Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Folksonomies"
  1. Chan, L.M.: Social bookmarking and subject indexing (2011) 0.06 
    0.060144827 = product of:
  0.12028965 = sum of:
    0.093952805 = weight(_text_:subject in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093952805 = score(doc=1806,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.55884314 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
    0.02633685 = product of:
      0.0526737 = sum of:
        0.0526737 = weight(_text_:classification in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0526737 = score(doc=1806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    Subject access: preparing for the future. Conference on August 20 - 21, 2009 in Florence, the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section sponsored an IFLA satellite conference entitled "Looking at the Past and Preparing for the Future". Eds.: P. Landry et al
  2. Voss, J.: Collaborative thesaurus tagging the Wikipedia way (2006) 0.05 
    0.052479498 = product of:
  0.104958996 = sum of:
    0.07516225 = weight(_text_:subject in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07516225 = score(doc=620,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.4470745 = fieldWeight in 620, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=620)
    0.029796746 = product of:
      0.05959349 = sum of:
        0.05959349 = weight(_text_:classification in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05959349 = score(doc=620,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.39808834 = fieldWeight in 620, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=620)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
  3. Munk, T.B.; Mork, K.: Folksonomy, the power law & the significance of the least effort (2007) 0.03 
    0.032799684 = product of:
  0.06559937 = sum of:
    0.046976402 = weight(_text_:subject in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046976402 = score(doc=663,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
    0.018622966 = product of:
      0.037245933 = sum of:
        0.037245933 = weight(_text_:classification in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037245933 = score(doc=663,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
  4. Morrison, P.J.: Tagging and searching : search retrieval effectiveness of folksonomies on the World Wide Web (2008) 0.03 
    0.029483322 = product of:
  0.058966644 = sum of:
    0.0398608 = weight(_text_:subject in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0398608 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
    0.019105844 = product of:
      0.03821169 = sum of:
        0.03821169 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03821169 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  5. Sauperl, A.: UDC and Folksonomies (2010) 0.03 
    0.025920149 = product of:
  0.051840298 = sum of:
    0.033217333 = weight(_text_:subject in 4069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033217333 = score(doc=4069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 4069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4069)
    0.018622966 = product of:
      0.037245933 = sum of:
        0.037245933 = weight(_text_:classification in 4069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037245933 = score(doc=4069,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 4069, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Social tagging systems, known as "folksonomies," represent an important part of web resource discovery as they enable free and unrestricted browsing through information space. Folksonomies consisting of subject designators (tags) assigned by users, however, have one important drawback: they do not express semantic relationships, either hierarchical or associative, between tags. As a consequence, the use of tags to browse information resources requires moving from one resource to another, based on coincidence and not on the pre-established meaningful or logical connections that may exist between related resources. We suggest that the semantic structure of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) may be used in complementing and supporting tag-based browsing. In this work, two specific questions were investigated: 1) Are terms used as tags in folksonomies included in the UDC?; and, 2) Which facets of UDC match the characteristics of documents or information objects that are tagged in folksonomies? A collection of the most popular tags from Amazon, LibraryThing, Delicious, and 43Things was investigated. The universal nature of UDC was examined through the universality of topics and facets covering diverse human interests which are at the same time interconnected and form a rich and intricate semantic structure. The results suggest that UDC-supported folksonomies could be implemented in resource discovery, in particular in library portals and catalogues.
    Content
    Teil von: Papers from Classification at a Crossroads: Multiple Directions to Usability: International UDC Seminar 2009-Part 2
  6. Peterson, E.: Parallel systems : the coexistence of subject cataloging and folksonomy (2008) 0.02 
    0.023252133 = product of:
  0.09300853 = sum of:
    0.09300853 = weight(_text_:subject in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09300853 = score(doc=251,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  7. Schwartz, C.: Thesauri and facets and tags, Oh my! : a look at three decades in subject analysis (2008) 0.02 
    0.023252133 = product of:
  0.09300853 = sum of:
    0.09300853 = weight(_text_:subject in 5566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09300853 = score(doc=5566,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 5566, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5566)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  8. Munk, T.B.; Moerk, K.: Folksonomies, tagging communities, and tagging strategies : an empirical study (2007) 0.02 
    0.023192879 = product of:
  0.046385758 = sum of:
    0.033217333 = weight(_text_:subject in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033217333 = score(doc=1091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
    0.013168425 = product of:
      0.02633685 = sum of:
        0.02633685 = weight(_text_:classification in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02633685 = score(doc=1091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
  9. Lee, Y.Y.; Yang, S.Q.: Folksonomies as subject access : a survey of tagging in library online catalogs and discovery layers (2012) 0.02 
    0.0199304 = product of:
  0.0797216 = sum of:
    0.0797216 = weight(_text_:subject in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0797216 = score(doc=309,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper describes a survey on how system vendors and libraries handled tagging in OPACs and discovery layers. Tags are user added subject metadata, also called folksonomies. This survey also investigated user behavior when they face the possibility to tag. The findings indicate that legacy/classic systems have no tagging capability. About 47% of the discovery tools provide tagging function. About 49% of the libraries that have a system with tagging capability have turned the tagging function on in their OPACs and discovery tools. Only 40% of the libraries that turned tagging on actually utilized user added subject metadata as access point to collections. Academic library users are less active in tagging than public library users.
    Source
    Beyond libraries - subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web. IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn
  10. Yi, K.; Chan, L.M.: Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress subject headings : an exploratory study (2009) 0.01 
    0.011506822 = product of:
  0.046027288 = sum of:
    0.046027288 = weight(_text_:subject in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046027288 = score(doc=3616,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.2737761 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  11. Broughton, V.: Automatic metadata generation : Digital resource description without human intervention (2007) 0.01 
    0.009552922 = product of:
  0.03821169 = sum of:
    0.03821169 = product of:
      0.07642338 = sum of:
        0.07642338 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07642338 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:41:14
  12. Bar-Ilan, J.; Belous, Y.: Children as architects of Web directories : an exploratory study (2007) 0.01 
    0.008304333 = product of:
  0.033217333 = sum of:
    0.033217333 = weight(_text_:subject in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033217333 = score(doc=289,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  13. Pera, M.S.; Lund, W.; Ng, Y.-K.: ¬A sophisticated library search strategy using folksonomies and similarity matching (2009) 0.01 
    0.008304333 = product of:
  0.033217333 = sum of:
    0.033217333 = weight(_text_:subject in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033217333 = score(doc=2939,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  14. Moreiro-González, J.-A.; Bolaños-Mejías, C.: Folksonomy indexing from the assignment of free tags to setup subject : a search analysis into the domain of legal history (2018) 0.01 
    0.008304333 = product of:
  0.033217333 = sum of:
    0.033217333 = weight(_text_:subject in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033217333 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  15. Tennis, J.T.: Social tagging and the next steps for indexing (2006) 0.01 
    0.007901056 = product of:
  0.031604223 = sum of:
    0.031604223 = product of:
      0.063208446 = sum of:
        0.063208446 = weight(_text_:classification in 570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063208446 = score(doc=570,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 570, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=570)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Proceedings 17th SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, November 4, 2006, Austin, Texas. Eds.: Jonathan Furner and Joseph T. Tennis
  16. Cope, J.: Librarianship as intellectual craft : the ethics of classification in the realms of leisure and waged labor (2012) 0.01 
    0.0057020956 = product of:
  0.022808382 = sum of:
    0.022808382 = product of:
      0.045616765 = sum of:
        0.045616765 = weight(_text_:classification in 421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045616765 = score(doc=421,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 421, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=421)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  17. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.01 
    0.0056291134 = product of:
  0.022516454 = sum of:
    0.022516454 = product of:
      0.045032907 = sum of:
        0.045032907 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045032907 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  18. Wesch, M.: Information R/evolution (2006) 0.01 
    0.0055725384 = product of:
  0.022290153 = sum of:
    0.022290153 = product of:
      0.044580307 = sum of:
        0.044580307 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044580307 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    5. 1.2008 19:22:48
  19. Park, H.: ¬A conceptual framework to study folksonomic interaction (2011) 0.00 
    0.0046557416 = product of:
  0.018622966 = sum of:
    0.018622966 = product of:
      0.037245933 = sum of:
        0.037245933 = weight(_text_:classification in 4852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037245933 = score(doc=4852,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 4852, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4852)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  20. Noruzi, A.: Folksonomies : (un)controlled vocabulary? (2006) 0.00 
    0.0046089487 = product of:
  0.018435795 = sum of:
    0.018435795 = product of:
      0.03687159 = sum of:
        0.03687159 = weight(_text_:classification in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03687159 = score(doc=404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 26
  • d 1
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Types

Themes