Search (52 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Folksonomies"
  1. Peters, I.: Folksonomies, social tagging and information retrieval (2011) 0.02 
    0.018839104 = product of:
  0.031398505 = sum of:
    0.0029257927 = product of:
      0.026332134 = sum of:
        0.026332134 = weight(_text_:p in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026332134 = score(doc=4907,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11047626 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03072615 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
      0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    0.006633367 = weight(_text_:a in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006633367 = score(doc=4907,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
    0.021839347 = weight(_text_:u in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021839347 = score(doc=4907,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10061107 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Services in Web 2.0 generate a large quantity of information, distributed over a range of resources (e.g. photos, URLs, videos) and integrated into different platforms (e.g. social bookmarking systems, sharing platforms (Peters, 2009). To adequately use this mass of information and to extract it from the platforms, users must be equipped with suitable tools and knowledge. After all, the best information is useless if users cannot find it: 'The model of information consumption relies on the information being found' (Vander Wal, 2004). In Web 2.0, the retrieval component has been established through so-called folksonomies (Vander Wal, 2005a), which are considered as several combinations of an information resource, one or more freely chosen keywords ('tags') and a user. Web 2.0 services that use folksonomies as an indexing and retrieval tool are defined as 'collaborative information services' because they allow for the collaborative creation of a public database that is accessible to all users (registered, where necessary) via the tags of the folksonomy (Ding et al., 2009; Heymann, Paepcke and Garcia-Molina, 2010).
    Source
    Innovations in information retrieval: perspectives for theory and practice. Eds.: A. Foster, u. P. Rafferty
    Type
    a
  2. Peters, I.: Benutzerzentrierte Erschließungsverfahren (2013) 0.02 
    0.01636494 = product of:
  0.04091235 = sum of:
    0.0045134346 = weight(_text_:a in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0045134346 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
    0.036398914 = weight(_text_:u in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036398914 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10061107 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.3617784 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis. 6., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, W. Semar u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried
    Type
    a
  3. Peters, I.; Schumann, L.; Terliesner, J.: Folksonomy-basiertes Information Retrieval unter der Lupe (2012) 0.01 
    0.014836152 = product of:
  0.03709038 = sum of:
    0.0031594043 = weight(_text_:a in 406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0031594043 = score(doc=406,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.033930976 = weight(_text_:j in 406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033930976 = score(doc=406,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.34753868 = fieldWeight in 406, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=406)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    Vgl.: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/iwp.2012.63.issue-4/iwp-2012-0047/iwp-2012-0047.xml?format=INT.
    Type
    a
  4. Watters, C.; Nizam, N.: Knowledge organization on the Web : the emergent role of social classification (2012) 0.01 
    0.013287268 = product of:
  0.033218168 = sum of:
    0.0077389283 = weight(_text_:a in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0077389283 = score(doc=828,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.025479238 = weight(_text_:u in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025479238 = score(doc=828,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10061107 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.25324488 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  5. Spiteri, L.: ¬The structure and form of folksonomy tags : the road to the public library catalogue (2007) 0.01 
    0.013091951 = product of:
  0.032729875 = sum of:
    0.0036107479 = weight(_text_:a in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0036107479 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1141, 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=1141)
    0.029119128 = weight(_text_:u in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029119128 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10061107 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.28942272 = fieldWeight in 1141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1141)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    ¬La interdisciplinariedad y la transdisciplinariedad en la organización del conocimiento científico : actas del VIII Congreso ISKO-España, León, 18, 19 y 20 de Abril de 2007 : Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in the organization of scientific knowledge. Ed.: B. Rodriguez Bravo u. M.L Alvite Diez
    Type
    a
  6. Voss, J.: Collaborative thesaurus tagging the Wikipedia way (2006) 0.01 
    0.013010695 = product of:
  0.032526735 = sum of:
    0.0051063686 = weight(_text_:a in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051063686 = score(doc=620,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 620, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=620)
    0.027420368 = weight(_text_:j in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027420368 = score(doc=620,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.28085366 = fieldWeight in 620, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=620)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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.
  7. Furner, J.: Folksonomies (2009) 0.01 
    0.012412447 = product of:
  0.031031117 = sum of:
    0.0036107479 = weight(_text_:a in 3857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0036107479 = score(doc=3857,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3857, 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=3857)
    0.027420368 = weight(_text_:j in 3857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027420368 = score(doc=3857,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.28085366 = fieldWeight in 3857, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3857)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Type
    a
  8. Mai, J.-E.: Folksonomies and the new order : authority in the digital disorder (2011) 0.01 
    0.012124653 = product of:
  0.030311633 = sum of:
    0.0063188085 = weight(_text_:a in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0063188085 = score(doc=4553,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
    0.023992823 = weight(_text_:j in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023992823 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.24574696 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    While the organization and representation of information and knowledge have historically been done by professionals, the rise of social media has spread the notion that this can be done more collaboratively. A more collaborative approach would entail a change in the role of professionals and in the goals and values of the systems. This paper explores the notion of authority and the role of professionals in a changing environment where more people participate in the organization and representation of information and knowledge. The paper questions the traditional role of the professionals and argues that systems must be designed to facilitate trust and authority, and that the authority of folksonomies and systems comes from the users' collective interpretations and meaning production.
    Type
    a
  9. Bullard, J.: Curated Folksonomies : three implementations of structure through human judgment (2018) 0.01 
    0.012124653 = product of:
  0.030311633 = sum of:
    0.0063188085 = weight(_text_:a in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0063188085 = score(doc=5002,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5002, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5002)
    0.023992823 = weight(_text_:j in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023992823 = score(doc=5002,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.24574696 = fieldWeight in 5002, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5002)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Traditional knowledge organization approaches struggle to make large user-generated collections navigable, especially when these collections are quickly growing, in which currency is of particular concern, for which professional classification design is too costly. Many of these collections use folksonomies for labelling and organization as a low-cost but flawed knowledge organization approach. While several computational approaches offer ways to ameliorate the worst flaws of folksonomies, some user-generated collections have implemented a human judgment-centered alternative to produce structured folksonomies. An analysis of three such implementations reveals design differences within the space. This approach, termed "curated folksonomy," presents a new object of study for knowledge organization and represents one answer to the tension between scalability and the value of human judgment.
    Type
    a
  10. Spiteri, L.F.: Incorporating facets into social tagging applications : an analysis of current trends (2010) 0.01 
    0.011786029 = product of:
  0.029465072 = sum of:
    0.0054722494 = weight(_text_:a in 3561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054722494 = score(doc=3561,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3561, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3561)
    0.023992823 = weight(_text_:j in 3561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023992823 = score(doc=3561,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.24574696 = fieldWeight in 3561, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3561)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    An increasingly difficult challenge in social tagging applications is negotiating the number of existing tags. This article examines the use of facets to facilitate the efficient organization and browsing of tags into manageable and distinct categories. Current and proposed methodologies for the application of facets in social tagging applications are evaluated. Results of this analysis indicate that these methodologies provide insufficient guidelines for the choice, evaluation, and maintenance of the facets. Suggestions are made to guide the design of a more rigorous methodology for the application of facets to social tagging applications.
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem special issue: Is there a catalog in your future? Celebrating Nancy J. Williamson: Scholar, educator, colleague, mentor
    Type
    a
  11. Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval (2008) 0.01 
    0.01026765 = product of:
  0.025669124 = sum of:
    0.0038297763 = weight(_text_:a in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0038297763 = score(doc=1597,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.021839347 = weight(_text_:u in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021839347 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10061107 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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!").
    Type
    a
  12. Cope, J.: Librarianship as intellectual craft : the ethics of classification in the realms of leisure and waged labor (2012) 0.01 
    0.009563154 = product of:
  0.023907883 = sum of:
    0.0067701526 = weight(_text_:a in 421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067701526 = score(doc=421,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.01713773 = weight(_text_:j in 421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01713773 = score(doc=421,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 421, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=421)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  13. Kim, H.H.: Toward video semantic search based on a structured folksonomy (2011) 0.01 
    0.009085157 = product of:
  0.022712892 = sum of:
    0.0045134346 = weight(_text_:a in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0045134346 = score(doc=4350,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4350, 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=4350)
    0.018199457 = weight(_text_:u in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018199457 = score(doc=4350,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10061107 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 4350, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4350)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This study investigated the effectiveness of query expansion using synonymous and co-occurrence tags in users' video searches as well as the effect of visual storyboard surrogates on users' relevance judgments when browsing videos. To do so, we designed a structured folksonomy-based system in which tag queries can be expanded via synonyms or co-occurrence words, based on the use of WordNet 2.1 synonyms and Flickr's related tags. To evaluate the structured folksonomy-based system, we conducted an experiment, the results of which suggest that the mean recall rate in the structured folksonomy-based system is statistically higher than that in a tag-based system without query expansion; however, the mean precision rate in the structured folksonomy-based system is not statistically higher than that in the tag-based system. Next, we compared the precision rates of the proposed system with storyboards (SB), in which SB and text metadata are shown to users when they browse video search results, with those of the proposed system without SB, in which only text metadata are shown. Our result showed that browsing only text surrogates-including tags without multimedia surrogates-is not sufficient for users' relevance judgments.
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
    Type
    a
  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 
    0.008873562 = product of:
  0.022183904 = sum of:
    0.005046174 = weight(_text_:a in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005046174 = score(doc=4640,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4640, 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=4640)
    0.01713773 = weight(_text_:j in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01713773 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The behaviour and lexical quality of the folksonomies is examined by comparing two online social networks: Library-Thing (for books) and Flickr (for photos). We presented a case study that combines quantitative and qualitative elements, singularized by the lexical and functional framework. Our query was made by "Legal History" and by the synonyms "Law History" and "History of Law." We then examined the relevance, consistency and precision of the tags attached to the retrieved documents, in addition to their lexical composition. We identified the difficulties caused by free tagging and some of the folksonomy solutions that have been found to solve them. The results are presented in comparative tables, giving special attention to related tags within each retrieved document. Although the number of ambiguous or inconsistent tags is not very large, these do nevertheless represent the most obvious problem to search and retrieval in folksonomies. Relevance is high when the terms are assigned by especially competent taggers. Even with less expert taggers, ambiguity is often successfully corrected by contextualizing the concepts within related tags. A propinquity to associative and taxonomic lexical semantic knowledge is reached via contextual relationships.
    Type
    a
  15. Bar-Ilan, J.; Belous, Y.: Children as architects of Web directories : an exploratory study (2007) 0.01 
    0.008660466 = product of:
  0.021651166 = sum of:
    0.0045134346 = weight(_text_:a in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0045134346 = score(doc=289,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
    0.01713773 = weight(_text_:j in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01713773 = score(doc=289,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Children are increasingly using the Web. Cognitive theory tells us that directory structures are especially suited for information retrieval by children; however, empirical results show that they prefer keyword searching. One of the reasons for these findings could be that the directory structures and terminology are created by grown-ups. Using a card-sorting method and an enveloping system, we simulated the structure of a directory. Our goal was to try to understand what browsable, hierarchical subject categories children create when suggested terms are supplied and they are free to add or delete terms. Twelve groups of four children each (fourth and fifth graders) participated in our exploratory study. The initial terminology presented to the children was based on names of categories used in popular directories, in the sections on Arts, Television, Music, Cinema, and Celebrities. The children were allowed to introduce additional cards and change the terms appearing on the 61 cards. Findings show that the different groups reached reasonable consensus; the majority of the category names used by existing directories were acceptable by them and only a small minority of the terms caused confusion. Our recommendation is to include children in the design process of directories, not only in designing the interface but also in designing the content structure as well.
    Type
    a
  16. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.01 
    0.007905796 = product of:
  0.01976449 = sum of:
    0.005046174 = weight(_text_:a in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005046174 = score(doc=2652,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.014718317 = product of:
      0.029436635 = sum of:
        0.029436635 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029436635 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10759774 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03072615 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  17. Wesch, M.: Information R/evolution (2006) 0.01 
    0.0070919185 = product of:
  0.017729796 = sum of:
    0.0031594043 = weight(_text_:a in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0031594043 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.014570392 = product of:
      0.029140783 = sum of:
        0.029140783 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029140783 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10759774 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03072615 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  18. Trant, J.: Exploring the potential for social tagging and folksonomy in art museums : proof of concept (2006) 0.01 
    0.0069283727 = product of:
  0.017320931 = sum of:
    0.0036107479 = weight(_text_:a in 5900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0036107479 = score(doc=5900,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 5900, 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=5900)
    0.013710184 = weight(_text_:j in 5900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013710184 = score(doc=5900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09763223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = queryNorm
        0.14042683 = fieldWeight in 5900, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5900)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Documentation of art museum collections has been traditionally written by and for art historians. To make art museum collections broadly accessible, and to enable art museums to engage their communities, means of access need to reflect the perspectives of other groups and communities. Social Tagging (the collective assignment of keywords to resources) and its resulting Folksonomy (the assemblage of concepts expressed in such a cooperatively developed system of classification) offer ways for art museums to engage with their communities and to understand what users of online museum collections see as important. Proof of Concept studies at The Metropolitan Museum of Art compared terms assigned by trained cataloguers and untrained cataloguers to existing museum documentation, and explored the potential for social tagging to improve access to museum collections. These preliminary studies, the results of which are reported here, have shown the potential of social tagging and folksonomy to open museum collections to new, more personal meanings. Untrained cataloguers identified content elements not described in formal museum documentation. Results from these tests - the first in the domain - provided validation for exploring social tagging and folksonomy as an access strategy within The Metropolitan Museum, motivation to proceed with a broader inter-institutional collaboration, and input into the development of a multi-institutional collaboration exploring tagging in art museums. Tags assigned by users might help bridge the semantic gap between the professional discourse of the curator and the popular language of the museum visitor. The steve collaboration (http://www.steve.museum) is building on these early studies to develop shared tools and research methods that enable social tagging of art museum collections and explore the utility of folksonomy for providing enhanced access to collections.
    Type
    a
  19. Morrison, P.J.: Tagging and searching : search retrieval effectiveness of folksonomies on the World Wide Web (2008) 0.01 
    0.006527473 = product of:
  0.016318683 = sum of:
    0.0038297763 = weight(_text_:a in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0038297763 = score(doc=2109,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.012488906 = product of:
      0.024977813 = sum of:
        0.024977813 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024977813 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10759774 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03072615 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  20. 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 
    0.006181439 = product of:
  0.015453597 = sum of:
    0.005046174 = weight(_text_:a in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005046174 = score(doc=2650,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.035428695 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03072615 = 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)
    0.010407423 = product of:
      0.020814845 = sum of:
        0.020814845 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020814845 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10759774 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03072615 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 40
  • d 10
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 45
  • el 8
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications