Search (27 results, page 1 of 2)

0.025843859 = product of:
  0.051687717 = sum of:
    0.051687717 = sum of:
      0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0075639198 = score(doc=2652,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.0441238 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0441238 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)

Abstract

Folksonomy is the result of describing Web resources with tags created by Web users. Although it has become a popular application for the description of resources, in general terms Folksonomies are not being conveniently integrated in metadata. However, if the appropriate metadata elements are identified, then further work may be conducted to automatically assign tags to these elements (RDF properties) and use them in Semantic Web applications. This article presents research carried out to continue the project Kinds of Tags, which intends to identify elements required for metadata originating from folksonomies and to propose an application profile for DC Social Tagging. The work provides information that may be used by software applications to assign tags to metadata elements and, therefore, means for tags to be conveniently gathered by metadata interoperability tools. Despite the unquestionably high value of DC and the significance of the already existing properties in DC Terms, the pilot study show revealed a significant number of tags for which no corresponding properties yet existed. A need for new properties, such as Action, Depth, Rate, and Utility was determined. Those potential new properties will have to be validated in a later stage by the DC Social Tagging Community.

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

Type

a

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

0.021590449 = product of:
  0.043180898 = sum of:
    0.043180898 = sum of:
      0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005740611 = score(doc=2109,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2109, 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=2109)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many Web sites have begun allowing users to submit items to a collection and tag them with keywords. The folksonomies built from these tags are an interesting topic that has seen little empirical research. This study compared the search information retrieval (IR) performance of folksonomies from social bookmarking Web sites against search engines and subject directories. Thirty-four participants created 103 queries for various information needs. Results from each IR system were collected and participants judged relevance. Folksonomy search results overlapped with those from the other systems, and documents found by both search engines and folksonomies were significantly more likely to be judged relevant than those returned by any single IR system type. The search engines in the study had the highest precision and recall, but the folksonomies fared surprisingly well. Del.icio.us was statistically indistinguishable from the directories in many cases. Overall the directories were more precise than the folksonomies but they had similar recall scores. Better query handling may enhance folksonomy IR performance further. The folksonomies studied were promising, and may be able to improve Web search performance.

Date

1. 8.2008 12:39:22

Type

a

0.01938208 = product of:
  0.03876416 = sum of:
    0.03876416 = sum of:
      0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0075639198 = score(doc=2650,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)

Abstract

There is a growing interest into how we represent and share tagging data in collaborative tagging systems. Conventional tags, meaning freely created tags that are not associated with a structured ontology, are not naturally suited for collaborative processes, due to linguistic and grammatical variations, as well as human typing errors. Additionally, tags reflect personal views of the world by individual users, and are not normalised for synonymy, morphology or any other mapping. Our view is that the conventional approach provides very limited semantic value for collaboration. Moreover, in cases where there is some semantic value, automatically sharing semantics via computer manipulations is extremely problematic. This paper explores these problems by discussing approaches for collaborative tagging activities at a semantic level, and presenting conceptual models for collaborative tagging activities and folksonomies. We present criteria for the comparison of existing tag ontologies and discuss their strengths and weaknesses in relation to these criteria.

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

Type

a

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

0.01383317 = product of:
  0.02766634 = sum of:
    0.02766634 = sum of:
      0.00270615 = weight(_text_:a in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00270615 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3373, 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=3373)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

Type

a

0.0026849252 = product of:
  0.0053698504 = sum of:
    0.0053698504 = product of:
      0.010739701 = sum of:
        0.010739701 = weight(_text_:a in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010739701 = score(doc=2272,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 2272, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2272)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

This paper reports preliminary results from a pilot test of the creation of a folksonomic gestural taxonomy for sign language indexing and retrieval. Skilled sign language interpreters and deaf participants were asked to create sign language metadata or 'Keysigns' that they would assign to classify topics presented by three deaf scientists during a day-log workshop. Although their Keysigns demonstrate a high degree of content conformity, the physical signing itself lacked consistency. Comments made by participants revealed that signed metadata was not a commonly understood concept and that the exercise was cognitively challenging. The paper concludes with suggestions for ways to make the creation of folksonomic Keysign metadata easier from cognitive and physical perspectives.

Type

a

0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=404,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Folksonomy, a free-form tagging, is a user-generated classification system of web contents that allows users to tag their favorite web resources with their chosen words or phrases selected from natural language. These tags (also called concepts, categories, facets or entities) can be used to classify web resources and to express users' preferences. Folksonomy-based systems allow users to classify web resources through tagging bookmarks, photos or other web resources and saving them to a public web site like Del.icio.us. Thus information about web resources and online articles can be shared in an easy way. The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the folksonomy tagging phenomenon (also called social tagging and social bookmarking) and explore some of the reasons why we need controlled vocabularies, discussing the problems associated with folksonomy.

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 5566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=5566,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5566, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5566)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The field of subject analysis enjoyed a flurry of interest in the 1970s, and has recently become a focus of attention again. The scholarly community doing work in this area has become more diffuse, and has grown to include new groups, such as information architects. Changes in information services and information seeking have led to reexamination of the nature and role of subject analysis tools and practices. This selective review looks at thesauri, guided navigation, and folksonomy as three activity areas in which subject analysis researchers have been attempting to address rapidly changing new environments.

Type

a

0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=663,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 663, 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=663)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The essence of folksonomies is user-created descriptive metadata as opposed to the traditional sender-determined descriptive metadata in taxonomies and faceted classification. We briefly introduce the beginning and principles of folksonomy and discuss the categorizing concept of folksonomies on the basis of the computer program del.icio.us. The selection of the metadata tagged is not accidental, rather tagging follows a pattern that proves to be the pattern for the classic power law, which, in many complex systems is seen to unfold as an imitation-dynamic that creates an asymmetry, where a few descriptive metadata are often reproduced and the majority seldom reproduced. In del.icio.us, it is the very broad and basic subject headings that are often reproduced and achieve power in the system - which in cognitive psychology is called cognitive basic categories - while the small, more specific subject headings are seldom reproduced. The law of power's underlying imitation-dynamic in del.icio.us is explained from the perspective of different theoretical paradigms, i.e. network, economy and cognition. The theorectical and speculative conclusion is that the law of power and asymmetry is biased by a cognitive economizing through a simplification principle in the users construction of descriptive metadata. Free tagging in folksonomies is comparable to empirical experiments in free categorization. Users often choose broad basic categories, because that requires the least cognitive effort. The consequences are that folksonomy is not necessarily a better, more realistic and cheaper method of creating metadata than that which can be generated through taxonomies, faceted classification or search algorithms. Folksonomy as a self-organizing system likely cannot create better and cheaper descriptive metadata.

Type

a

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.

0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=2939,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 2939, 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=2939)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Libraries, private and public, offer valuable resources to library patrons. As of today, the only way to locate information archived exclusively in libraries is through their catalogs. Library patrons, however, often find it difficult to formulate a proper query, which requires using specific keywords assigned to different fields of desired library catalog records, to obtain relevant results. These improperly formulated queries often yield irrelevant results or no results at all. This negative experience in dealing with existing library systems turns library patrons away from directly querying library catalogs; instead, they rely on Web search engines to perform their searches first, and upon obtaining the initial information (e.g., titles, subject headings, or authors) on the desired library materials, they query library catalogs. This searching strategy is an evidence of failure of today's library systems. In solving this problem, we propose an enhanced library system, which allows partial, similarity matching of (a) tags defined by ordinary users at a folksonomy site that describe the content of books and (b) unrestricted keywords specified by an ordinary library patron in a query to search for relevant library catalog records. The proposed library system allows patrons posting a query Q using commonly used words and ranks the retrieved results according to their degrees of resemblance with Q while maintaining the query processing time comparable with that achieved by current library search engines.

Type

a

0.0021393995 = product of:
  0.004278799 = sum of:
    0.004278799 = product of:
      0.008557598 = sum of:
        0.008557598 = weight(_text_:a in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008557598 = score(doc=3616,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the linking of a folksonomy (user vocabulary) and LCSH (controlled vocabulary) on the basis of word matching, for the potential use of LCSH in bringing order to folksonomies. Design/methodology/approach - A selected sample of a folksonomy from a popular collaborative tagging system, Delicious, was word-matched with LCSH. LCSH was transformed into a tree structure called an LCSH tree for the matching. A close examination was conducted on the characteristics of folksonomies, the overlap of folksonomies with LCSH, and the distribution of folksonomies over the LCSH tree. Findings - The experimental results showed that the total proportion of tags being matched with LC subject headings constituted approximately two-thirds of all tags involved, with an additional 10 percent of the remaining tags having potential matches. A number of barriers for the linking as well as two areas in need of improving the matching are identified and described. Three important tag distribution patterns over the LCSH tree were identified and supported: skewedness, multifacet, and Zipfian-pattern. Research limitations/implications - The results of the study can be adopted for the development of innovative methods of mapping between folksonomy and LCSH, which directly contributes to effective access and retrieval of tagged web resources and to the integration of multiple information repositories based on the two vocabularies. Practical implications - The linking of controlled vocabularies can be applicable to enhance information retrieval capability within collaborative tagging systems as well as across various tagging system information depositories and bibliographic databases. Originality/value - This is among frontier works that examines the potential of linking a folksonomy, extracted from a collaborative tagging system, to an authority-maintained subject heading system. It provides exploratory data to support further advanced mapping methods for linking the two vocabularies.

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=1091,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The subject of this article is folksonomies on the Internet. One of the largest folksonomies on the Internet in terms of number of users and tagged websites is the computer program del.icio.us, where more than 100,000 people have tagged the websites that they and others find using their own keywords. How this is done in practice and the patterns to be found are the focus of this article. The empirical basis is the collection of 76,601 different keywords with a total frequency of 178,215 from 500 randomly chosen taggers on del.icio.us at the end of 2005. The keywords collected were then analyzed quantitatively statistically by uncovering their frequency and percentage distribution and through a statistical correspondence analysis in order to uncover possible patterns in the users' tags. Subsequently, a qualitative textual analysis of the tags was made in order to find out by analysis which tagging strategies are represented in the data material. This led to four conclusions. 1) the distribution of keywords follows classic power law; 2) distinct tagging communities are identifiable; 3) the most frequently used tags are situated on a general-specific axis; and 4) nine distinct tagging strategies are observed. These four conclusions are put into perspective collectively in respect of a number of more general and theoretical considerations concerning folksonomies and the classification systems of the future.

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=2341,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to discuss and test the claim that user-based tagging allows for access to a wider variety of viewpoints than is found using other forms of online searching. Design/methodology/approach - A general overview of the nature of weblogs and user-based tagging is given, along with other relevant concepts. A case is then analyzed where viewpoints towards a specific issue are searched for using both tag searching (Technorati) and general search engine searching (Google and Google Blog Search). Findings - The claim to greater accessibility through user-based tagging is not overtly supported with these experiments. Further results for both general and tag-specific searching goes against some common assumptions about the types of content found on weblogs as opposed to more general web sites. Research limitations/implications - User-based tagging is still not widespread enough to give conclusive data for analysis. As this changes, further research in this area, using a variety of search subjects, is warranted. Originality/value - Although proponents of user-based tagging attribute many qualities to the practice, these qualities have not been properly documented or demonstrated. This paper partially rectifies this gap by testing one of the claims made, that of accessibility to alternate views, thus adding to the discussion on tagging for both researchers and other interested parties.

Type

a

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

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.

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=764,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to provide an overview of the collaborative tagging phenomenon and explore some of the reasons for its emergence. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reviews the related literature and discusses some of the problems associated with, and the potential of, collaborative tagging approaches for knowledge organisation and general resource discovery. A definition of controlled vocabularies is proposed and used to assess the efficacy of collaborative tagging. An exposition of the collaborative tagging model is provided and a review of the major contributions to the tagging literature is presented. Findings - There are numerous difficulties with collaborative tagging systems (e.g. low precision, lack of collocation, etc.) that originate from the absence of properties that characterise controlled vocabularies. However, such systems can not be dismissed. Librarians and information professionals have lessons to learn from the interactive and social aspects exemplified by collaborative tagging systems, as well as their success in engaging users with information management. The future co-existence of controlled vocabularies and collaborative tagging is predicted, with each appropriate for use within distinct information contexts: formal and informal. Research limitations/implications - Librarians and information professional researchers should be playing a leading role in research aimed at assessing the efficacy of collaborative tagging in relation to information storage, organisation, and retrieval, and to influence the future development of collaborative tagging systems. Practical implications - The paper indicates clear areas where digital libraries and repositories could innovate in order to better engage users with information. Originality/value - At time of writing there were no literature reviews summarising the main contributions to the collaborative tagging research or debate.

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=289,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Children are increasingly using the Web. Cognitive theory tells us that directory structures are especially suited for information retrieval by children; however, empirical results show that they prefer keyword searching. One of the reasons for these findings could be that the directory structures and terminology are created by grown-ups. Using a card-sorting method and an enveloping system, we simulated the structure of a directory. Our goal was to try to understand what browsable, hierarchical subject categories children create when suggested terms are supplied and they are free to add or delete terms. Twelve groups of four children each (fourth and fifth graders) participated in our exploratory study. The initial terminology presented to the children was based on names of categories used in popular directories, in the sections on Arts, Television, Music, Cinema, and Celebrities. The children were allowed to introduce additional cards and change the terms appearing on the 61 cards. Findings show that the different groups reached reasonable consensus; the majority of the category names used by existing directories were acceptable by them and only a small minority of the terms caused confusion. Our recommendation is to include children in the design process of directories, not only in designing the interface but also in designing the content structure as well.

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=251,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Catalogers have always had to balance adherence to cataloging rules and authority files with creating cataloging that is current and relevant to users. That dilemma has been complicated in new ways because of user demands in the world of Web 2.0. Standardized cataloging is crucial for communication between computer systems, but patrons now have an expectation of social interaction on the Internet, as evidenced by the popularity of folksonomy. After a description of traditional subject cataloging and folksonomy, this article discusses several institutions where subject cataloging is still used, but where patron interaction is also encouraged. User-generated tags can coexist with controlled vocabulary such as subject headings.

Type

a