Search (149 results, page 3 of 8)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Schillerwein, S.: ¬Der 'Business Case' für die Nutzung von Social Tagging in Intranets und internen Informationssystemen (2008) 0.03
    0.029902441 = product of:
      0.119609766 = sum of:
        0.119609766 = weight(_text_:social in 2893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.119609766 = score(doc=2893,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6475021 = fieldWeight in 2893, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2893)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Trendthemen, wie Social Tagging oder Web 2.0, bergen generell die Gefahr, dass Adaptionsentscheidungen auf Basis von im öffentlichen Internet vorgefundenen und den Medien lautstark thematisierten Erfolgsbeispielen getroffen werden. Für die interne Anwendung in einer Organisation ist dieses Vorgehen jedoch risikoreich. Deshalb sollte ein ausführlicher Business Case am Anfang jedes SocialTagging-Projekts stehen, der Nutzen- und Risikopotenziale realistisch einzuschätzen vermag. Der vorliegende Beitrag listet dazu exemplarisch die wichtigsten Aspekte für die Einschätzung des Wertbeitrags und der Stolpersteine für Social Tagging in Intranets und vergleichbaren internen Informationssystemen wie Mitarbeiterportalen, Dokumenten-Repositories und Knowledge Bases auf.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  2. Wolfram, D.; Olson, H.A.; Bloom, R.: Measuring consistency for multiple taggers using vector space modeling (2009) 0.03
    0.029902441 = product of:
      0.119609766 = sum of:
        0.119609766 = weight(_text_:social in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.119609766 = score(doc=3113,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6475021 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    A longstanding area of study in indexing is the identification of factors affecting vocabulary usage and consistency. This topic has seen a recent resurgence with a focus on social tagging. Tagging data for scholarly articles made available by the social bookmarking Website CiteULike (www.citeulike.org) were used to test the use of inter-indexer/tagger consistency density values, based on a method developed by the authors by comparing calculations for highly tagged documents representing three subject areas (Science, Social Science, Social Software). The analysis revealed that the developed method is viable for a large dataset. The findings also indicated that there were no significant differences in tagging consistency among the three topic areas, demonstrating that vocabulary usage in a relatively new subject area like social software is no more inconsistent than the more established subject areas investigated. The implications of the method used and the findings are discussed.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  3. Chan, L.M.: Social bookmarking and subject indexing (2011) 0.03
    0.028773637 = product of:
      0.11509455 = sum of:
        0.11509455 = weight(_text_:social in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11509455 = score(doc=1806,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6230592 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Theme
    Social tagging
  4. Aagaard, H.: Social indexing at the Stockholm Public Library (2011) 0.03
    0.028773637 = product of:
      0.11509455 = sum of:
        0.11509455 = weight(_text_:social in 1807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11509455 = score(doc=1807,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6230592 = fieldWeight in 1807, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1807)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Theme
    Social tagging
  5. Chae, G.; Park, J.; Park, J.; Yeo, W.S.; Shi, C.: Linking and clustering artworks using social tags : revitalizing crowd-sourced information on cultural collections (2016) 0.03
    0.028773637 = product of:
      0.11509455 = sum of:
        0.11509455 = weight(_text_:social in 2852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11509455 = score(doc=2852,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6230592 = fieldWeight in 2852, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2852)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Social tagging is one of the most popular methods for collecting crowd-sourced information in galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAMs). However, when the number of social tags grows rapidly, using them becomes problematic and, as a result, they are often left as simply big data that cannot be used for practical purposes. To revitalize the use of this crowd-sourced information, we propose using social tags to link and cluster artworks based on an experimental study using an online collection at the Gyeonggi Museum of Modern Art (GMoMA). We view social tagging as a folksonomy, where artworks are classified by keywords of the crowd's various interpretations and one artwork can belong to several different categories simultaneously. To leverage this strength of social tags, we used a clustering method called "link communities" to detect overlapping communities in a network of artworks constructed by computing similarities between all artwork pairs. We used this framework to identify semantic relationships and clusters of similar artworks. By comparing the clustering results with curators' manual classification results, we demonstrated the potential of social tagging data for automatically clustering artworks in a way that reflects the dynamic perspectives of crowds.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  6. Choi, N.; Joo, S.: Booklovers' world : an examination of factors affecting continued usage of social cataloging sites (2016) 0.03
    0.028773637 = product of:
      0.11509455 = sum of:
        0.11509455 = weight(_text_:social in 3224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11509455 = score(doc=3224,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6230592 = fieldWeight in 3224, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3224)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Little is known about what factors influence users' continued use of social cataloging sites. This study therefore examines the impacts of key factors from theories of information systems (IS) success and sense of community (SOC) on users' continuance intention in the social cataloging context. Data collected from an online survey of 323 social cataloging users provide empirical support for the research model. The findings indicate that both information quality (IQ) and system quality (SQ) are significant predictors of satisfaction and SOC, which in turn lead to users' intentions to continue using these sites. In addition, SOC was found to affect continuance intention not only directly, but also indirectly through satisfaction. Theoretically, this study draws attention to a largely unexplored but essential area of research in the social cataloging literature and provides a fundamental basis to understand the determinants of continued social cataloging usage. From a managerial perspective, the findings suggest that social cataloging service providers should constantly focus their efforts on the quality control of their contents and system, and the enhancement of SOC among their users.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  7. Bertram, J.: Social Tagging : zum Potential einer neuen Indexiermethode (2009) 0.03
    0.028484445 = product of:
      0.11393778 = sum of:
        0.11393778 = weight(_text_:social in 2328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11393778 = score(doc=2328,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6167971 = fieldWeight in 2328, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2328)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Das Social Tagging hat der intellektuellen Inhaltserschließung zu ungeahnter Popularität verholfen und sich als neue Indexiermethode etabliert. Zugleich verkörpert es einen neuen Ansatz der Generierung, Nutzung und Teilung von Wissen. Ausgehend von einem Literaturüberblick soll hier der Versuch einer systematischen Annäherung an das Phänomen unternommen und der Stand der Forschung zusammengefasst werden. Neben begrifflichen Klärungen geht es dabei vor allem um die Fragen, was wirklich neu am Social Tagging ist, wie es um die Praxis des Tagging bestellt ist und welche Stärken und Schwächen sich aus ihr ableiten lassen. Abschließend werden Ansätze vorgestellt, die darauf zielen, das Potential der Methode besser zu nutzen.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  8. Sack, H.; Waitelonis, J.: Zeitbezogene kollaborative Annotation zur Verbesserung der inhaltsbasierten Videosuche (2008) 0.03
    0.028484445 = product of:
      0.11393778 = sum of:
        0.11393778 = weight(_text_:social in 2890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11393778 = score(doc=2890,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6167971 = fieldWeight in 2890, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2890)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Social-Tagging-Systeme ermöglichen die Annotation beliebiger Ressourcen mit nutzerbasierten Metadaten. Ressourcen wurden in diesem Zusammenhang stets als Ganzes betrachtet, ohne dass eine differenzierte Annotation einzelner Ressourcen-Fragmente möglich war. Dies fällt insbesondere bei zeitabhängigen Multimediadaten, wie z. B. Videodaten ins Gewicht, da der Nutzer oft nur an einzelnen Szenen einer umfangreichen Videodatei interessiert ist. Dieser Beitrag stellt eine einfache Möglichkeit der zeitbezogenen, kollaborativen Annotation von Multimediadaten vor und veranschaulicht deren Umsetzung am Beispiel der Videosuchmaschine yovisto.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  9. Blumauer, A.; Hochmeister, M.: Tag-Recommender gestützte Annotation von Web-Dokumenten (2009) 0.03
    0.028484445 = product of:
      0.11393778 = sum of:
        0.11393778 = weight(_text_:social in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11393778 = score(doc=4866,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6167971 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    In diesem Kapitel wird die zentrale Bedeutung der Annotation von Webdokumenten bzw. von Ressourcen in einem Semantischen Web diskutiert. Es wird auf aktuelle Methoden und Techniken in diesem Gebiet eingegangen, insbesondere wird das Phänomen "Social Tagging" als zentrales Element eines "Social Semantic Webs" beleuchtet. Weiters wird der Frage nachgegangen, welchen Mehrwert "Tag Recommender" beim Annotationsvorgang bieten, sowohl aus Sicht des End-Users aber auch im Sinne eines kollaborativen Ontologieerstellungsprozesses. Schließlich wird ein Funktionsprinzip für einen semi-automatischen Tag-Recommender vorgestellt unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Anwendbarkeit in einem Corporate Semantic Web.
    Source
    Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini
    Theme
    Social tagging
  10. Oudenaar, H.; Bullard, J.: NOT A BOOK : goodreads and the risks of social cataloging with insufficient direction (2024) 0.03
    0.028484445 = product of:
      0.11393778 = sum of:
        0.11393778 = weight(_text_:social in 1156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11393778 = score(doc=1156,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6167971 = fieldWeight in 1156, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1156)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Social cataloging websites, such as Goodreads, LibraryThing, and StoryGraph are widely popular with individuals who want to track their reading and read reviews. Goodreads is one of the most popular sites with 90 million registered users as of 2019. This paper studies a Goodreads cataloging rule, NOT A BOOK (NAB), through which users designate items as invalid to the site's scope while preserving some of their metadata. By reviewing NAB, we identify thirteen types of invalid items. We go on to discuss how these item types unevenly reflect the rule itself and the emergence of a "non-book" sense through social cataloging.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  11. Shiri, A.: Trend analysis in social tagging : an LIS perspective (2007) 0.03
    0.028192293 = product of:
      0.11276917 = sum of:
        0.11276917 = weight(_text_:social in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11276917 = score(doc=529,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6104709 = fieldWeight in 529, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=529)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    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.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  12. Hänger, C.: Good tags or bad tags? : Tagging im Kontext der bibliothekarischen Sacherschließung (2008) 0.03
    0.028192293 = product of:
      0.11276917 = sum of:
        0.11276917 = weight(_text_:social in 2886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11276917 = score(doc=2886,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6104709 = fieldWeight in 2886, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2886)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  13. Regulski, K.: Aufwand und Nutzen beim Einsatz von Social-Bookmarking-Services als Nachweisinstrument für wissenschaftliche Forschungsartikel am Beispiel von BibSonomy (2007) 0.03
    0.028192293 = product of:
      0.11276917 = sum of:
        0.11276917 = weight(_text_:social in 4595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11276917 = score(doc=4595,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6104709 = fieldWeight in 4595, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4595)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Autoren wissenschaftlicher Artikel stehen unterschiedliche Wege bei der Recherche nach Hintergrundmaterial zu ihren Projekten zur Verfügung. Dass Social-Bookmarking-Dienste, die als Teil des Web 2.0 (O'Reilly, 2005) und der Bibliothek 2.0 (Danowski, 2006) genannt werden, eine sinnvolle Ergänzung zu den herkömmlichen Nachweisdatenbanken sein können, soll der vorliegende Artikel zeigen.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  14. Wei, W.; Ram, S.: Utilizing sozial bookmarking tag space for Web content discovery : a social network analysis approach (2010) 0.03
    0.028192293 = product of:
      0.11276917 = sum of:
        0.11276917 = weight(_text_:social in 1) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11276917 = score(doc=1,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6104709 = fieldWeight in 1, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Social bookmarking has gained popularity since the advent of Web 2.0. Keywords known as tags are created to annotate web content, and the resulting tag space composed of the tags, the resources, and the users arises as a new platform for web content discovery. Useful and interesting web resources can be located through searching and browsing based on tags, as well as following the user-user connections formed in the social bookmarking community. However, the effectiveness of tag-based search is limited due to the lack of explicitly represented semantics in the tag space. In addition, social connections between users are underused for web content discovery because of the inadequate social functions. In this research, we propose a comprehensive framework to reorganize the flat tag space into a hierarchical faceted model. We also studied the structure and properties of various networks emerging from the tag space for the purpose of more efficient web content discovery. The major research approach used in this research is social network analysis (SNA), together with methodologies employed in design science research. The contribution of our research includes: (i) a faceted model to categorize social bookmarking tags; (ii) a relationship ontology to represent the semantics of relationships between tags; (iii) heuristics to reorganize the flat tag space into a hierarchical faceted model using analysis of tag-tag co-occurrence networks; (iv) an implemented prototype system as proof-of-concept to validate the feasibility of the reorganization approach; (v) a set of evaluations of the social functions of the current networking features of social bookmarking and a series of recommendations as to how to improve the social functions to facilitate web content discovery.
    Content
    A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY WITH A MAJOR IN MANAGEMENT In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA. Vgl.: http://hdl.handle.net/10150/195123. Vgl. auch: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Utilizing-social-bookmarking-tag-space-for-web-a-Ram-Wei/da9e7e5ee771008b741af7176d3f0d67128d1dca.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  15. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.03
    0.028191544 = product of:
      0.05638309 = sum of:
        0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040692065 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
        0.015691021 = product of:
          0.031382043 = sum of:
            0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.031382043 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    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".
    Theme
    Social tagging
  16. Corrado, E.; Moulaison, H.L.: Social tagging and communities of practice : two case studies (2008) 0.03
    0.027297068 = product of:
      0.10918827 = sum of:
        0.10918827 = weight(_text_:social in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10918827 = score(doc=2271,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.59108585 = fieldWeight in 2271, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2271)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Content
    In investigating the use of social tagging for knowledge organization and sharing, this paper reports on two case studies. Each study examines how two disparate communities of practices utilize social tagging to disseminate information to other community members in the online environment. Through the use of these tags, community members may retrieve and view relevant Web sites and online videos. The first study looks at tagging within the Code4Lib community of practice. The second study examines the use of tagging on video sharing sites used by a community of French teenagers. Uses of social tagging to share information within these communities are analyzed and discussed, and recommendations for future study are provided.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  17. Kuchler, T.; Pawlowski, J.M.; Zimmermann, V.: Social Tagging and Open Content : a concept for the future of e-learning and knowledge management? (2008) 0.03
    0.027297068 = product of:
      0.10918827 = sum of:
        0.10918827 = weight(_text_:social in 2892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10918827 = score(doc=2892,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.59108585 = fieldWeight in 2892, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2892)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Open Content is a promising concept for e-learning and knowledge management. It can improve sharing and re-using educational resources and create new business opportunities. However, in contrast to open source software, these opportunities have not yet been adopted by a wide community. This article discusses barriers and opportunities. The Content Explosion Model shows how content can be re-used and adapted to increase sharing and distributing Open Content. Social tagging is discussed, on the basis of an implementation example (SLIDESTAR), as a means of fostering content exchange on a content community platform.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  18. Güntner, G.; Sint, R.; Westenthaler, R.: ¬Ein Ansatz zur Unterstützung traditioneller Klassifikation durch Social Tagging (2008) 0.03
    0.027297068 = product of:
      0.10918827 = sum of:
        0.10918827 = weight(_text_:social in 2897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10918827 = score(doc=2897,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.59108585 = fieldWeight in 2897, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2897)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Der vorliegende Beitrag stellt einen Ansatz zur Kombination von traditionellen, geschlossenen Klassifikationsverfahren mit offenen, auf Social Tagging basierenden Klassifikationsverfahren vor. Die Darstellung geht von den grundsätzlichen Anforderungen an die Suche und Navigation in Dokumentenarchiven aus, erörtert die Vor- und Nachteile von geschlossenen und offenen Klassifikationsansätzen und präsentiert schließlich einen kombinierten Lösungsansatz, der im Rahmen eines Prototypen umgesetzt wurde. Der Lösungsansatz sieht vor, dass Dokumente grundsätzlich mit freien Tags klassifiziert werden können: Die Klassifikation wird jedoch durch ein kontrolliertes Vokabular unterstützt. Freie Tags werden in einem nachgeordneten, moderierten Prozess in das kontrollierte Vokabular übernommen. Das auf diese Weise wachsende und laufend gepflegte Vokabular unterstützt die Suche und Navigation im Dokumentenraum.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  19. Heuwing, B.: Erfahrungen an der Universitätsbibliothek Hildesheim : Social Tagging in Bibliotheken (2010) 0.03
    0.027297068 = product of:
      0.10918827 = sum of:
        0.10918827 = weight(_text_:social in 4013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10918827 = score(doc=4013,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.59108585 = fieldWeight in 4013, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4013)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Der Einsatz von Social Software in Bibliotheken und die damit angestrebte Erweiterung und Öffnung ihrer Angebote hat in den letzten Jahren viel Aufmerksamkeit auf sich gezogen. Für die Universitätsbibliothek Hildesheim wurde prototypisch ein Social Tagging Dienst umgesetzt und im Praxiseinsatz evaluiert (vgl. Heuwing 2008). Nutzer hatten dabei die Möglichkeit, für die im Online-Katalog vorhandenen Ressourcen selbst gewählte Schlagworte vergeben zu können. Das Angebot wurde von der Gruppe von Testnutzern positiv angenommen und auf vielfältige Weise eingesetzt. Eine Nutzerbefragung zeigt, dass die Motivation für die Nutzung vor allem im Austausch unter den Studierenden lag, während die Verwaltung persönlicher Informationsressourcen nur einer kleineren Gruppe wichtig war. Die Ergebnisse des Projektes verdeutlichen das Potential von Social Tagging an Universitäten und zeigen Möglichkeiten für die Integration mit lokalen Anwendungen und übergreifenden Diensten.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  20. Konkova, E.; Göker, A.; Butterworth, R.; MacFarlane, A.: Social tagging: exploring the image, the tags, and the game (2014) 0.03
    0.027297068 = product of:
      0.10918827 = sum of:
        0.10918827 = weight(_text_:social in 1370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10918827 = score(doc=1370,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.59108585 = fieldWeight in 1370, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1370)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Large image collections on the Web need to be organized for effective retrieval. Metadata has a key role in image retrieval but rely on professionally assigned tags which is not a viable option. Current content-based image retrieval systems have not demonstrated sufficient utility on large-scale image sources on the web, and are usually used as a supplement to existing text-based image retrieval systems. We present two social tagging alternatives in the form of photo-sharing networks and image labeling games. Here we analyze these applications to evaluate their usefulness from the semantic point of view, investigating the management of social tagging for indexing. The findings of the study have shown that social tagging can generate a sizeable number of tags that can be classified as in terpretive for an image, and that tagging behaviour has a manageable and adjustable nature depending on tagging guidelines.
    Theme
    Social tagging

Languages

  • e 105
  • d 43
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 127
  • el 16
  • m 9
  • s 3
  • b 2
  • x 2
  • More… Less…

Classifications