Search (73 results, page 3 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Marchitelli, A.; Piazzini, T.: OPAC, SOPAC e social networking : cataloghi di biblioteca 2.0? (2008) 0.00 
    0.0013456206 = product of:
  0.012110585 = sum of:
    0.012110585 = product of:
      0.02422117 = sum of:
        0.02422117 = weight(_text_:web in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02422117 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    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.
  2. Abreu, A.: "Every bit informs another" : framework analysis for descriptive practice and linked information (2008) 0.00 
    0.0013456206 = product of:
  0.012110585 = sum of:
    0.012110585 = product of:
      0.02422117 = sum of:
        0.02422117 = weight(_text_:web in 2249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02422117 = score(doc=2249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 2249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    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.
  3. Tschetschonig, K.; Ladengruber, R.; Hampel, T.; Schulte, J.: Kollaborative Tagging-Systeme im Electronic Commerce (2008) 0.00 
    0.0013456206 = product of:
  0.012110585 = sum of:
    0.012110585 = product of:
      0.02422117 = sum of:
        0.02422117 = weight(_text_:web in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02422117 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Social-Tagging-Systeme bieten eine Vielzahl an Vorteilen gegenüber traditionellen und zurzeit eingesetzten Systemen und werden besonders in nicht-kommerziellen Web-2.0-Anwendungen erfolgreich verwendet. Diese Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit den Vor- und Nachteilen von Social Tagging für kollaborative Systeme des Electronic Commerce und stellt einige Beispiele aus der Praxis vor. Es gibt nur wenige Anwendungen aus dem Bereich des Electronic Commerce, die Social Tagging erfolgreich als kritischen Teil ihrer Systeme einsetzen. Deshalb wird das Potenzial von Tagging-Systemen beleuchtet, um eine fundierte Basis für neue Entwicklungen im Geschäftsbereich zu schaffen.
  4. Feinberg, M.: Expressive bibliography : personal collections in public space (2011) 0.00 
    0.0013456206 = product of:
  0.012110585 = sum of:
    0.012110585 = product of:
      0.02422117 = sum of:
        0.02422117 = weight(_text_:web in 4561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02422117 = score(doc=4561,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4561, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4561)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    This paper examines collections of citations that individual users contribute to social tagging systems such as Delicious and LibraryThing. I characterize these personal collections, furnished with various forms of metadata and arranged for Web display, as a means of communication, where a particular sensibility molds guiding principles for resource selection, description, and categorization. Using several analytic frameworks from museum studies, I present three brief case studies that interrogate both the substance and the means of expression achieved in such collections, which I term "expressive bibliographies." In considering these case studies, I explore how an explicit rhetorical perspective might inform purposeful design of expressive bibliography.
  5. Bundza, M.: ¬The choice is yours! : researchers assign subject metadata to their own materials in institutional repositories (2014) 0.00 
    0.0013456206 = product of:
  0.012110585 = sum of:
    0.012110585 = product of:
      0.02422117 = sum of:
        0.02422117 = weight(_text_:web in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02422117 = score(doc=1968,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Footnote
    Contribution in a special issue "Beyond libraries: Subject metadata in the digital environment and Semantic Web" - Enthält Beiträge der gleichnamigen IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn.
  6. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.00 
    0.0013279931 = product of:
  0.011951938 = sum of:
    0.011951938 = product of:
      0.023903877 = sum of:
        0.023903877 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023903877 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = 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)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  7. Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011) 0.00 
    0.0013279931 = product of:
  0.011951938 = sum of:
    0.011951938 = product of:
      0.023903877 = sum of:
        0.023903877 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023903877 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    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
  8. Corrado, E.; Moulaison, H.L.: Social tagging and communities of practice : two case studies (2008) 0.00 
    0.001153389 = product of:
  0.010380501 = sum of:
    0.010380501 = product of:
      0.020761002 = sum of:
        0.020761002 = weight(_text_:web in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020761002 = score(doc=2271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2271, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    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.
  9. Panke, S.; Gaiser, B.: "With my head up in the clouds" : Social Tagging aus Nutzersicht (2008) 0.00 
    0.001153389 = product of:
  0.010380501 = sum of:
    0.010380501 = product of:
      0.020761002 = sum of:
        0.020761002 = weight(_text_:web in 2883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020761002 = score(doc=2883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2883, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    28 Prozent der amerikanischen Internetnutzer/innen haben es bereits getan: Das freie Verschlagworten von Inhalten aller Art per Social Tagging gehört zu den Anwendungen aus dem Kontext von Web 2.0, die sich zunehmender Beliebtheit erfreuen (Rainie, 2007). Während sich die bisherige Forschung überwiegend inhaltsanalytisch mit dem Phänomen befasst, kommen im vorliegenden Beitrag so genannte "Power User" zu Wort. Um zu einer fundierteren Interpretation der in den Inhaltsanalysen gewonnenen Erkenntnisse beizutragen, wurden Interviews mit Personen durchgeführt, die mehrere Tagging Systeme parallel einsetzen, sich auch mit den technischen Grundlagen auskennen und als "Early Adopter" bereits seit geraumer Zeit aktiv sind. Entsprechend leitet der Beitrag von einer Synopse der aktuellen Literatur in die beschriebene Studie über und schließt mit einem Ausblick auf zukünftige Forschungsvorhaben im Kontext von Social Tagging.
  10. Schillerwein, S.: ¬Der 'Business Case' für die Nutzung von Social Tagging in Intranets und internen Informationssystemen (2008) 0.00 
    0.001153389 = product of:
  0.010380501 = sum of:
    0.010380501 = product of:
      0.020761002 = sum of:
        0.020761002 = weight(_text_:web in 2893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020761002 = score(doc=2893,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2893, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2893)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    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.
  11. Birkenhake, B.: Semantic Weblog : Erfahrungen vom Bloggen mit Tags und Ontologien (2008) 0.00 
    0.001153389 = product of:
  0.010380501 = sum of:
    0.010380501 = product of:
      0.020761002 = sum of:
        0.020761002 = weight(_text_:web in 2894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020761002 = score(doc=2894,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2894, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2894)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Der Begriff "Semantic Weblog" bezeichnet die Idee, zwei Konzepte - nämlich Bloggen und Semantic Web - zusammenzuführen. Ausgangspunkt ist dabei die Tatsache, dass Blogs, die länger bestehen, Wissen über bestimmte Domänen ansammeln. Dieses Wissen wird in einem ersten Schritt durch Volltextanalyse und in einem zweien Schritt durch Kategorie- und Tagging-Mechanismen erschlossen und kann durch weitere Schritte zu einfachen Ontologien ausgebaut werden. Dieser Beitrag gliedert sich in mehrere Teile. Zunächst wird das Konzept und seine ersten Implementierungen sowie mögliche Vernetzung von mehreren Semantic Weblogs vorgestellt. Dann wird ein Einblick in die Erfahrungen aus der Semantic Weblog-Praxis gegeben. Abgeschlossen wird der Artikel durch einen Ausblick.
  12. Wang, J.; Clements, M.; Yang, J.; Vries, A.P. de; Reinders, M.J.T.: Personalization of tagging systems (2010) 0.00 
    0.001153389 = product of:
  0.010380501 = sum of:
    0.010380501 = product of:
      0.020761002 = sum of:
        0.020761002 = weight(_text_:web in 4229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020761002 = score(doc=4229,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4229, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Social media systems have encouraged end user participation in the Internet, for the purpose of storing and distributing Internet content, sharing opinions and maintaining relationships. Collaborative tagging allows users to annotate the resulting user-generated content, and enables effective retrieval of otherwise uncategorised data. However, compared to professional web content production, collaborative tagging systems face the challenge that end-users assign tags in an uncontrolled manner, resulting in unsystematic and inconsistent metadata. This paper introduces a framework for the personalization of social media systems. We pinpoint three tasks that would benefit from personalization: collaborative tagging, collaborative browsing and collaborative search. We propose a ranking model for each task that integrates the individual user's tagging history in the recommendation of tags and content, to align its suggestions to the individual user preferences. We demonstrate on two real data sets that for all three tasks, the personalized ranking should take into account both the user's own preference and the opinion of others.
  13. Estellés Arolas, E.; González Ladrón-de-Guevar, F.: Uses of explicit and implicit tags in social bookmarking (2012) 0.00 
    0.001153389 = product of:
  0.010380501 = sum of:
    0.010380501 = product of:
      0.020761002 = sum of:
        0.020761002 = weight(_text_:web in 4984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020761002 = score(doc=4984,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4984, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4984)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Although Web 2.0 contains many tools with different functionalities, they all share a common social nature. One tool in particular, social bookmarking systems (SBSs), allows users to store and share links to different types of resources, i.e., websites, videos, images. To identify and classify these resources so that they can be retrieved and shared, fragments of text are used. These fragments of text, usually words, are called tags. A tag that is found on the inside of a resource text is referred to as an obvious or explicit tag. There are also nonobvious or implicit tags, which don't appear in the resource text. The purpose of this article is to describe the present situation of the SBSs tool and then to also determine the principal features of and how to use explicit tags. It will be taken into special consideration which HTML tags with explicit tags are used more frequently.
  14. Lee, Y.Y.; Yang, S.Q.: Folksonomies as subject access : a survey of tagging in library online catalogs and discovery layers (2012) 0.00 
    0.001153389 = product of:
  0.010380501 = sum of:
    0.010380501 = product of:
      0.020761002 = sum of:
        0.020761002 = weight(_text_:web in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020761002 = score(doc=309,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Source
    Beyond libraries - subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web. IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn
  15. Fox, M.J.: Communities of practice, gender and social tagging (2012) 0.00 
    0.001153389 = product of:
  0.010380501 = sum of:
    0.010380501 = product of:
      0.020761002 = sum of:
        0.020761002 = weight(_text_:web in 873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020761002 = score(doc=873,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 873, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=873)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Social or collaborative tagging enables users to organize and label resources on the web. Libraries and other information environments hope that tagging can complement professional subject access with user-created terms. But who are the taggers, and does their language represent that of the user population? Some language theorists believe that inherent variables, such as gender or race, can be responsible for language use, whereas other researchers endorse more multiply-influenced practice-based approaches, where interactions with others affect language use more than a single variable. To explore whether linguistic variation in tagging is influenced more by gender or context, in this exploratory study, I will analyze the content and quantity of tags used on LibraryThing. This study seeks to dismantle stereotypical views of women's language use and to suggest a community of practice-based approach to analyzing social tags.
  16. Choi, Y.: ¬A complete assessment of tagging quality : a consolidated methodology (2015) 0.00 
    0.001153389 = product of:
  0.010380501 = sum of:
    0.010380501 = product of:
      0.020761002 = sum of:
        0.020761002 = weight(_text_:web in 1730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020761002 = score(doc=1730,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1730, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1730)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    This paper presents a methodological discussion of a study of tagging quality in subject indexing. The data analysis in the study was divided into 3 phases: analysis of indexing consistency, analysis of tagging effectiveness, and analysis of the semantic values of tags. To analyze indexing consistency, this study employed the vector space model-based indexing consistency measures. An analysis of tagging effectiveness with tagging exhaustivity and tag specificity was conducted to ameliorate the drawbacks of consistency analysis based on only the quantitative measures of vocabulary matching. To further investigate the semantic values of tags at various levels of specificity, a latent semantic analysis (LSA) was conducted. To test statistical significance for the relation between tag specificity and semantic quality, correlation analysis was conducted. This research demonstrates the potential of tags for web document indexing with a complete assessment of tagging quality and provides a basis for further study of the strengths and limitations of tagging.
  17. Vaidya, P.; Harinarayana, N.S.: ¬The comparative and analytical study of LibraryThing tags with Library of Congress Subject Headings (2016) 0.00 
    0.001153389 = product of:
  0.010380501 = sum of:
    0.010380501 = product of:
      0.020761002 = sum of:
        0.020761002 = weight(_text_:web in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020761002 = score(doc=2492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    The internet in its Web 2.0 version has given an opportunity among users to be participative and the chance to enhance the existing system, which makes it dynamic and collaborative. The activity of social tagging among researchers to organize the digital resources is an interesting study among information professionals. The one way of organizing the resources for future retrieval through these user-generated terms makes an interesting analysis by comparing them with professionally created controlled vocabularies. Here in this study, an attempt has been made to compare Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) terms with LibraryThing social tags. In this comparative analysis, the results show that social tags can be used to enhance the metadata for information retrieval. But still, the uncontrolled nature of social tags is a concern and creates uncertainty among researchers.
  18. Huang, S.-L.; Lin, S.-C.; Chan, Y.-C.: Investigating effectiveness and user acceptance of semantic social tagging for knowledge sharing (2012) 0.00 
    0.001153389 = product of:
  0.010380501 = sum of:
    0.010380501 = product of:
      0.020761002 = sum of:
        0.020761002 = weight(_text_:web in 2732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020761002 = score(doc=2732,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2732, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2732)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Social tagging systems enable users to assign arbitrary tags to various digital resources. However, they face vague-meaning problems when users retrieve or present resources with the keyword-based tags. In order to solve these problems, this study takes advantage of Semantic Web technology and the topological characteristics of knowledge maps to develop a system that comprises a semantic tagging mechanism and triple-pattern and visual searching mechanisms. A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and user acceptance of these mechanisms in a knowledge sharing context. The results show that the semantic social tagging system is more effective than a keyword-based system. The visualized knowledge map helps users capture an overview of the knowledge domain, reduce cognitive effort for the search, and obtain more enjoyment. Traditional keyword tagging with a keyword search still has the advantage of ease of use and the users had higher intention to use it. This study also proposes directions for future development of semantic social tagging systems.
  19. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.00 
    0.001106661 = product of:
  0.009959949 = sum of:
    0.009959949 = product of:
      0.019919898 = sum of:
        0.019919898 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019919898 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = 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)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    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
  20. 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) 0.00 
    0.001106661 = product of:
  0.009959949 = sum of:
    0.009959949 = product of:
      0.019919898 = sum of:
        0.019919898 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019919898 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = 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)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    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

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 49
  • d 23
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 60
  • m 9
  • el 8
  • s 3
  • b 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications