Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.060538124 = product of:
  0.2421525 = sum of:
    0.2421525 = weight(_text_:objects in 1046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2421525 = score(doc=1046,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.7192166 = fieldWeight in 1046, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1046)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study aims to identify the categorical characteristics and usage patterns of the most popular image tags in Flickr. The "metadata usage ratio" is introduced as a means of assessing the usage of a popular tag as metadata. We also compare how popular tags are used as image tags or metadata in the Flickr general collection and the Library of Congress's photostream (LCP), also in Flickr. The Flickr popular tags in the list overall are categorically stable, and the changes that do appear reflect Flickr users' evolving technology-driven cultural experience. The popular tags in Flickr had a high number of generic objects and specific locations-related tags and were rarely at the abstract level. Conversely, the popular tags in the LCP describe more in the specific objects and time categories. Flickr users copied the Library of Congress-supplied metadata that related to specific objects or events and standard bibliographic information (e.g., author, format, time references) as popular tags in the LCP. Those popular tags related to generic objects and events showed a high metadata usage ratio, while those related to specific locations and objects showed a low image metadata usage ratio. Popular tags in Flickr appeared less frequently as image metadata when describing specific objects than specific times and locations for historical images in Flickr LCP collections. Understanding how people contribute image tags or image metadata in Flickr helps determine what users need to describe and query images, and could help improve image browsing and retrieval.

0.055263504 = product of:
  0.22105402 = sum of:
    0.22105402 = weight(_text_:objects in 416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22105402 = score(doc=416,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.656552 = fieldWeight in 416, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=416)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In many digital libraries, visual objects are published and metadata attached to allow for search and retrieval. For visual objects in which people appear, names are often added to the metadata so that digital library users can search for people appearing in these objects. Although this seems straightforward, there are ethical implications of adding names to metadata for visual objects. This paper explores the impact of this action and discusses relevant ethical issues it raises. It asserts that an individual's right to privacy and control over personal information must be weighed against the benefit of the object to society and the professional ethic to authentically represent a resource through its metadata. Context and an understanding of the major ethical issues will inform the practical decision of whether to keep objects online and add metadata to them, but items should generally be published unless there are clear ethical violations or a community relationship is in jeopardy.

0.04893239 = product of:
  0.19572955 = sum of:
    0.19572955 = weight(_text_:objects in 1067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19572955 = score(doc=1067,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.5813359 = fieldWeight in 1067, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1067)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Knowledge organization structures are dependent upon domain-analytical processes for determining ontological imperatives. Boundary objects-terms used in multiple domains but understood differently in each-are ontological clash points. Cognitive Work Analysis is an effective qualitative methodology for domain analysis of a group of people who work together. CWA was used recently to understand the ontology of a human resources firm. Boundary objects from the taxonomy that emerged from narrative analysis are presented here for individual analysis.

0.034951705 = product of:
  0.13980682 = sum of:
    0.13980682 = weight(_text_:objects in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13980682 = score(doc=1091,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.41523993 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

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

0.02471459 = product of:
  0.09885836 = sum of:
    0.09885836 = weight(_text_:objects in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09885836 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

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

0.012873792 = product of:
  0.05149517 = sum of:
    0.05149517 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05149517 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22182742 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.010728161 = product of:
  0.042912643 = sum of:
    0.042912643 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042912643 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22182742 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

25.12.2012 15:22:37

0.010728161 = product of:
  0.042912643 = sum of:
    0.042912643 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042912643 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22182742 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

21. 4.2016 11:23:22

0.010728161 = product of:
  0.042912643 = sum of:
    0.042912643 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042912643 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22182742 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5492, 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=5492)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22