-
Wesch, M.: Information R/evolution (2006)
0.02
0.024208048 = product of:
0.048416097 = sum of:
0.048416097 = sum of:
0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0047357627 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 1267, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1267)
0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043680333 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1267, 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=1267)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This video explores the changes in the way we find, store, create, critique, and share information. This video was created as a conversation starter, and works especially well when brainstorming with people about the near future and the skills needed in order to harness, evaluate, and create information effectively. Ein sehr schöner Kurzfilm von Michael Wesch, dem wir auch den Beitrag zu Web 2.0 (The Machine is Us/ing Us) verdanken (vor einiger Zeit hier besprochen), thematisiert die Veränderung der Handhabung von Information (insbesondere die Strukturierung und Ordnung, aber auch die Generierung und Speicherung), die auf ihre digitale Gestalt zurückzuführen ist. Kernaussage: Da die Informationen keine physikalischen Beschränkungen mehr unterworfen sind, wird die Ordnung der Informationen vielfältiger, flexibler und für jedermann einfacher zugänglich.
- Date
- 5. 1.2008 19:22:48
-
Broughton, V.: Automatic metadata generation : Digital resource description without human intervention (2007)
0.02
0.018720143 = product of:
0.037440285 = sum of:
0.037440285 = product of:
0.07488057 = sum of:
0.07488057 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07488057 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 9.2007 15:41:14
-
Shirky, C.: Ontology is overrated : categories, links, and tags (2005)
0.00
0.0022374375 = product of:
0.004474875 = sum of:
0.004474875 = product of:
0.00894975 = sum of:
0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00894975 = score(doc=1265,freq=14.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, 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.
-
Tennis, J.T.: Social tagging and the next steps for indexing (2006)
0.00
0.0020296127 = product of:
0.0040592253 = sum of:
0.0040592253 = product of:
0.008118451 = sum of:
0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008118451 = score(doc=570,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 570, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=570)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Lee, Y.Y.; Yang, S.Q.: Folksonomies as subject access : a survey of tagging in library online catalogs and discovery layers (2012)
0.00
0.0020296127 = product of:
0.0040592253 = sum of:
0.0040592253 = product of:
0.008118451 = sum of:
0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008118451 = score(doc=309,freq=8.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper describes a survey on how system vendors and libraries handled tagging in OPACs and discovery layers. Tags are user added subject metadata, also called folksonomies. This survey also investigated user behavior when they face the possibility to tag. The findings indicate that legacy/classic systems have no tagging capability. About 47% of the discovery tools provide tagging function. About 49% of the libraries that have a system with tagging capability have turned the tagging function on in their OPACs and discovery tools. Only 40% of the libraries that turned tagging on actually utilized user added subject metadata as access point to collections. Academic library users are less active in tagging than public library users.
- Type
- a
-
Voss, J.: Collaborative thesaurus tagging the Wikipedia way (2006)
0.00
0.001913537 = product of:
0.003827074 = sum of:
0.003827074 = product of:
0.007654148 = sum of:
0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007654148 = score(doc=620,freq=4.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 620, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=620)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper explores the system of categories that is used to classify articles in Wikipedia. It is compared to collaborative tagging systems like del.icio.us and to hierarchical classification like the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). Specifics and commonalities of these systems of subject indexing are exposed. Analysis of structural and statistical properties (descriptors per record, records per descriptor, descriptor levels) shows that the category system of Wikimedia is a thesaurus that combines collaborative tagging and hierarchical subject indexing in a special way.
-
Hayman, S.; Lothian, N.: Taxonomy directed folksonomies : integrating user tagging and controlled vocabularies for Australian education networks (2007)
0.00
0.001353075 = product of:
0.00270615 = sum of:
0.00270615 = product of:
0.0054123 = sum of:
0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0054123 = score(doc=705,freq=8.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- What is the role of controlled vocabulary in a Web 2.0 world? Can we have the best of both worlds: balancing folksonomies and controlled vocabularies to help communities of users find and share information and resources most relevant to them? education.au develops and manages Australian online services for education and training. Its goal is to bring people, learning and technology together. education.au projects are increasingly involved in exploring the use of Web 2.0 developments building on user ideas, knowledge and experience, and how these might be integrated with existing information management systems. This paper presents work being undertaken in this area, particularly in relation to controlled vocabularies, and discusses the challenges faced. Education Network Australia (edna) is a leading online resource collection and collaborative network for education, with an extensive repository of selected educational resources with metadata created by educators and information specialists. It uses controlled vocabularies for metadata creation and searching, where users receive suggested related terms from an education thesaurus, with their results. We recognise that no formal thesaurus can keep pace with user needs so are interested in exploiting the power of folksonomies. We describe a proof of concept project to develop community contributions to managing information and resources, using Taxonomy-Directed Folksonomy. An established taxonomy from the Australian education sector suggests terms for tagging and users can suggest terms. Importantly, the folksonomy will feed back into the taxonomy showing gaps in coverage and helping us to monitor new terms and usage to improve and develop our formal taxonomies. This model would initially sit alongside the current edna repositories, tools and services but will give us valuable user contributed resources as well as information about how users manage resources. Observing terms suggested, chosen and used in folksonomies is a rich source of information for developing our formal systems so that we can indeed get the best of both worlds.
