Search (142 results, page 1 of 8)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Tonkin, E.; Baptista, A.A.; Hooland, S. van; Resmini, A.; Mendéz, E.; Neville, L.: Kinds of Tags : a collaborative research study on tag usage and structure (2007) 0.03 
    0.034801044 = product of:
  0.05220156 = sum of:
    0.0065699257 = weight(_text_:a in 531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065699257 = score(doc=531,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 531, 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=531)
    0.045631636 = product of:
      0.09126327 = sum of:
        0.09126327 = weight(_text_:de in 531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09126327 = score(doc=531,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.47003788 = fieldWeight in 531, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=531)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    KoT (Kinds of Tags) is an ongoing joint collaborative research effort with many participants worldwide, including the University of Minho, UKOLN, the University of Bologna, the Université Libre de Bruxelles and La Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. It is focused on the analysis of tags that are in common use in the practice of social tagging, with the aim of discovering how easily tags can be 'normalised' for interoperability with standard metadata environments such as the DC Metadata Terms.
  2. Evedove Tartarotti, R. Dal'; Lopes Fujita, M.: ¬The perspective of social indexing in online bibliographic catalogs : between the individual and the collaborative (2016) 0.03 
    0.030714607 = product of:
  0.04607191 = sum of:
    0.009195981 = weight(_text_:a in 4917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009195981 = score(doc=4917,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 4917, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4917)
    0.03687593 = product of:
      0.07375186 = sum of:
        0.07375186 = weight(_text_:de in 4917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07375186 = score(doc=4917,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.37984797 = fieldWeight in 4917, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4917)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei
    Type
    a
  3. Weiand, K.; Hartl, A.; Hausmann, S.; Furche, T.; Bry, F.: Keyword-based search over semantic data (2012) 0.03 
    0.027148133 = product of:
  0.0407222 = sum of:
    0.008128175 = weight(_text_:a in 432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008128175 = score(doc=432,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 432, 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=432)
    0.032594025 = product of:
      0.06518805 = sum of:
        0.06518805 = weight(_text_:de in 432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06518805 = score(doc=432,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.33574134 = fieldWeight in 432, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=432)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    For a long while, the creation of Web content required at least basic knowledge of Web technologies, meaning that for many Web users, the Web was de facto a read-only medium. This changed with the arrival of the "social Web," when Web applications started to allow users to publish Web content without technological expertise. Here, content creation is often an inclusive, iterative, and interactive process. Examples of social Web applications include blogs, social networking sites, as well as many specialized applications, for example, for saving and sharing bookmarks and publishing photos. Social semantic Web applications are social Web applications in which knowledge is expressed not only in the form of text and multimedia but also through informal to formal annotations that describe, reflect, and enhance the content. These annotations often take the shape of RDF graphs backed by ontologies, but less formal annotations such as free-form tags or tags from a controlled vocabulary may also be available. Wikis are one example of social Web applications for collecting and sharing knowledge. They allow users to easily create and edit documents, so-called wiki pages, using a Web browser. The pages in a wiki are often heavily interlinked, which makes it easy to find related information and browse the content.
    Source
    Semantic search over the Web. Eds.: R. De Virgilio, et al
  4. Golub, K.; Moon, J.; Nielsen, M.L.; Tudhope, D.: EnTag: Enhanced Tagging for Discovery (2008) 0.03 
    0.02589091 = product of:
  0.038836364 = sum of:
    0.0065699257 = weight(_text_:a in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065699257 = score(doc=2294,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2294, 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=2294)
    0.032266438 = product of:
      0.064532876 = sum of:
        0.064532876 = weight(_text_:de in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064532876 = score(doc=2294,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.33236697 = fieldWeight in 2294, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2294)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose: Investigate the combination of controlled and folksonomy approaches to support resource discovery in repositories and digital collections. Aim: Investigate whether use of an established controlled vocabulary can help improve social tagging for better resource discovery. Objectives: (1) Investigate indexing aspects when using only social tagging versus when using social tagging with suggestions from a controlled vocabulary; (2) Investigate above in two different contexts: tagging by readers and tagging by authors; (3) Investigate influence of only social tagging versus social tagging with a controlled vocabulary on retrieval. - Vgl.: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/projects/enhanced-tagging/.
    Source
    http://dc2008.de/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/nkos.pdf
  5. Estellés Arolas, E.; González Ladrón-de-Guevar, F.: Uses of explicit and implicit tags in social bookmarking (2012) 0.02 
    0.023747265 = product of:
  0.035620898 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 4984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=4984,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4984, 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=4984)
    0.027656946 = product of:
      0.055313893 = sum of:
        0.055313893 = weight(_text_:de in 4984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055313893 = score(doc=4984,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.28488597 = fieldWeight in 4984, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4984)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Although Web 2.0 contains many tools with different functionalities, they all share a common social nature. One tool in particular, social bookmarking systems (SBSs), allows users to store and share links to different types of resources, i.e., websites, videos, images. To identify and classify these resources so that they can be retrieved and shared, fragments of text are used. These fragments of text, usually words, are called tags. A tag that is found on the inside of a resource text is referred to as an obvious or explicit tag. There are also nonobvious or implicit tags, which don't appear in the resource text. The purpose of this article is to describe the present situation of the SBSs tool and then to also determine the principal features of and how to use explicit tags. It will be taken into special consideration which HTML tags with explicit tags are used more frequently.
    Type
    a
  6. Wang, J.; Clements, M.; Yang, J.; Vries, A.P. de; Reinders, M.J.T.: Personalization of tagging systems (2010) 0.02 
    0.023035955 = product of:
  0.03455393 = sum of:
    0.006896985 = weight(_text_:a in 4229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006896985 = score(doc=4229,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4229, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4229)
    0.027656946 = product of:
      0.055313893 = sum of:
        0.055313893 = weight(_text_:de in 4229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055313893 = score(doc=4229,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.28488597 = fieldWeight in 4229, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Social media systems have encouraged end user participation in the Internet, for the purpose of storing and distributing Internet content, sharing opinions and maintaining relationships. Collaborative tagging allows users to annotate the resulting user-generated content, and enables effective retrieval of otherwise uncategorised data. However, compared to professional web content production, collaborative tagging systems face the challenge that end-users assign tags in an uncontrolled manner, resulting in unsystematic and inconsistent metadata. This paper introduces a framework for the personalization of social media systems. We pinpoint three tasks that would benefit from personalization: collaborative tagging, collaborative browsing and collaborative search. We propose a ranking model for each task that integrates the individual user's tagging history in the recommendation of tags and content, to align its suggestions to the individual user preferences. We demonstrate on two real data sets that for all three tasks, the personalized ranking should take into account both the user's own preference and the opinion of others.
    Type
    a
  7. Estrada, L.M.; Hildebrand, M.; Boer, V. de; Ossenbruggen, J. van: Time-based tags for fiction movies : comparing experts to novices using a video labeling game (2017) 0.02 
    0.021217927 = product of:
  0.03182689 = sum of:
    0.008779433 = weight(_text_:a in 3347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008779433 = score(doc=3347,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 3347, 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=3347)
    0.023047457 = product of:
      0.046094913 = sum of:
        0.046094913 = weight(_text_:de in 3347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046094913 = score(doc=3347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23740499 = fieldWeight in 3347, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The cultural heritage sector has embraced social tagging as a way to increase both access to online content and to engage users with their digital collections. In this article, we build on two current lines of research. (a) We use Waisda?, an existing labeling game, to add time-based annotations to content. (b) In this context, we investigate the role of experts in human-based computation (nichesourcing). We report on a small-scale experiment in which we applied Waisda? to content from film archives. We study the differences in the type of time-based tags between experts and novices for film clips in a crowdsourcing setting. The findings show high similarity in the number and type of tags (mostly factual). In the less frequent tags, however, experts used more domain-specific terms. We conclude that competitive games are not suited to elicit real expert-level descriptions. We also confirm that providing guidelines, based on conceptual frameworks that are more suited to moving images in a time-based fashion, could result in increasing the quality of the tags, thus allowing for creating more tag-based innovative services for online audiovisual heritage.
    Type
    a
  8. Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008) 0.02 
    0.019862993 = product of:
  0.029794488 = sum of:
    0.0053093014 = weight(_text_:a in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053093014 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
    0.024485188 = product of:
      0.048970375 = sum of:
        0.048970375 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048970375 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Pages
    S.15-22
    Type
    a
  9. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.02 
    0.019374683 = product of:
  0.029062025 = sum of:
    0.0074199745 = weight(_text_:a in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074199745 = score(doc=2652,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = 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)
    0.021642052 = product of:
      0.043284103 = sum of:
        0.043284103 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043284103 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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
  10. Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008) 0.02 
    0.018662978 = product of:
  0.027994465 = sum of:
    0.0065699257 = weight(_text_:a in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065699257 = score(doc=2889,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2889, 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=2889)
    0.02142454 = product of:
      0.04284908 = sum of:
        0.04284908 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04284908 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:22:44
    Type
    a
  11. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.02 
    0.017551895 = product of:
  0.026327841 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=3601,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3601, 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=3601)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3601, 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=3601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Some members of the library community, including the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, have suggested that libraries should open up their catalogs to allow users to add descriptive tags to the bibliographic data in catalog records. The web site LibraryThing currently permits its members to add such user tags to its records for books and therefore provides a useful resource to contrast with library bibliographic records. A comparison between the LibraryThing tags for a group of books and the library-supplied subject headings for the same books shows that users and catalogers approach these descriptors very differently. Because of these differences, user tags can enhance subject access to library materials, but they cannot entirely replace controlled vocabularies such as the Library of Congress subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  12. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.02 
    0.016840585 = product of:
  0.025260875 = sum of:
    0.006896985 = weight(_text_:a in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006896985 = score(doc=3602,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This study is an examination of the overlap between author-assigned keywords and cataloger-assigned Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for a set of electronic theses and dissertations in Ohio State University's online catalog. The project is intended to contribute to the literature on the issue of keywords versus controlled vocabularies in the use of online catalogs and databases. Findings support previous studies' conclusions that both keywords and controlled vocabularies complement one another. Further, even in the presence of bibliographic record enhancements, such as abstracts or summaries, keywords and subject headings provided a significant number of unique terms that could affect the success of keyword searches. Implications for the maintenance of controlled vocabularies such as LCSH also are discussed in light of the patterns of matches and nonmatches found between the keywords and their corresponding subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  13. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.02 
    0.016459234 = product of:
  0.024688851 = sum of:
    0.009385608 = weight(_text_:a in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009385608 = score(doc=515,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
    0.015303242 = product of:
      0.030606484 = sum of:
        0.030606484 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030606484 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 515, 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=515)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    A new collaborative approach in information organization and sharing has recently arisen, known as collaborative tagging or social indexing. A key element of collaborative tagging is the concept of collective intelligence (CI), which is a shared intelligence among all participants. This research investigates the phenomenon of social tagging in the context of CI with the aim to serve as a stepping-stone towards the mining of truly valuable social tags for web resources. This study focuses on assessing and evaluating the degree of CI embedded in social tagging over time in terms of two-parameter values, number of participants, and top frequency ranking window. Five different metrics were adopted and utilized for assessing the similarity between ranking lists: overlapList, overlapRank, Footrule, Fagin's measure, and the Inverse Rank measure. The result of this study demonstrates that a substantial degree of CI is most likely to be achieved when somewhere between the first 200 and 400 people have participated in tagging, and that a target degree of CI can be projected by controlling the two factors along with the selection of a similarity metric. The study also tests some experimental conditions for detecting social tags with high CI degree. The results of this study can be applicable to the study of filtering social tags based on CI; filtered social tags may be utilized for the metadata creation of tagged resources and possibly for the retrieval of tagged resources.
    Date
    25.12.2012 15:22:37
    Type
    a
  14. Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019) 0.02 
    0.016459234 = product of:
  0.024688851 = sum of:
    0.009385608 = weight(_text_:a in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009385608 = score(doc=5492,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
    0.015303242 = product of:
      0.030606484 = sum of:
        0.030606484 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030606484 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5492, 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=5492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose Online knowledge communities make great contributions to global knowledge sharing and innovation. Resource tagging approaches have been widely adopted in such communities to describe, annotate and organize knowledge resources mainly through users' participation. However, it is unclear what causes the adoption of a particular resource tagging approach. The purpose of this paper is to identify factors that drive users to use a hybrid social tagging approach. Design/methodology/approach Technology acceptance model and social cognitive theory are adopted to support an integrated model proposed in this paper. Zhihu, one of the most popular online knowledge communities in China, is taken as the survey context. A survey was conducted with a questionnaire and collected data were analyzed through structural equation model. Findings A new hybrid social resource tagging approach was refined and described. The empirical results revealed that self-efficacy, perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use exert positive effect on users' attitude. Moreover, social influence, PU and attitude impact significantly on users' intention to use a hybrid social resource tagging approach. Originality/value Theoretically, this study enriches the type of resource tagging approaches and recognizes factors influencing user adoption to use it. Regarding the practical parts, the results provide online information system providers and designers with referential strategies to improve the performance of the current tagging approaches and promote them.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Type
    a
  15. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.02 
    0.015148811 = product of:
  0.022723217 = sum of:
    0.0074199745 = weight(_text_:a in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074199745 = score(doc=2648,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2648, 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=2648)
    0.015303242 = product of:
      0.030606484 = sum of:
        0.030606484 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030606484 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The growing predominance of social semantics in the form of tagging presents the metadata community with both opportunities and challenges as for leveraging this new form of information content representation and for retrieval. One key challenge is the absence of contextual information associated with these tags. This paper presents an experiment working with Flickr tags as an example of utilizing social semantics sources for enriching subject metadata. The procedure included four steps: 1) Collecting a sample of Flickr tags, 2) Calculating cooccurrences between tags through mutual information, 3) Tracing contextual information of tag pairs via Google search results, 4) Applying natural language processing and machine learning techniques to extract semantic relations between tags. The experiment helped us to build a context sentence collection from the Google search results, which was then processed by natural language processing and machine learning algorithms. This new approach achieved a reasonably good rate of accuracy in assigning semantic relations to tag pairs. This paper also explores the implications of this approach for using social semantics to enrich subject metadata.
    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
  16. Kim, H.L.; Scerri, S.; Breslin, J.G.; Decker, S.; Kim, H.G.: ¬The state of the art in tag ontologies : a semantic model for tagging and folksonomies (2008) 0.02 
    0.015148811 = product of:
  0.022723217 = sum of:
    0.0074199745 = weight(_text_:a in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074199745 = score(doc=2650,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = 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)
    0.015303242 = product of:
      0.030606484 = sum of:
        0.030606484 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030606484 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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
  17. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.02 
    0.015148811 = product of:
  0.022723217 = sum of:
    0.0074199745 = weight(_text_:a in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074199745 = score(doc=2891,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2891, 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=2891)
    0.015303242 = product of:
      0.030606484 = sum of:
        0.030606484 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030606484 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2891, 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=2891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study was to examine user tags that describe digitized archival collections in the field of humanities. A collection of 8,310 tags from a digital portal (Nineteenth-Century Electronic Scholarship, NINES) was analyzed to find out what attributes of primary historical resources users described with tags. Tags were categorized to identify which tags describe the content of the resource, the resource itself, and subjective aspects (e.g., usage or emotion). The study's findings revealed that over half were content-related; tags representing opinion, usage context, or self-reference, however, reflected only a small percentage. The study further found that terms related to genre or physical format of a resource were frequently used in describing primary archival resources. It was also learned that nontextual resources had lower numbers of content-related tags and higher numbers of document-related tags than textual resources and bibliographic materials; moreover, textual resources tended to have more user-context-related tags than other resources. These findings help explain users' tagging behavior and resource interpretation in primary resources in the humanities. Such information provided through tags helps information professionals decide to what extent indexing archival and cultural resources should be done for resource description and discovery, and understand users' terminology.
    Date
    21. 4.2016 11:23:22
    Type
    a
  18. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.01 
    0.014897244 = product of:
  0.022345865 = sum of:
    0.0039819763 = weight(_text_:a in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039819763 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
    Type
    a
  19. Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011) 0.01 
    0.014897244 = product of:
  0.022345865 = sum of:
    0.0039819763 = weight(_text_:a in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039819763 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Source
    ¬Die Kraft der digitalen Unordnung: 32. Arbeits- und Fortbildungstagung der ASpB e. V., Sektion 5 im Deutschen Bibliotheksverband, 22.-25. September 2009 in der Universität Karlsruhe. Hrsg: Jadwiga Warmbrunn u.a
    Type
    a
  20. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.01 
    0.014626579 = product of:
  0.021939868 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
    0.015303242 = product of:
      0.030606484 = sum of:
        0.030606484 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030606484 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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".

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 105
  • d 36
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 127
  • el 13
  • m 7
  • b 2
  • s 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications