_:library in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02144774 = score(doc=4647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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.
  14. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.02 
    0.017760772 = product of:
  0.124325395 = sum of:
    0.124325395 = sum of:
      0.08589699 = weight(_text_:applications in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08589699 = score(doc=2652,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17659263 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = queryNorm
          0.4864132 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.0384284 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0384284 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.14046472 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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
  15. Wang, Y.; Tai, Y.; Yang, Y.: Determination of semantic types of tags in social tagging systems (2018) 0.02 
    0.017680343 = product of:
  0.0618812 = sum of:
    0.04349742 = weight(_text_:systems in 4648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04349742 = score(doc=4648,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 4648, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4648)
    0.018383777 = weight(_text_:library in 4648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018383777 = score(doc=4648,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 4648, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4648)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this paper is to determine semantic types for tags in social tagging systems. In social tagging systems, the determination of the semantic type of tags plays an important role in tag classification, increasing the semantic information of tags and establishing mapping relations between tagged resources and a normed ontology. The research reported in this paper constructs the semantic type library that is needed based on the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) and FrameNet and determines the semantic type of selected tags that have been pretreated via direct matching using the Semantic Navigator tool, the Semantic Type Word Sense Disambiguation (STWSD) tools in UMLS, and artificial matching. And finally, we verify the feasibility of the determination of semantic type for tags by empirical analysis.
  16. Konkova, E.; Göker, A.; Butterworth, R.; MacFarlane, A.: Social tagging: exploring the image, the tags, and the game (2014) 0.02 
    0.017509883 = product of:
  0.06128459 = sum of:
    0.035515495 = weight(_text_:systems in 1370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035515495 = score(doc=1370,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 1370, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1370)
    0.025769096 = product of:
      0.05153819 = sum of:
        0.05153819 = weight(_text_:applications in 1370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05153819 = score(doc=1370,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17659263 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.2918479 = fieldWeight in 1370, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1370)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Large image collections on the Web need to be organized for effective retrieval. Metadata has a key role in image retrieval but rely on professionally assigned tags which is not a viable option. Current content-based image retrieval systems have not demonstrated sufficient utility on large-scale image sources on the web, and are usually used as a supplement to existing text-based image retrieval systems. We present two social tagging alternatives in the form of photo-sharing networks and image labeling games. Here we analyze these applications to evaluate their usefulness from the semantic point of view, investigating the management of social tagging for indexing. The findings of the study have shown that social tagging can generate a sizeable number of tags that can be classified as in terpretive for an image, and that tagging behaviour has a manageable and adjustable nature depending on tagging guidelines.
  17. Spiteri, L.F.: Extending the scope of library discovery systems via hashtags (2018) 0.02 
    0.016570296 = product of:
  0.057996035 = sum of:
    0.033484332 = weight(_text_:systems in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033484332 = score(doc=4798,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 4798, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4798)
    0.024511702 = weight(_text_:library in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024511702 = score(doc=4798,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 4798, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4798)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
  18. Lee, Y.Y.; Yang, S.Q.: Folksonomies as subject access : a survey of tagging in library online catalogs and discovery layers (2012) 0.02 
    0.016272826 = product of:
  0.05695489 = sum of:
    0.02511325 = weight(_text_:systems in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02511325 = score(doc=309,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
    0.03184164 = weight(_text_:library in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03184164 = score(doc=309,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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.
  19. Rorissa, A.: ¬A comparative study of Flickr tags and index terms in a general image collection (2010) 0.01 
    0.014155135 = product of:
  0.049542967 = sum of:
    0.041855413 = weight(_text_:systems in 4100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041855413 = score(doc=4100,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.339541 = fieldWeight in 4100, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4100)
    0.0076875538 = product of:
      0.0153751075 = sum of:
        0.0153751075 = weight(_text_:science in 4100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0153751075 = score(doc=4100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4100, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Web 2.0 and social/collaborative tagging have altered the traditional roles of indexer and user. Traditional indexing tools and systems assume the top-down approach to indexing in which a trained professional is responsible for assigning index terms to information sources with a potential user in mind. However, in today's Web, end users create, organize, index, and search for images and other information sources through social tagging and other collaborative activities. One of the impediments to user-centered indexing had been the cost of soliciting user-generated index terms or tags. Social tagging of images such as those on Flickr, an online photo management and sharing application, presents an opportunity that can be seized by designers of indexing tools and systems to bridge the semantic gap between indexer terms and user vocabularies. Empirical research on the differences and similarities between user-generated tags and index terms based on controlled vocabularies has the potential to inform future design of image indexing tools and systems. Toward this end, a random sample of Flickr images and the tags assigned to them were content analyzed and compared with another sample of index terms from a general image collection using established frameworks for image attributes and contents. The results show that there is a fundamental difference between the types of tags and types of index terms used. In light of this, implications for research into and design of user-centered image indexing tools and systems are discussed.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.11, S.2230-2242
  20. Naderi, H.; Rumpler, B.: PERCIRS: a system to combine personalized and collaborative information retrieval (2010) 0.01 
    0.0138298515 = product of:
  0.048404478 = sum of:
    0.03743662 = weight(_text_:systems in 3960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03743662 = score(doc=3960,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.3036947 = fieldWeight in 3960, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3960)
    0.010967856 = product of:
      0.021935713 = sum of:
        0.021935713 = weight(_text_:29 in 3960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021935713 = score(doc=3960,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14110081 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 3960, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3960)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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.
    Date
    29. 8.2010 12:59:10

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 73
  • d 7
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

Themes