Search (51 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Folksonomies"
  1. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.02 
    0.017117543 = product of:
  0.034235086 = sum of:
    0.034235086 = product of:
      0.051352628 = sum of:
        0.007514882 = weight(_text_:a in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007514882 = score(doc=2652,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
        0.043837745 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043837745 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  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
  2. Wesch, M.: Information R/evolution (2006) 0.02 
    0.01603407 = product of:
  0.03206814 = sum of:
    0.03206814 = product of:
      0.04810221 = sum of:
        0.0047050603 = weight(_text_:a in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047050603 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
        0.04339715 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04339715 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  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
  3. Morrison, P.J.: Tagging and searching : search retrieval effectiveness of folksonomies on the World Wide Web (2008) 0.01 
    0.014300318 = product of:
  0.028600637 = sum of:
    0.028600637 = product of:
      0.042900953 = sum of:
        0.0057033943 = weight(_text_:a in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0057033943 = score(doc=2109,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
        0.03719756 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03719756 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  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
  4. 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) 0.01 
    0.012837617 = product of:
  0.025675233 = sum of:
    0.025675233 = product of:
      0.03851285 = sum of:
        0.007514882 = weight(_text_:a in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007514882 = score(doc=2650,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
        0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030997967 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  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
  5. Broughton, V.: Automatic metadata generation : Digital resource description without human intervention (2007) 0.01 
    0.012399187 = product of:
  0.024798375 = sum of:
    0.024798375 = product of:
      0.07439512 = sum of:
        0.07439512 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07439512 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:41:14
  6. Park, H.: ¬A conceptual framework to study folksonomic interaction (2011) 0.01 
    0.010084011 = product of:
  0.020168021 = sum of:
    0.020168021 = product of:
      0.030252032 = sum of:
        0.0146492 = weight(_text_:a in 4852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146492 = score(doc=4852,freq=38.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.2776507 = fieldWeight in 4852, product of:
              6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
                38.0 = termFreq=38.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4852)
        0.015602832 = weight(_text_:h in 4852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015602832 = score(doc=4852,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 4852, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4852)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper proposes a conceptual framework to recast a folksonomy as a Web classification and to use this to explore the ways in which people work with it in assessing, sharing, and navigating Web resources. The author uses information scent and foraging theory as a context to discuss how folksonomy is constructed through interactions among users, a folksonomic system, and a given domain that consists of a group of users who share the same interest or goals. The discussion centers on two dimensions of folksonomies: (1) folksonomy as a Web classification which puts like information together in a Web context; and (2) folksonomy as information scent which helps users to find related resources and users, and obtain desired information. This paper aims to integrate these two dimensions with a conceptual framework that addresses the structure of a folksonomy shaped by users' interactions. A proposed framework consists of three components of users' interactions with a folksonomy: (a) tagging - cognitive categorization of Web accessible resources by an individual user; (b) navigation - exploration and discovery of Web accessible resources in the folksonomic system; and (c) knowledge sharing - representation and communication of knowledge within a domain. This understanding will help us motivate possible future directions of research in folksonomy. This initial framework will frame a number of research questions and help lay the groundwork for future empirical research which focuses on qualitative analysis of a folksonomy and users' tagging behaviors.
    Type
    a
  7. Braun, M.: Lesezeichen zum Stöbern : "Social bookmark"-Seiten setzen auf die Empfehlungen ihrer Nutzer (2007) 0.01 
    0.009162326 = product of:
  0.018324653 = sum of:
    0.018324653 = product of:
      0.027486978 = sum of:
        0.0026886058 = weight(_text_:a in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0026886058 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
        0.024798373 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024798373 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    3. 5.1997 8:44:22
    Type
    a
  8. Peters, I.: Folksonomies : nutzergenerierte Schlagwörter als Indexierungswerkzeug für die Massen (2011) 0.01 
    0.008849675 = product of:
  0.01769935 = sum of:
    0.01769935 = product of:
      0.026549023 = sum of:
        0.0047050603 = weight(_text_:a in 4909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047050603 = score(doc=4909,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 4909, 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=4909)
        0.021843962 = weight(_text_:h in 4909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021843962 = score(doc=4909,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 4909, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4909)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 64(2011) H.3/4, S.444-459
    Type
    a
  9. Peters, I.; Schumann, L.; Terliesner, J.: Folksonomy-basiertes Information Retrieval unter der Lupe (2012) 0.01 
    0.008849675 = product of:
  0.01769935 = sum of:
    0.01769935 = product of:
      0.026549023 = sum of:
        0.0047050603 = weight(_text_:a in 406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047050603 = score(doc=406,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 406, 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=406)
        0.021843962 = weight(_text_:h in 406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021843962 = score(doc=406,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 406, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=406)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.4, S.273-280
    Type
    a
  10. Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval (2008) 0.01 
    0.008142265 = product of:
  0.01628453 = sum of:
    0.01628453 = product of:
      0.024426792 = sum of:
        0.0057033943 = weight(_text_:a in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0057033943 = score(doc=1597,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1597, 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=1597)
        0.018723397 = weight(_text_:h in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018723397 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Die populären Web 2.0-Dienste werden von Prosumern - Produzenten und gleichsam Konsumenten - nicht nur dazu genutzt, Inhalte zu produzieren, sondern auch, um sie inhaltlich zu erschließen. Folksonomies erlauben es dem Nutzer, Dokumente mit eigenen Schlagworten, sog. Tags, zu beschreiben, ohne dabei auf gewisse Regeln oder Vorgaben achten zu müssen. Neben einigen Vorteilen zeigen Folksonomies aber auch zahlreiche Schwächen (u. a. einen Mangel an Präzision). Um diesen Nachteilen größtenteils entgegenzuwirken, schlagen wir eine Interpretation der Tags als natürlichsprachige Wörter vor. Dadurch ist es uns möglich, Methoden des Natural Language Processing (NLP) auf die Tags anzuwenden und so linguistische Probleme der Tags zu beseitigen. Darüber hinaus diskutieren wir Ansätze und weitere Vorschläge (Tagverteilungen, Kollaboration und akteurspezifische Aspekte) hinsichtlich eines Relevance Rankings von getaggten Dokumenten. Neben Vorschlägen auf ähnliche Dokumente ("more like this!") erlauben Folksonomies auch Hinweise auf verwandte Nutzer und damit auf Communities ("more like me!").
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 59(2008) H.2, S.77-90
    Type
    a
  11. Xie, H.; Li, X.; Wang, T.; Lau, R.Y.K.; Wong, T.-L.; Chen, L.; Wang, F.L.; Li, Q.: Incorporating sentiment into tag-based user profiles and resource profiles for personalized search in folksonomy (2016) 0.01 
    0.005953159 = product of:
  0.011906318 = sum of:
    0.011906318 = product of:
      0.017859478 = sum of:
        0.0053772116 = weight(_text_:a in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0053772116 = score(doc=2671,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2671, 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=2671)
        0.012482265 = weight(_text_:h in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012482265 = score(doc=2671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In recent years, there has been a rapid growth of user-generated data in collaborative tagging (a.k.a. folksonomy-based) systems due to the prevailing of Web 2.0 communities. To effectively assist users to find their desired resources, it is critical to understand user behaviors and preferences. Tag-based profile techniques, which model users and resources by a vector of relevant tags, are widely employed in folksonomy-based systems. This is mainly because that personalized search and recommendations can be facilitated by measuring relevance between user profiles and resource profiles. However, conventional measurements neglect the sentiment aspect of user-generated tags. In fact, tags can be very emotional and subjective, as users usually express their perceptions and feelings about the resources by tags. Therefore, it is necessary to take sentiment relevance into account into measurements. In this paper, we present a novel generic framework SenticRank to incorporate various sentiment information to various sentiment-based information for personalized search by user profiles and resource profiles. In this framework, content-based sentiment ranking and collaborative sentiment ranking methods are proposed to obtain sentiment-based personalized ranking. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work of integrating sentiment information to address the problem of the personalized tag-based search in collaborative tagging systems. Moreover, we compare the proposed sentiment-based personalized search with baselines in the experiments, the results of which have verified the effectiveness of the proposed framework. In addition, we study the influences by popular sentiment dictionaries, and SenticNet is the most prominent knowledge base to boost the performance of personalized search in folksonomy.
    Type
    a
  12. Fiala, S.: Deutscher Bibliothekartag Leipzig 2007 : Sacherschließung - Informationsdienstleistung nach Mass (2007) 0.00 
    0.0037927176 = product of:
  0.007585435 = sum of:
    0.007585435 = product of:
      0.011378152 = sum of:
        0.0020164545 = weight(_text_:a in 415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0020164545 = score(doc=415,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.03821847 = fieldWeight in 415, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=415)
        0.009361698 = weight(_text_:h in 415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009361698 = score(doc=415,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.08234863 = fieldWeight in 415, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=415)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 60(2007) H.2, S.44-46
    Type
    a
  13. Lüth, J.: Inhaltserschließung durch Nutzerinnen und Nutzer : Ergebnisse eines Tests mit Internetquellen der virtuellen Fachbibliothek EconBiz (2007) 0.00 
    0.0036406606 = product of:
  0.007281321 = sum of:
    0.007281321 = product of:
      0.021843962 = sum of:
        0.021843962 = weight(_text_:h in 411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021843962 = score(doc=411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 411, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=411)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vortrag anlässlich des 96. Deutscher Bibliothekartag, Leipzig, 2007. - Vgl. auch den Bericht: Fiala, S.: Deutscher Bibliothekartag Leipzig 2007: Sacherschließung - Informationsdienstleistung. In: Mitt. VOEB 60(2007) H.2, S.44-48.
  14. Huvila, I.: Aesthetic judgments in folksonomies as criteria for organising knowledge 0.00 
    0.0019208328 = product of:
  0.0038416656 = sum of:
    0.0038416656 = product of:
      0.011524997 = sum of:
        0.011524997 = weight(_text_:a in 3540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011524997 = score(doc=3540,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 3540, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3540)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Principles, justifications and their subjective nature are central issues of knowledge organisation research and practice. This study discusses folksonomies a source of aesthetic judgments and whether those judgments can provide justification for knowledge organisation. Using Flickr photosharing service as an example, the folksonomies are examined as potential source of collective judgments of a larger group of people with a special focus on everyday life aesthetics. The study is based on a visual analysis of clusters of photographs formed by Flickr with a set of common aesthetic adjectives.
    Type
    a
  15. Watters, C.; Nizam, N.: Knowledge organization on the Web : the emergent role of social classification (2012) 0.00 
    0.0019208328 = product of:
  0.0038416656 = sum of:
    0.0038416656 = product of:
      0.011524997 = sum of:
        0.011524997 = weight(_text_:a in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011524997 = score(doc=828,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    There are close to a billion websites on the Internet with approximately 400 million users worldwide [www.internetworldstats.com]. People go to websites for a wide variety of different information tasks, from finding a restaurant to serious research. Many of the difficulties with searching the Web, as it is structured currently, can be attributed to increases to scale. The content of the Web is now so large that we only have a rough estimate of the number of sites and the range of information is extremely diverse, from blogs and photos to research articles and news videos.
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
    Type
    a
  16. Goodrum, A.; Hibbard, C.E.; Fels, C.D.; Woodcock, C.K.: ¬The creation of keysigns : American sign language metadata (2008) 0.00 
    0.0017783458 = product of:
  0.0035566916 = sum of:
    0.0035566916 = product of:
      0.010670074 = sum of:
        0.010670074 = weight(_text_:a in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010670074 = score(doc=2272,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  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
  17. Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Power tags in information retrieval (2010) 0.00 
    0.0017712747 = product of:
  0.0035425494 = sum of:
    0.0035425494 = product of:
      0.010627648 = sum of:
        0.010627648 = weight(_text_:a in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010627648 = score(doc=865,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Many Web 2.0 services (including Library 2.0 catalogs) make use of folksonomies. The purpose of this paper is to cut off all tags in the long tail of a document-specific tag distribution. The remaining tags at the beginning of a tag distribution are considered power tags and form a new, additional search option in information retrieval systems. Design/methodology/approach - In a theoretical approach the paper discusses document-specific tag distributions (power law and inverse-logistic shape), the development of such distributions (Yule-Simon process and shuffling theory) and introduces search tags (besides the well-known index tags) as a possibility for generating tag distributions. Findings - Search tags are compatible with broad and narrow folksonomies and with all knowledge organization systems (e.g. classification systems and thesauri), while index tags are only applicable in broad folksonomies. Based on these findings, the paper presents a sketch of an algorithm for mining and processing power tags in information retrieval systems. Research limitations/implications - This conceptual approach is in need of empirical evaluation in a concrete retrieval system. Practical implications - Power tags are a new search option for retrieval systems to limit the amount of hits. Originality/value - The paper introduces power tags as a means for enhancing the precision of search results in information retrieval systems that apply folksonomies, e.g. catalogs in Library 2.0environments.
    Type
    a
  18. Noruzi, A.: Folksonomies : (un)controlled vocabulary? (2006) 0.00 
    0.0017534725 = product of:
  0.003506945 = sum of:
    0.003506945 = product of:
      0.0105208345 = sum of:
        0.0105208345 = weight(_text_:a in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0105208345 = score(doc=404,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  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
  19. Rafferty, P.: Tagging (2018) 0.00 
    0.0017534725 = product of:
  0.003506945 = sum of:
    0.003506945 = product of:
      0.0105208345 = sum of:
        0.0105208345 = weight(_text_:a in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0105208345 = score(doc=4647,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 4647, 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=4647)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article examines tagging as knowledge organization. Tagging is a kind of indexing, a process of labelling and categorizing information made to support resource discovery for users. Social tagging generally means the practice whereby internet users generate keywords to describe, categorise or comment on digital content. The value of tagging comes when social tags within a collection are aggregated and shared through a folksonomy. This article examines definitions of tagging and folksonomy, and discusses the functions, advantages and disadvantages of tagging systems in relation to knowledge organization before discussing studies that have compared tagging and conventional library-based knowledge organization systems. Approaches to disciplining tagging practice are examined and tagger motivation discussed. Finally, the article outlines current research fronts.
    Type
    a
  20. Cope, J.: Librarianship as intellectual craft : the ethics of classification in the realms of leisure and waged labor (2012) 0.00 
    0.0016803787 = product of:
  0.0033607574 = sum of:
    0.0033607574 = product of:
      0.010082272 = sum of:
        0.010082272 = weight(_text_:a in 421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010082272 = score(doc=421,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 421, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=421)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper develops an ethical conception of library labor as an intellectual craft that can serve as an alternative to a deterministic discourse of technological transformation. In this paper, the author proposes a model of librarianship as an intellectual craft that can be used as an "ideal type" in comparison to recent transformations in the practice of librarianship. This paper then examines the rise of participatory classification in the realm of leisure in user-generated classification schemes (e.g., folksonomies) as a way of examining some of the difficult ethical questions that this ideal of intellectual craft poses when applied to contemporary conditions. Marx's concept of surplus value is used to examine how donated labor adds to the general knowledge. This paper concludes by advocating for the general expansion of leisure coupled with the promotion public institutions that support the craft of those who organize information in a broadly defined public interest. In an era of dramatic change, such a framework offers a positive ethical account of librarians and information professionals' labor that is not wholly dependent on a discourse of market exchange.
    Content
    Beitrag aus einem Themenheft zu den Proceedings of the 2nd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Information Organization, June 15-16, 2012, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Hope A. Olson, Conference Chair. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_5_g.pdf.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 39
  • d 10
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Types

Themes