Search (45 results, page 1 of 3)

0.13062882 = product of:
  0.26125765 = sum of:
    0.26125765 = sum of:
      0.22097743 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.22097743 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.3448537 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059460267 = queryNorm
          0.640786 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.040280227 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040280227 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20821972 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059460267 = 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)

Abstract

More and more users index everything on their own in the web 2.0. There are services for links, videos, pictures, books, encyclopaedic articles and scientific articles. All these services are library independent. But must that really be? Can't libraries help with their experience and tools to make user indexing better? On the experience of a project from German language Wikipedia together with the German person authority files (Personen Namen Datei - PND) located at German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) I would like to show what is possible. How users can and will use the authority files, if we let them. We will take a look how the project worked and what we can learn for future projects. Conclusions - Authority files can have a role in the web 2.0 - there must be an open interface/ service for retrieval - everything that is indexed on the net with authority files can be easy integrated in a federated search - O'Reilly: You have to found ways that your data get more important that more it will be used

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

Object

Web 2.0

0.0773421 = product of:
  0.1546842 = sum of:
    0.1546842 = product of:
      0.3093684 = sum of:
        0.3093684 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3093684 = score(doc=3862,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.3448537 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059460267 = queryNorm
            0.8971004 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: OPAC, SOPAC and social networking: catalogues of Library 2.0?

0.062501855 = product of:
  0.12500371 = sum of:
    0.12500371 = product of:
      0.25000742 = sum of:
        0.25000742 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25000742 = score(doc=4595,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3448537 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059460267 = queryNorm
            0.72496665 = fieldWeight in 4595, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4595)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.061765067 = product of:
  0.123530135 = sum of:
    0.123530135 = product of:
      0.24706027 = sum of:
        0.24706027 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24706027 = score(doc=2931,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.3448537 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059460267 = queryNorm
            0.71642053 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

Web 2.0

RSWK

World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem
Social Tagging / Filter / Web log / World Wide Web 2.0

Subject

World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem
Social Tagging / Filter / Web log / World Wide Web 2.0

0.06128575 = sum of:
  0.03711761 = product of:
    0.11135283 = sum of:
      0.11135283 = weight(_text_:objects in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11135283 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31603554 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059460267 = queryNorm
          0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.024168136 = product of:
    0.04833627 = sum of:
      0.04833627 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04833627 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20821972 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059460267 = 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)

Abstract

Libraries are the tools we use to learn and to answer our questions. The quality of our work depends, among others, on the quality of the tools we use. Recent research in digital libraries is focused, on one hand on improving the infrastructure of the digital library management systems (DLMS), and on the other on improving the metadata models used to annotate collections of objects maintained by DLMS. The latter includes, among others, the semantic web and social networking technologies. Recently, the semantic web and social networking technologies are being introduced to the digital libraries domain. The expected outcome is that the overall quality of information discovery in digital libraries can be improved by employing social and semantic technologies. In this chapter we present the results of an evaluation of social and semantic end-user information discovery services for the digital libraries.

Date

1. 8.2010 12:35:22

0.060307577 = product of:
  0.120615155 = sum of:
    0.120615155 = sum of:
      0.08839097 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08839097 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3448537 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059460267 = queryNorm
          0.2563144 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.032224182 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032224182 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20821972 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059460267 = 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)

Abstract

Social tagging empowers users to categorize content in a personally meaningful way while harnessing their potential to contribute to a collaborative construction of knowledge (Vander Wal, 2007). In addition, social tagging systems offer innovative filtering mechanisms that facilitate resource discovery and browsing (Mathes, 2004). As a result, social tags may support online communication, informal or intended learning as well as the development of online communities. The purpose of this mixed methods study is to examine how undergraduate students participate in social tagging activities in order to learn about their motivations, behaviours and practices. A better understanding of their knowledge, habits and interactions with such systems will help practitioners and developers identify important factors when designing enhancements. In the first phase of the study, students enrolled at a Canadian university completed 103 questionnaires. Quantitative results focusing on general familiarity with social tagging, frequently used Web 2.0 sites, and the purpose for engaging in social tagging activities were compiled. Eight questionnaire respondents participated in follow-up semi-structured interviews that further explored tagging practices by situating questionnaire responses within concrete experiences using popular websites such as YouTube, Facebook, Del.icio.us, and Flickr. Preliminary results of this study echo findings found in the growing literature concerning social tagging from the fields of computer science (Sen et al., 2006) and information science (Golder & Huberman, 2006; Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006). Generally, two classes of social taggers emerge: those who focus on tagging for individual purposes, and those who view tagging as a way to share or communicate meaning to others. Heavy del.icio.us users, for example, were often focused on simply organizing their own content, and seemed to be conscientiously maintaining their own personally relevant categorizations while, in many cases, placing little importance on the tags of others. Conversely, users tagging items primarily to share content preferred to use specific terms to optimize retrieval and discovery by others. Our findings should inform practitioners of how interaction design can be tailored for different tagging systems applications, and how these findings are positioned within the current debate surrounding social tagging among the resource discovery community. We also hope to direct future research in the field to place a greater importance on exploring the benefits of tagging as a socially-driven endeavour rather than uniquely as a means of managing information.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.060307577 = product of:
  0.120615155 = sum of:
    0.120615155 = sum of:
      0.08839097 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08839097 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3448537 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059460267 = queryNorm
          0.2563144 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.032224182 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032224182 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20821972 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059460267 = 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(1/2)

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

0.057411626 = product of:
  0.11482325 = sum of:
    0.11482325 = product of:
      0.2296465 = sum of:
        0.2296465 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2296465 = score(doc=4323,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.3448537 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059460267 = queryNorm
            0.66592443 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

RSWK

World Wide Web 2.0 / Suchmaschine

Subject

World Wide Web 2.0 / Suchmaschine

0.055244356 = product of:
  0.11048871 = sum of:
    0.11048871 = product of:
      0.22097743 = sum of:
        0.22097743 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22097743 = score(doc=3452,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.3448537 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059460267 = queryNorm
            0.640786 = fieldWeight in 3452, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3452)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the emergence of Web 2.0, sharing personal content, communicating ideas, and interacting with other online users in Web 2.0 communities have become daily routines for online users. User-generated data from Web 2.0 sites provide rich personal information (e.g., personal preferences and interests) and can be utilized to obtain insight about cyber communities and their social networks. Many studies have focused on leveraging user-generated information to analyze blogs and forums, but few studies have applied this approach to video-sharing Web sites. In this study, we propose a text-based framework for video content classification of online-video sharing Web sites. Different types of user-generated data (e.g., titles, descriptions, and comments) were used as proxies for online videos, and three types of text features (lexical, syntactic, and content-specific features) were extracted. Three feature-based classification techniques (C4.5, Naïve Bayes, and Support Vector Machine) were used to classify videos. To evaluate the proposed framework, user-generated data from candidate videos, which were identified by searching user-given keywords on YouTube, were first collected. Then, a subset of the collected data was randomly selected and manually tagged by users as our experiment data. The experimental results showed that the proposed approach was able to classify online videos based on users' interests with accuracy rates up to 87.2%, and all three types of text features contributed to discriminating videos. Support Vector Machine outperformed C4.5 and Naïve Bayes techniques in our experiments. In addition, our case study further demonstrated that accurate video-classification results are very useful for identifying implicit cyber communities on video-sharing Web sites.

Object

Web 2.0

0.054128192 = product of:
  0.108256385 = sum of:
    0.108256385 = product of:
      0.21651277 = sum of:
        0.21651277 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21651277 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.3448537 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059460267 = queryNorm
            0.6278395 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Kollaborative Informationsdienste im Web 2.0 werden von den Internetnutzern nicht nur dazu genutzt, digitale Informationsressourcen zu produzieren, sondern auch, um sie inhaltlich mit eigenen Schlagworten, sog. Tags, zu erschließen. Dabei müssen die Nutzer nicht wie bei Bibliothekskatalogen auf Regeln achten. Die Menge an nutzergenerierten Tags innerhalb eines Kollaborativen Informationsdienstes wird als Folksonomy bezeichnet. Die Folksonomies dienen den Nutzern zum Wiederauffinden eigener Ressourcen und für die Recherche nach fremden Ressourcen. Das Buch beschäftigt sich mit Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten, Folksonomies als Methode der Wissensrepräsentation und als Werkzeug des Information Retrievals.

Footnote

Zugl.: Düsseldorf, Univ., Diss., 2009 u.d.T.: Peters, Isabella: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval Rez. in: IWP - Information Wissenschaft & Praxis, 61(2010) Heft 8, S.469-470 (U. Spree): "... Nachdem sich die Rezensentin durch 418 Seiten Text hindurch gelesen hat, bleibt sie unentschieden, wie der auffällige Einsatz langer Zitate (im Durchschnitt drei Zitate, die länger als vier kleingedruckte Zeilen sind, pro Seite) zu bewerten ist, zumal die Zitate nicht selten rein illustrativen Charakter haben bzw. Isabella Peters noch einmal zitiert, was sie bereits in eigenen Worten ausgedrückt hat. Redundanz und Verlängerung der Lesezeit halten sich hier die Waage mit der Möglichkeit, dass sich die Leserin einen unmittelbaren Eindruck von Sprache und Duktus der zitierten Literatur verschaffen kann. Eindeutig unschön ist das Beenden eines Gedankens oder einer Argumentation durch ein Zitat (z. B. S. 170). Im deutschen Original entstehen auf diese Weise die für deutsche wissenschaftliche Qualifikationsarbeiten typischen denglischen Texte. Für alle, die sich für Wissensrepräsentation, Information Retrieval und kollaborative Informationsdienste interessieren, ist "Folksonomies : Indexing and Retrieval in Web 2.0" trotz der angeführten kleinen Mängel zur Lektüre und Anschaffung - wegen seines beinahe enzyklopädischen Charakters auch als Nachschlage- oder Referenzwerk geeignet - unbedingt zu empfehlen. Abschließend möchte ich mich in einem Punkt der Produktinfo von de Gruyter uneingeschränkt anschließen: ein "Grundlagenwerk für Folksonomies".

Object

Web 2.0

RSWK

World Wide Web 2.0

Subject

World Wide Web 2.0

0.046876397 = product of:
  0.093752794 = sum of:
    0.093752794 = product of:
      0.18750559 = sum of:
        0.18750559 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18750559 = score(doc=2864,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3448537 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059460267 = queryNorm
            0.543725 = fieldWeight in 2864, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2864)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.044195484 = product of:
  0.08839097 = sum of:
    0.08839097 = product of:
      0.17678194 = sum of:
        0.17678194 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17678194 = score(doc=4873,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3448537 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059460267 = queryNorm
            0.5126288 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini

0.044195484 = product of:
  0.08839097 = sum of:
    0.08839097 = product of:
      0.17678194 = sum of:
        0.17678194 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17678194 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3448537 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059460267 = queryNorm
            0.5126288 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Folksonomies ermöglichen den Nutzern in Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten den Zugang zu verschiedenartigen Informationsressourcen. In welchen Fällen beide Bestandteile des Web 2.0 am besten für das Information Retrieval geeignet sind und wo sie die Websuche ggf. ersetzen können, wird in diesem Beitrag diskutiert. Dazu erfolgt eine detaillierte Betrachtung der Reichweite von Social-Bookmarking-Systemen und Sharing-Systemen sowie der Retrievaleffektivität von Folksonomies innerhalb von Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten.

0.03906366 = product of:
  0.07812732 = sum of:
    0.07812732 = product of:
      0.15625463 = sum of:
        0.15625463 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15625463 = score(doc=2813,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3448537 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059460267 = queryNorm
            0.45310414 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Today, in times of Web 2.0., graduates and undergraduates interact in virtual communities like studiVZ (Studentenverzeichnis) and generate content by reviewing or tagging documents. This phenomenon offers good prospects for academic libraries. They can use the customers' tags for indexing the growing amount of electronic resources and thereby optimize the search for these documents. Important examples are the journals, databases and e-books included in the "Nationallizenzen" financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The documents in this collection are not manually indexed by librarians and have no annotation according to the German standard classification systems. Connecting search systems by means of Web-2.0.-services is an important task for libraries. For this purpose users are encouraged to tag printed and electronic resources in search systems like the libraries' online catalogs and to establish connections between entries in other systems, e.g. Bibsonomy, and the items found in the online catalog. As a consequence annotations chosen by both, users and librarians, will coexist: The items in the tagging systems and the online catalog are linked, library users may find other publications of interest, and contacts between library users with similar scientific interests may be established. Librarians have to face the fact that user generated tags do not necessarily have the same quality as their own annotations and will therefore have to seek for instruments for comparing user generated tags with library generated keywords.

0.03867105 = product of:
  0.0773421 = sum of:
    0.0773421 = product of:
      0.1546842 = sum of:
        0.1546842 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1546842 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3448537 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059460267 = queryNorm
            0.4485502 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.03867105 = product of:
  0.0773421 = sum of:
    0.0773421 = product of:
      0.1546842 = sum of:
        0.1546842 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1546842 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3448537 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059460267 = queryNorm
            0.4485502 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini

0.037883002 = product of:
  0.075766005 = sum of:
    0.075766005 = product of:
      0.227298 = sum of:
        0.227298 = weight(_text_:objects in 1046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.227298 = score(doc=1046,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.31603554 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059460267 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.034582295 = product of:
  0.06916459 = sum of:
    0.06916459 = product of:
      0.20749377 = sum of:
        0.20749377 = weight(_text_:objects in 416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20749377 = score(doc=416,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.31603554 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059460267 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.033146612 = product of:
  0.066293225 = sum of:
    0.066293225 = product of:
      0.13258645 = sum of:
        0.13258645 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13258645 = score(doc=2883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3448537 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059460267 = queryNorm
            0.3844716 = fieldWeight in 2883, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.033146612 = product of:
  0.066293225 = sum of:
    0.066293225 = product of:
      0.13258645 = sum of:
        0.13258645 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13258645 = score(doc=2893,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3448537 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059460267 = queryNorm
            0.3844716 = fieldWeight in 2893, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2893)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.