-
Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008)
0.09
0.08821184 = product of:
0.11761579 = sum of:
0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05945961 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03430505 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
0.023851123 = product of:
0.047702245 = sum of:
0.047702245 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047702245 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- Folksonomy is the result of describing Web resources with tags created by Web users. Although it has become a popular application for the description of resources, in general terms Folksonomies are not being conveniently integrated in metadata. However, if the appropriate metadata elements are identified, then further work may be conducted to automatically assign tags to these elements (RDF properties) and use them in Semantic Web applications. This article presents research carried out to continue the project Kinds of Tags, which intends to identify elements required for metadata originating from folksonomies and to propose an application profile for DC Social Tagging. The work provides information that may be used by software applications to assign tags to metadata elements and, therefore, means for tags to be conveniently gathered by metadata interoperability tools. Despite the unquestionably high value of DC and the significance of the already existing properties in DC Terms, the pilot study show revealed a significant number of tags for which no corresponding properties yet existed. A need for new properties, such as Action, Depth, Rate, and Utility was determined. Those potential new properties will have to be validated in a later stage by the DC Social Tagging Community.
- Pages
- S.14-22
- Source
- Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
-
Furner, J.: User tagging of library resources : toward a framework for system evaluation (2007)
0.05
0.045155756 = product of:
0.09031151 = sum of:
0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.071351536 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
0.018959979 = product of:
0.037919957 = sum of:
0.037919957 = weight(_text_:access in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037919957 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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.
-
DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008)
0.05
0.045089893 = product of:
0.090179786 = sum of:
0.02744404 = weight(_text_:26 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02744404 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.15607277 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
0.062735744 = sum of:
0.03575128 = weight(_text_:access in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03575128 = score(doc=2666,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.21183924 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
0.026984464 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026984464 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Abreu, A.: "Every bit informs another" : framework analysis for descriptive practice and linked information (2008)
0.04
0.036045477 = product of:
0.1441819 = sum of:
0.1441819 = weight(_text_:description in 2249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1441819 = score(doc=2249,freq=6.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.6228132 = fieldWeight in 2249, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2249)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Content
- The independent traditions of description in bibliographic and archival environments are rich and continually evolving. Recognizing this, how can Libraries, Archives and Museums seek convergence in describing materials on the web? In order to seek better description for materials and cross-institutional alignment, we can first reconceptualize where description may fit into work practices. I examine subject cataloging and archival practice alongside social tagging as a means of drawing conclusions for possible new paths in integration.
-
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
0.03268998 = product of:
0.06537996 = sum of:
0.04851467 = weight(_text_:26 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04851467 = score(doc=2650,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.2759003 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
0.01686529 = product of:
0.03373058 = sum of:
0.03373058 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03373058 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 20. 2.2009 10:34:26
- 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
-
Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009)
0.03
0.030702204 = product of:
0.061404407 = sum of:
0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04116606 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
0.020238347 = product of:
0.040476695 = sum of:
0.040476695 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040476695 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 26. 7.2000 20:00:49
1. 8.2010 12:35:22
-
Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008)
0.03
0.02558517 = product of:
0.05117034 = sum of:
0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03430505 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
0.01686529 = product of:
0.03373058 = sum of:
0.03373058 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03373058 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
-
Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009)
0.02
0.023525903 = product of:
0.09410361 = sum of:
0.09410361 = sum of:
0.053626917 = weight(_text_:access in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053626917 = score(doc=3601,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.31775886 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
0.040476695 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040476695 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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
-
Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008)
0.02
0.020468136 = product of:
0.040936273 = sum of:
0.02744404 = weight(_text_:26 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02744404 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.15607277 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
0.013492232 = product of:
0.026984464 = sum of:
0.026984464 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026984464 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
-
Lewen, H.: Personalisierte Ordnung von Objekten basierend auf Vertrauensnetzwerken (2008)
0.01
0.01372202 = product of:
0.05488808 = sum of:
0.05488808 = weight(_text_:26 in 2305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05488808 = score(doc=2305,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.31214553 = fieldWeight in 2305, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2305)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 24.10.2008 12:26:08
-
Good tags - bad tags : Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation (2008)
0.01
0.012526259 = product of:
0.025052518 = sum of:
0.017152525 = weight(_text_:26 in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017152525 = score(doc=3054,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.097545475 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
0.007899991 = product of:
0.015799982 = sum of:
0.015799982 = weight(_text_:access in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015799982 = score(doc=3054,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.093620606 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Content
- - Theoretische Ansätze und empirische Untersuchungen Stefanie Panke & Birgit Gaiser: "With my head up in the clouds" - Social Tagging aus Nutzersicht Christoph Held& Ulrike Cress: Social Tagging aus kognitionspsychologischer Sicht Michael Derntl, Thorsten Hampel, Renate Motschnig & Tomas Pitner: Social Tagging und Inclusive Universal Access - Einsatz von Tagging in Hochschulen und Bibliotheken Christian Hänger: Good tags or bad tags? Tagging im Kontext der bibliothekarischen Sacherschließung Mandy Schiefner: Social Tagging in der universitären Lehre Michael Blank, Thomas Bopp, Thorsten Hampel & Jonas Schulte: Social Tagging = Soziale Suche? Andreas Harrer & Steffen Lohmann: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse Harald Sack & Jörg Waitelonis: Zeitbezogene kollaborative Annotation zur Verbesserung der inhaltsbasierten Videosuche - Kommerzielle Anwendungen von Tagging Karl Tschetschonig, Roland Ladengruber, Thorsten Hampel & Jonas Schulte: Kollaborative Tagging-Systeme im Electronic Commerce Tilman Küchler, Jan M. Pawlowski & Volker Zimmermann: Social Tagging and Open Content: A Concept for the Future of E-Learning and Knowledge Management? Stephan Schillenvein: Der .Business Case' für die Nutzung von Social Tagging in Intranets und internen Informationssystemen
- Date
- 26. 8.2009 9:19:56
-
Marchitelli, A.; Piazzini, T.: OPAC, SOPAC e social networking : cataloghi di biblioteca 2.0? (2008)
0.01
0.012006768 = product of:
0.048027072 = sum of:
0.048027072 = weight(_text_:26 in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048027072 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Biblioteche oggi. 26(2008) no.2, S.82-92
-
Bertram, J.: Social Tagging : zum Potential einer neuen Indexiermethode (2009)
0.01
0.012006768 = product of:
0.048027072 = sum of:
0.048027072 = weight(_text_:26 in 2328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048027072 = score(doc=2328,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 2328, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2328)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 60(2009) H.1, S.19-26
-
Heckner, M.; Mühlbacher, S.; Wolff, C.: Tagging tagging : a classification model for user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems (2007)
0.01
0.011891923 = product of:
0.04756769 = sum of:
0.04756769 = weight(_text_:description in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04756769 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.20547508 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Therefore our main research questions are as follows: - Is it possible to discover regular patterns in tag usage and to establish a stable category model? - Does a specific tagging language comparable to internet slang or chatspeak evolve? - How do social tags differ from traditional (author / expert) keywords? - To what degree are social tags taken from or findable in the full text of the tagged resource? - Do tags in a research literature context go beyond simple content description (e.g. tags indicating time or task-related information, cf. Kipp et al. 2006)?
-
Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008)
0.01
0.006746116 = product of:
0.026984464 = sum of:
0.026984464 = product of:
0.05396893 = sum of:
0.05396893 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05396893 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Pages
- S.15-22
-
Derntl, M.; Hampel, T.; Motschnig, R.; Pitner, T.: Social Tagging und Inclusive Universal Access (2008)
0.01
0.0067033647 = product of:
0.026813459 = sum of:
0.026813459 = product of:
0.053626917 = sum of:
0.053626917 = weight(_text_:access in 2864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053626917 = score(doc=2864,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.31775886 = fieldWeight in 2864, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2864)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Der vorliegende Artikel beleuchtet und bewertet Social Tagging als aktuelles Phänomen des Web 2.0 im Kontext bekannter Techniken der semantischen Datenorganisation. Tagging wird in einen Raum verwandter Ordnungs- und Strukturierungsansätze eingeordnet, um die fundamentalen Grundlagen des Social Tagging zu identifizieren und zuzuweisen. Dabei wird Tagging anhand des Inclusive Universal Access Paradigmas bewertet, das technische als auch menschlich-soziale Kriterien für die inklusive und barrierefreie Bereitstellung und Nutzung von Diensten definiert. Anhand dieser Bewertung werden fundamentale Prinzipien des "Inclusive Social Tagging" hergeleitet, die der Charakterisierung und Bewertung gängiger Tagging-Funktionalitäten in verbreiteten Web-2.0-Diensten dienen. Aus der Bewertung werden insbesondere Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten von Social Tagging und unterstützenden Diensten erkennbar.
-
Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008)
0.01
0.0059028515 = product of:
0.023611406 = sum of:
0.023611406 = product of:
0.04722281 = sum of:
0.04722281 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04722281 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 21. 6.2009 12:22:44
-
Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009)
0.01
0.005059587 = product of:
0.020238347 = sum of:
0.020238347 = product of:
0.040476695 = sum of:
0.040476695 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040476695 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007)
0.00
0.0042163227 = product of:
0.01686529 = sum of:
0.01686529 = product of:
0.03373058 = sum of:
0.03373058 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03373058 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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".
-
Chopin, K.: Finding communities : alternative viewpoints through weblogs and tagging (2008)
0.00
0.0039499956 = product of:
0.015799982 = sum of:
0.015799982 = product of:
0.031599965 = sum of:
0.031599965 = weight(_text_:access in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031599965 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.04979191 = queryNorm
0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This paper aims to discuss and test the claim that user-based tagging allows for access to a wider variety of viewpoints than is found using other forms of online searching. Design/methodology/approach - A general overview of the nature of weblogs and user-based tagging is given, along with other relevant concepts. A case is then analyzed where viewpoints towards a specific issue are searched for using both tag searching (Technorati) and general search engine searching (Google and Google Blog Search). Findings - The claim to greater accessibility through user-based tagging is not overtly supported with these experiments. Further results for both general and tag-specific searching goes against some common assumptions about the types of content found on weblogs as opposed to more general web sites. Research limitations/implications - User-based tagging is still not widespread enough to give conclusive data for analysis. As this changes, further research in this area, using a variety of search subjects, is warranted. Originality/value - Although proponents of user-based tagging attribute many qualities to the practice, these qualities have not been properly documented or demonstrated. This paper partially rectifies this gap by testing one of the claims made, that of accessibility to alternate views, thus adding to the discussion on tagging for both researchers and other interested parties.
