Search (35 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  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. Furner, J.: User tagging of library resources : toward a framework for system evaluation (2007) 0.04 
    0.039889134 = product of:
  0.09307465 = sum of:
    0.035515495 = weight(_text_:systems in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035515495 = score(doc=703,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 703, 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=703)
    0.016451785 = product of:
      0.03290357 = sum of:
        0.03290357 = weight(_text_:29 in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03290357 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14110081 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.041107375 = weight(_text_:library in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041107375 = score(doc=703,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.38975742 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    Abstract
    Although user tagging of library resources shows substantial promise as a means of improving the quality of users' access to those resources, several important questions about the level and nature of the warrant for basing retrieval tools on user tagging are yet to receive full consideration by library practitioners and researchers. Among these is the simple evaluative question: What, specifically, are the factors that determine whether or not user-tagging services will be successful? If success is to be defined in terms of the effectiveness with which systems perform the particular functions expected of them (rather than simply in terms of popularity), an understanding is needed both of the multifunctional nature of tagging tools, and of the complex nature of users' mental models of that multifunctionality. In this paper, a conceptual framework is developed for the evaluation of systems that integrate user tagging with more traditional methods of library resource description.
    Content
    Vortrag anlässlich: WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 73RD IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND COUNCIL 19-23 August 2007, Durban, South Africa. - 157 - Classification and Indexing
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:29:31
  4. Shiri, A.: Trend analysis in social tagging : an LIS perspective (2007) 0.04 
    0.03607105 = product of:
  0.08416578 = sum of:
    0.047353994 = weight(_text_:systems in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047353994 = score(doc=529,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 529, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=529)
    0.012300085 = product of:
      0.02460017 = sum of:
        0.02460017 = weight(_text_:science in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02460017 = score(doc=529,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 529, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=529)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.024511702 = weight(_text_:library in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024511702 = score(doc=529,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 529, 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=529)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    Abstract
    The aim of the present study was to identify and categorize social tagging trends and developments as revealed by the analysis of library and information science scholarly and professional literature.
    Content
    Präsentation während der Veranstaltung "Networked Knowledge Organization Systems and Services: The 6th European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems (NKOS) Workshop, Workshop at the 11th ECDL Conference, Budapest, Hungary, September 21st 2007".
  5. 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?
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Farkas, M.G.: Social software in libraries : building collaboration, communication, and community online (2007) 0.02 
    0.024513893 = product of:
  0.057199083 = sum of:
    0.013046212 = product of:
      0.026092423 = sum of:
        0.026092423 = weight(_text_:science in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026092423 = score(doc=2364,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.018383777 = weight(_text_:library in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018383777 = score(doc=2364,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 2364, 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=2364)
    0.025769096 = product of:
      0.05153819 = sum of:
        0.05153819 = weight(_text_:applications in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05153819 = score(doc=2364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17659263 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.2918479 = fieldWeight in 2364, 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=2364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    Content
    Inhalt: What is social software? -- Blogs -- Blogs in libraries : practical applications -- RSS -- Wikis -- Online communities -- Social networking -- Social bookmarking and collaborative filtering -- Tools for synchronous online reference -- The mobile revolution -- Podcasting -- Screencasting and vodcasting -- Gaming -- What will work @ your library -- Keeping up : a primer -- Future trends in social software.
    LCSH
    Wikis (Computer science)
    Subject
    Wikis (Computer science)
  12. Hänger, C.: Knowledge management in the digital age : the possibilities of user generated content (2009) 0.02 
    0.020951565 = product of:
  0.07333048 = sum of:
    0.046795778 = weight(_text_:systems in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046795778 = score(doc=2813,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.37961838 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
    0.0265347 = weight(_text_:library in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0265347 = score(doc=2813,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Today, in times of Web 2.0., graduates and undergraduates interact in virtual communities like studiVZ (Studentenverzeichnis) and generate content by reviewing or tagging documents. This phenomenon offers good prospects for academic libraries. They can use the customers' tags for indexing the growing amount of electronic resources and thereby optimize the search for these documents. Important examples are the journals, databases and e-books included in the "Nationallizenzen" financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The documents in this collection are not manually indexed by librarians and have no annotation according to the German standard classification systems. Connecting search systems by means of Web-2.0.-services is an important task for libraries. For this purpose users are encouraged to tag printed and electronic resources in search systems like the libraries' online catalogs and to establish connections between entries in other systems, e.g. Bibsonomy, and the items found in the online catalog. As a consequence annotations chosen by both, users and librarians, will coexist: The items in the tagging systems and the online catalog are linked, library users may find other publications of interest, and contacts between library users with similar scientific interests may be established. Librarians have to face the fact that user generated tags do not necessarily have the same quality as their own annotations and will therefore have to seek for instruments for comparing user generated tags with library generated keywords.
  13. 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
  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. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.01 
    0.013755837 = product of:
  0.04814543 = sum of:
    0.03184164 = weight(_text_:library in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03184164 = score(doc=3602,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 3602, 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=3602)
    0.016303789 = product of:
      0.032607578 = sum of:
        0.032607578 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032607578 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14046472 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    This study is an examination of the overlap between author-assigned keywords and cataloger-assigned Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for a set of electronic theses and dissertations in Ohio State University's online catalog. The project is intended to contribute to the literature on the issue of keywords versus controlled vocabularies in the use of online catalogs and databases. Findings support previous studies' conclusions that both keywords and controlled vocabularies complement one another. Further, even in the presence of bibliographic record enhancements, such as abstracts or summaries, keywords and subject headings provided a significant number of unique terms that could affect the success of keyword searches. Implications for the maintenance of controlled vocabularies such as LCSH also are discussed in light of the patterns of matches and nonmatches found between the keywords and their corresponding subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 53(2009) no.4, S.243-250
  16. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.01 
    0.012636035 = product of:
  0.04422612 = sum of:
    0.03063963 = weight(_text_:library in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03063963 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.013586491 = product of:
      0.027172983 = sum of:
        0.027172983 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027172983 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14046472 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    More and more users index everything on their own in the web 2.0. There are services for links, videos, pictures, books, encyclopaedic articles and scientific articles. All these services are library independent. But must that really be? Can't libraries help with their experience and tools to make user indexing better? On the experience of a project from German language Wikipedia together with the German person authority files (Personen Namen Datei - PND) located at German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) I would like to show what is possible. How users can and will use the authority files, if we let them. We will take a look how the project worked and what we can learn for future projects. Conclusions - Authority files can have a role in the web 2.0 - there must be an open interface/ service for retrieval - everything that is indexed on the net with authority files can be easy integrated in a federated search - O'Reilly: You have to found ways that your data get more important that more it will be used
    Content
    Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".
  17. Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008) 0.01 
    0.012478313 = product of:
  0.043674096 = sum of:
    0.021935713 = product of:
      0.043871425 = sum of:
        0.043871425 = weight(_text_:29 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043871425 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14110081 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.021738386 = product of:
      0.04347677 = sum of:
        0.04347677 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04347677 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14046472 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 9:55:29
    Pages
    S.15-22
  18. Hammond, T.; Hannay, T.; Lund, B.; Scott, J.: Social bookmarking tools (I) : a general review (2005) 0.01 
    0.009137797 = product of:
  0.031982288 = sum of:
    0.01072387 = weight(_text_:library in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01072387 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.10167781 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
    0.02125842 = product of:
      0.04251684 = sum of:
        0.04251684 = weight(_text_:applications in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04251684 = score(doc=1188,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17659263 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.24076225 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Because, to paraphrase a pop music lyric from a certain rock and roll band of yesterday, "the Web is old, the Web is new, the Web is all, the Web is you", it seems like we might have to face up to some of these stark realities. With the introduction of new social software applications such as blogs, wikis, newsfeeds, social networks, and bookmarking tools (the subject of this paper), the claim that Shelley Powers makes in a Burningbird blog entry seems apposite: "This is the user's web now, which means it's my web and I can make the rules." Reinvention is revolution - it brings us always back to beginnings. We are here going to remind you of hyperlinks in all their glory, sell you on the idea of bookmarking hyperlinks, point you at other folks who are doing the same, and tell you why this is a good thing. Just as long as those hyperlinks (or let's call them plain old links) are managed, tagged, commented upon, and published onto the Web, they represent a user's own personal library placed on public record, which - when aggregated with other personal libraries - allows for rich, social networking opportunities. Why spill any ink (digital or not) in rewriting what someone else has already written about instead of just pointing at the original story and adding the merest of titles, descriptions and tags for future reference? More importantly, why not make these personal 'link playlists' available to oneself and to others from whatever browser or computer one happens to be using at the time? This paper reviews some current initiatives, as of early 2005, in providing public link management applications on the Web - utilities that are often referred to under the general moniker of 'social bookmarking tools'. There are a couple of things going on here: 1) server-side software aimed specifically at managing links with, crucially, a strong, social networking flavour, and 2) an unabashedly open and unstructured approach to tagging, or user classification, of those links.
  19. Heckner, M.; Mühlbacher, S.; Wolff, C.: Tagging tagging : a classification model for user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems (2007) 0.01 
    0.0071752146 = product of:
  0.0502265 = sum of:
    0.0502265 = weight(_text_:systems in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0502265 = score(doc=533,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Recently, a growing amount of systems that allow personal content annotation (tagging) are being created, ranging from personal sites for organising bookmarks (del.icio.us), photos (flickr.com) or videos (video.google.com, youtube.com) to systems for managing bibliographies for scientific research projects (citeulike.org, connotea.org). Simultaneously, a debate on the pro and cons of allowing users to add personal keywords to digital content has arisen. One recurrent point-of-discussion is whether tagging can solve the well-known vocabulary problem: In order to support successful retrieval in complex environments, it is necessary to index an object with a variety of aliases (cf. Furnas 1987). In this spirit, social tagging enhances the pool of rigid, traditional keywording by adding user-created retrieval vocabularies. Furthermore, tagging goes beyond simple personal content-based keywords by providing meta-keywords like funny or interesting that "identify qualities or characteristics" (Golder and Huberman 2006, Kipp and Campbell 2006, Kipp 2007, Feinberg 2006, Kroski 2005). Contrarily, tagging systems are claimed to lead to semantic difficulties that may hinder the precision and recall of tagging systems (e.g. the polysemy problem, cf. Marlow 2006, Lakoff 2005, Golder and Huberman 2006). Empirical research on social tagging is still rare and mostly from a computer linguistics or librarian point-of-view (Voß 2007) which focus either on the automatic statistical analyses of large data sets, or intellectually inspect single cases of tag usage: Some scientists studied the evolution of tag vocabularies and tag distribution in specific systems (Golder and Huberman 2006, Hammond 2005). Others concentrate on tagging behaviour and tagger characteristics in collaborative systems. (Hammond 2005, Kipp and Campbell 2007, Feinberg 2006, Sen 2006). However, little research has been conducted on the functional and linguistic characteristics of tags.1 An analysis of these patterns could show differences between user wording and conventional keywording. In order to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, a classification system for existing tags is needed.
    Content
    Präsentation während der Veranstaltung "Networked Knowledge Organization Systems and Services: The 6th European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems (NKOS) Workshop, Workshop at the 11th ECDL Conference, Budapest, Hungary, September 21st 2007".
  20. 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) 0.01 
    0.0059192497 = product of:
  0.041434746 = sum of:
    0.041434746 = weight(_text_:systems in 531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041434746 = score(doc=531,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 531, 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=531)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Content
    Präsentation während der Veranstaltung "Networked Knowledge Organization Systems and Services: The 6th European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems (NKOS) Workshop, Workshop at the 11th ECDL Conference, Budapest, Hungary, September 21st 2007".

Authors

Languages

  • e 31
  • d 3
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

Themes

Subjects

Classifications