Search (37 results, page 1 of 2)

0.04425271 = product of:
  0.08850542 = sum of:
    0.08850542 = sum of:
      0.06387979 = weight(_text_:i in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06387979 = score(doc=2881,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.37272677 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
      0.024625631 = weight(_text_:22 in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024625631 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2881, 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=2881)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

My keynote at the workshop "Social Tagging in Knowledge Organization" was a great opportunity to make and share new experiences. For the first time ever, I sat in my office at home and gave a live web video presentation to a conference audience elsewhere on the globe. At the same time, it was also an opportunity to premier my conceptual model "Matrix of Perception" to an interdisciplinary audience of researchers and practitioners with a variety of backgrounds - reaching from philosophy, psychology, pedagogy and computation to library science and economics. The interdisciplinary approach of the conference is also mirrored in the structure of this volume, with articles on the theoretical background, the empirical analysis and the potential applications of tagging, for instance in university libraries, e-learning, or e-commerce. As an introduction to the topic of "social tagging" I would like to draw your attention to some foundation concepts of the phenomenon I have racked my brain with for the last few month. One thing I have seen missing in recent research and system development is a focus on the variety of user perspectives in social tagging. Different people perceive tagging in complex variegated ways and use this form of knowledge organization for a variety of purposes. My analytical interest lies in understanding the personas and patterns in tagging systems and in being able to label their different perceptions. To come up with a concise picture of user expectations, needs and activities, I have broken down the perspectives on tagging into two different categories, namely "faces" and "depth". When put together, they form the "Matrix of Perception" - a nuanced view of stakeholders and their respective levels of participation.

Date

22. 6.2009 9:15:45

0.033245962 = product of:
  0.066491924 = sum of:
    0.066491924 = sum of:
      0.035709884 = weight(_text_:i in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035709884 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03078204 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = 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".

0.024996921 = product of:
  0.049993843 = sum of:
    0.049993843 = product of:
      0.099987686 = sum of:
        0.099987686 = weight(_text_:i in 4561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099987686 = score(doc=4561,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.58340967 = fieldWeight in 4561, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4561)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.023619873 = product of:
  0.047239747 = sum of:
    0.047239747 = product of:
      0.094479494 = sum of:
        0.094479494 = weight(_text_:i in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.094479494 = score(doc=1265,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.55127037 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Today I want to talk about categorization, and I want to convince you that a lot of what we think we know about categorization is wrong. In particular, I want to convince you that many of the ways we're attempting to apply categorization to the electronic world are actually a bad fit, because we've adopted habits of mind that are left over from earlier strategies. I also want to convince you that what we're seeing when we see the Web is actually a radical break with previous categorization strategies, rather than an extension of them. The second part of the talk is more speculative, because it is often the case that old systems get broken before people know what's going to take their place. (Anyone watching the music industry can see this at work today.) That's what I think is happening with categorization. What I think is coming instead are much more organic ways of organizing information than our current categorization schemes allow, based on two units -- the link, which can point to anything, and the tag, which is a way of attaching labels to links. The strategy of tagging -- free-form labeling, without regard to categorical constraints -- seems like a recipe for disaster, but as the Web has shown us, you can extract a surprising amount of value from big messy data sets.

Footnote

This piece is based on two talks I gave in the spring of 2005 -- one at the O'Reilly ETech conference in March, entitled "Ontology Is Overrated", and one at the IMCExpo in April entitled "Folksonomies & Tags: The rise of user-developed classification." The written version is a heavily edited concatenation of those two talks.

0.017854942 = product of:
  0.035709884 = sum of:
    0.035709884 = product of:
      0.07141977 = sum of:
        0.07141977 = weight(_text_:i in 2516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07141977 = score(doc=2516,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.41672117 = fieldWeight in 2516, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2516)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article focuses on two aspects of knowledge generation. First, I want to explore how new knowledge is created in interdisciplinary discourses and, second, how this process might be mediated and promoted by the use of wikis. I suggest that it is the noise coming to life in (ex)changes of perspectives that enables the creation of new knowledge. In section 1-4, I am going to examine how the concepts of noise from the mathematical theory of communication (Shannon 1948) on the one hand and theories of organizational knowledge creation (cf. Nonaka 1994) on the other might help to understand the process of interdisciplinary knowledge creation. In section 5 I am going to explore the role wiki technologies can play in supporting interdisciplinary collaborations. This section is influenced by own experiences in a wiki-based interdisciplinary collaboration. It seems that even though certain features of wiki technology make it an excellent tool to externalize and combine individual knowledge leaving room for noise and at the same time documenting this process, the full benefit of wikis can only be obtained if they are embedded into a broader communication context.

0.017854942 = product of:
  0.035709884 = sum of:
    0.035709884 = product of:
      0.07141977 = sum of:
        0.07141977 = weight(_text_:i in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07141977 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.41672117 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.015150423 = product of:
  0.030300846 = sum of:
    0.030300846 = product of:
      0.060601693 = sum of:
        0.060601693 = weight(_text_:i in 4371) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060601693 = score(doc=4371,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.35359967 = fieldWeight in 4371, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4371)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.014283955 = product of:
  0.02856791 = sum of:
    0.02856791 = product of:
      0.05713582 = sum of:
        0.05713582 = weight(_text_:i in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05713582 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.012625352 = product of:
  0.025250703 = sum of:
    0.025250703 = product of:
      0.050501406 = sum of:
        0.050501406 = weight(_text_:i in 2059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050501406 = score(doc=2059,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.29466638 = fieldWeight in 2059, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2059)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The goal of the study presented in this article is to investigate to what extent the classification of a web page by a single genre matches the users' perspective. The extent of agreement on a single genre label for a web page can help understand whether there is a need for a different classification scheme that overrides the single-genre labelling. My hypothesis is that a single genre label does not account for the users' perspective. In order to test this hypothesis, I submitted a restricted number of web pages (25 web pages) to a large number of web users (135 subjects) asking them to assign only a single genre label to each of the web pages. Users could choose from a list of 21 genre labels, or select one of the two 'escape' options, i.e. 'Add a label' and 'I don't know'. The rationale was to observe the level of agreement on a single genre label per web page, and draw some conclusions about the appropriateness of limiting the assignment to only a single label when doing genre classification of web pages. Results show that users largely disagree on the label to be assigned to a web page.

0.012498461 = product of:
  0.024996921 = sum of:
    0.024996921 = product of:
      0.049993843 = sum of:
        0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049993843 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Language

i

0.012498461 = product of:
  0.024996921 = sum of:
    0.024996921 = product of:
      0.049993843 = sum of:
        0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049993843 = score(doc=659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 659, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Marginalia or 'scribbling in the margins' is a means for readers to add a more in-depth level of granularity and subject representation to digital documents such as those present in social sharing environments like Flickr and del.icio.us. Social classification and social sharing sites development of user-defined descriptors or tags is discussed in the context of knowledge organization. With this position paper I present a rationale for the use of the resulting folksonomies and tag clouds being developed in these social sharing communities as a rich source of information about our users and their natural organization processes. The knowledge organization community needs to critically examine our understandings of these emerging classificatory schema and determine how best to adapt, augment, revitalize existing knowledge organization structures.

0.012498461 = product of:
  0.024996921 = sum of:
    0.024996921 = product of:
      0.049993843 = sum of:
        0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 2249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049993843 = score(doc=2249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 2249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.012498461 = product of:
  0.024996921 = sum of:
    0.024996921 = product of:
      0.049993843 = sum of:
        0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049993843 = score(doc=406,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 406, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=406)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.012498461 = product of:
  0.024996921 = sum of:
    0.024996921 = product of:
      0.049993843 = sum of:
        0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049993843 = score(doc=796,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 796, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=796)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0123128155 = product of:
  0.024625631 = sum of:
    0.024625631 = product of:
      0.049251262 = sum of:
        0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049251262 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.15-22

0.010883095 = product of:
  0.02176619 = sum of:
    0.02176619 = product of:
      0.04353238 = sum of:
        0.04353238 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04353238 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.14-22

Source

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

0.010773714 = product of:
  0.021547427 = sum of:
    0.021547427 = product of:
      0.043094855 = sum of:
        0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043094855 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

21. 6.2009 12:22:44

0.010712966 = product of:
  0.021425933 = sum of:
    0.021425933 = product of:
      0.042851865 = sum of:
        0.042851865 = weight(_text_:i in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042851865 = score(doc=3421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 3421, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3421)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010712966 = product of:
  0.021425933 = sum of:
    0.021425933 = product of:
      0.042851865 = sum of:
        0.042851865 = weight(_text_:i in 873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042851865 = score(doc=873,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 873, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=873)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.009234612 = product of:
  0.018469224 = sum of:
    0.018469224 = product of:
      0.036938448 = sum of:
        0.036938448 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036938448 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 8.2010 12:35:22